Will President Obama repeat the mistakes of Vietnam?
We awoke this morning to the news that President Obama had made an unannounced visit to Dover Air Force Base, where the remains of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan first arrive back in the United States. The picture was moving, and it was one of the things I thought the Commander-in-Chief did right, and did well.
I had actually intended to write a brief article on this during the day, during a lull at work, but for some reason, couldn’t get the photograph copied and saved in a usable format.
Then, as I was searching, this evening, for a story with the picture I sought, I ran across this story as well:
Obama considering scaled-down Afghan war
‘McChrystal Light’ plan would send fewer troops than sought by commander
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than preferred by his war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. officials said.
Such a narrowed military mission would escalate American forces to accomplish the commander’s broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option’s scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal’s most ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as “McChrystal Light.”
The AP story continues to tell us that the President has not yet decided on what strategy he will employ, and “McChrystal Lite” is only one of several options under consideration. The President’s decision, whatever it is to be, will (supposedly) not be announced until after the November 7th run-off presidential election in Afghanistan. Another AP story noted:
Hours after a personal encounter with the grim cost of war, President Barack Obama said Thursday the sight of 18 flag-covered cases holding the remains of Americans killed this week in Afghanistan can’t help but influence his thinking about sending more troops overseas.
“It was a sobering reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices that our young men and women in uniform are engaging in every single day, not only our troops but their families as well,” Obama said from the White House, reflecting briefly on his surprise middle-of-the-night trip to Dover Air Force Base to observe the return of the fallen Americans to the United States.
Speaking softly and somewhat haltingly, Obama said losses such as these are “something that I think about each and every day.”
It grates on my nerves that the President thinks about this each and every day, yet whatever decision he is going to take isn’t going to be taken until after an artificial point set by the Afghan run-off election, at least according to Secretary of State Clinton. We are in Afghanistan fighting our enemies, fighting the enemies of Western civilization; the result of the Afghani elections are almost secondary: we must either commit to fighting our enemies, and really fight to win against them, regardless of whom the next president of Afghanistan is, or we are going to give up the battle, because it is more costly than the President thinks it is worth, in which case we should withdraw.
In war, half-way measures do not work: by using less than your full strength, by having less than total commitment, you weaken your forces and your actions against the enemy, increasing their chances of victory.
Thing is, we’ve tried it before. In Korea, we fought with one hand tied behind our collective backs, and wound up settling for a bad truce. If you have ever read David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest., you’ll remember how President Kennedy’s and then President Johnson’s “whiz kids,” the Harvard academics like McGeorge Bundy thought they could fine-tune our war effort in Vietnam, to get the enemy to behave better. It never worked, because our “sticks” of applied force were never quite enough to simply defeat the enemy, and our “carrots” or reduced action simply encouraged the enemy to fight harder, because they thought they were winning.
And, quite frankly, they did win. President Nixon sent Henry Kissinger to negotiate with the North Vietnamese, and finally the Communists decided that they were willing to agree to a truce never meant to be kept long, to give the United States a fig-leaf of cover for high-tailing it out of Vietnam. Dr Kissinger and North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho won the Nobel Peace Prize for the Paris Peace Accords, but the Communists had no intention of using the truce as anything more than a respite to retool and rearm while the American left, before the Communists attacked again. President Nixon had his “face-saving” way out, but everybody involved knew it was nothing more than a surrender.
The lesson is well-documented, and should have been learned: either you fight to win, or you don’t fight at all. Yet, once again, I fear, President Obama is going to make the same mistake as President Johnson and President Nixon, and fight the war with half-way measures; such can never lead to victory, but will certainly lead to many more caskets being brought back to Dover.
Our brave men and women in the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line, and some of them will lose their lives in the battle against Islamist fascism. But if we are going to ask them to put their lives on the line, we owe them the respect of committing to fight to win, owe them the respect of not asking them to sacrifice their lives for a policy not meant to win.
Eric:
You nailed it perfectly. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
29 October 2009, 9:14 pmYorkshire:
Half-hearted measures produce half-assed results.
29 October 2009, 10:13 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Our brave men and women in the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line, and some of them will lose their lives in the battle against Islamist fascism.
You’re not dealing with reality.
The majority of those fighting Americans in Afghanistan are not “Islamic fascists” but tribesmen taking up arms against an invading army and a corrupt puppet government. You currently have more troops in the country than the Soviet invasion at its peak when you count the mercenaries.
If you really wanted to learn lessons from Vietnam, you’d pay attention to what one of the main players said.
You won’t, because you’re wingnuts. Instead you’ll engage in pseudo-tough guy posturing such as Dana’s post above, ignoring both current reality and the lessons of the past. “Either you fight to win, or you don’t fight at all” is accurate, but in this context is nothing but masturbation. You forget that the Soviets also fought to win - but lost. Nazi Germany also fought to win - but lost. The Confederates also fought to win - but lost.
The reality is that the longer you fight, the tougher the resistance the Afghani people put up will get. They object to you bombing their homes and murdering their women and children, so they fight. And no amount of posturing from wimps trying to look tough will alter that.
And here’s a question you conspiciously overlooked - how exactly are you going to pay for it?
29 October 2009, 10:26 pmPerry:
Phoenician has nailed it! Pay attention, folks!
I am amazed at how readily you folks are willing to throw our young men and women into ill-considered wars. And we have had plenty of them since the ’60’s.
And especially you, Dana, who has two young ladies who could well find themselves in battle. Don’t you want a CiC who will carefully deliberate before making such momentous decisions. You too, Yorkshire, with a son in Iraq.
29 October 2009, 11:24 pmDave A.:
My question would simply be, you’ve been blogging for a long time so Mr Pico, please show us a single post where you ever complained about Bush doing a half-ass job in his 7 years and 4 months in Afghanistan. After all, Obama ordered an additional 22,000 troops there in his first month in office.
30 October 2009, 5:46 amDana Pico:
Dave, it can be argued that President Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan was not te right one to achieve victory, but no one ever doubted his commitment to victory.
30 October 2009, 6:24 amPerry:
Yorkshire:“Half-hearted measures produce half-assed results.”
Right, like George W Bush, correct Yorkshire?
Dana:“Dave, it can be argued that President Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan was not te right one to achieve victory, but no one ever doubted his commitment to victory.”
Verbally, yes, but in practice, no. No President would ever go into a war of choice with about one fifth the number of troops that General Shinseki recommended, and lacking in body and humvee armor, a mistake that ended up costing over 4000 American lives and six times that number in American casualties. But no, draft dodgers Cheney, Bush and Rummy knew better. BS! I don’t call this a commitment to victory! Instead, I call it cold-hearted stupidity, both from a tactical, strategic, and geopolitical standpoint, truly the dumbest mistake we have ever made as a nation!
30 October 2009, 7:49 amYorkshire:
Perry:
Yorkshire:“Half-hearted measures produce half-assed results.”
Right, like George W Bush, correct Yorkshire?
The Ghost of Viet-Nam still haunts this country.
30 October 2009, 8:17 amNangleator:
Please describe Afghanistan victory to me. What does it look like? How does the average Afghan feel about America? What’s his access to weapons? How much heroin is still being produced? What happens when American soldiers leave? Can American soldiers leave, ever? Is there any investment in rebuilding (or simply building) the country? Do the Afghans cooperate with us willingly? Are they better off because we visited? Do you think Afghanistan will stop being a problem if we kill and scare them into leaving us alone? Do you think that will work with dirt-poor people with nothing to lose and easy access to weapons?
And in the meantime, when there’s another inevitable loss of American life there, and you scream and shout at the president to do something about it, your solution is to send tens of thousands more Americans into danger? Do you think that will reduce the number of American casualties?
30 October 2009, 9:01 amPerry:
Excellent questions, Nangleator!
I suspect that Obama et al are wrestling with these very questions. And I won’t be satisfied until I see their answers to all these questions before making or unmaking any commitments.
My current take is that our current involvement is not increasing our security or interests, in fact, the reverse. But we have a commitment to the Afghans that we cannot shirk, which is to help them rebuild their nation, especially the damage that we have caused. Therefore it makes sense to take a defensive position, providing security around the population centers, while we repair/rebuild infrastructure and train police and army so they will be able to provide their own security.
In the meantime, there is the Afghanistan/Pakistan border problem, and what we can to prevent Pakistan Taliban from crossing and attacking. The use of drones seems to be causing more problems than are being solved. On this, a lot depends on how much the Pakistanis themselves are willing to commit to cleaning up their side of the border, so we should continue encouraging that effort with our support where they allow us to do so.
Overall, again, I favor major focus on securitizing our own borders and ports. Fighting our wars on the lands of other sovereign nations is a losing strategy because of collateral damage of civilians and infrastructure, even with the agreement of their government. This brings up another problem in Afghanistan currently, with the legitimacy of the Kharzai government in question, even after the run-off election, for which the corruption problem will undoubtedly continue.
30 October 2009, 10:27 amEric:
The problem is the only thing the liberals learned from VN was how to lose. That the solution to every war is to give up and quit.
30 October 2009, 11:38 amNangleator:
Heh. Good one, Eric. Great impression of a teabagger. You should have worked “morans” into that, too! And explained how Republicans won WWII.
30 October 2009, 11:50 amJeff:
The main mistake of Vietnam, of course, being fighting a war there in the first place. Which, in my opinion, wasn’t a mistake in Afghanistan.
30 October 2009, 11:52 amSharon:
Fighting our wars on the lands of other sovereign nations is a losing strategy because of collateral damage of civilians and infrastructure, even with the agreement of their government.
It’s always better and easier to fight a war in another country than to fight in your own backyard.
30 October 2009, 12:13 pmDNW:
Now coming from Perry, that’s funny.
How are you going to sort out the illegals you don’t want to do anything about, from the ones you do wish to expel?
” Ah, yes Mr. Garcia, you were captured cutting the border fence and sneaking through? Well, we note you state here that you are sneaking across the border for purely economic reasons, and not for any more nefarious purposes; such as poisoning a municpal water supply?
Do you affirm that your statement is true so far as you understand the meaning of “truth”?
Ok, please proceed. Here are the phone numbers of the Society of Friends, the ACLU, MEChA, La Raza Unida, and the California Department of Social Services. Thank you! “
30 October 2009, 12:59 pmNangleator:
We don’t have to look as far as the borders for threats. We have people murdering us now because of groundless fears placed in them by ratings whores. It will only get worse.
If you think security means arresting or ejecting people for their capabilities or intentions, then you don’t understand the problem, (or the Bill of Rights.) The problem of security and terrorism is a matter of police work, tactically, and regaining our status as an honest country with good intentions, strategically.
We are now the bad guy. We’re the neighborhood bully. If we don’t want to share the fate of the bully, we’ve got to either disarm all our enemies (we can’t,) or remove their motivation.
30 October 2009, 1:11 pmDNW:
“
Now, there is someone who is confusing contexts.
One could probably do some interesting things with this notion of fighting to …
The French in WWII fought to …
The British troops in the Battle of Hong Kong fought to …
The Irish during the Easter uprising fought to …
The Canadians at Dieppe fought to …
If you fight to lose and succeed … in losing, does it count in liberal-land as a “win”?
30 October 2009, 1:28 pmDNW:
Perry,
Nangleator thinks you are all wet, and don’t understand the Bill of Rights.
Apparently he and some of those he thinks of as “us”, are being murdered by people het up by ratings whores.
Better rethink your position on security. You’ve lost your natural constituency.
30 October 2009, 1:33 pmHarrison:
Bush never had much success, after the intial “shock and awe” thing. The problem is not the number of troops you send it is the fact that you simply can’t tell Taliban from non-Taliban and the counter-insurgency strategy is pretty tough to beat down. Obama dithering on what he’s going to do in the name of “I’m not going to rush and put our troops at risk” is a load of BS.
I don’t think Afghanistan is anything like Vietnam or Korea. Afghanistan could not be more different as a matter of fact. Afghanistan’s Taliban are not backed by a Super Power (USSR) and there is no risk of bringing a larger power into play (China). The Taliban do have their own income (Heroin) and backing from Islamists but it is not the same as Vietnam or Korea.
Are we fighting to win? If by that you mean win militarily or socially? Militarily it is very simple you bomb and kill and destroy until nothing is left. This tactic won’t go over too well with the civilians. Are we trying to win socially? Drone attacks miss their targets, Taliban hide among the civilians then pull out before the place gets blown up. I think we are doing what we can but the problem with these types of situations is the press is there reporting if an errant bomb landed someplace, etc. In this respect it IS like Vietnam and Korea.
30 October 2009, 1:41 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
It’s always better and easier to fight a war in another country than to fight in your own backyard.
Because America is in danger of being invaded by Afghan tribesmen?
30 October 2009, 1:46 pmNangleator:
DNW: “Nangleator thinks you are all wet, and don’t understand the Bill of Rights.”
Heh. No, border security is important. We should prevent illegal weapons and materials from entering. If we stop people entering, then we stop being the United States of America. And this is a job for police here, not our army in a foreign country.
30 October 2009, 1:53 pmropelight:
Jeff said, “The main mistake of Vietnam, of course, being fighting a war there in the first place.”
John F Kennedy came to the same conclusion. He was going to withdraw from Vietnam, and had announced the first 1000 troops would be home before Christmas, 1963. Some historians think that decision is what got him killed. There were other reasons for his murder too, but that one is sure makes my short list.
JFK was dead within weeks of his announcement, and LBJ rescinded JFK’s order (3 days after the murder, if memory serves) and instead of bringing the troops home, LBJ escalated the war, again and again, and kept on escalating for 5 long years, till he left office. Lots of boys, Asian, American, and allied, died needlessly, boys who would have lived if Kennedy had lived.
Both JFK and LBJ were Democrats. One wanted to end a war and the other kept one going, and going, and going. “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today!”
Nixon ran against LBJ’s VP on a platform of ending the war with honor. People can say he tried, but if that’s true, it’s also true he didn’t try very hard. He didn’t do very well on the “honor” part either. Actually, Nixon and LBJ were much closer to each other in their approach to the War than either was like JFK. So, as the 60s and 70s unfolded, Democrat or GOP, the War went on and on as more and more boys died needlessly.
The lucky ones who came home alive often weren’t welcome when they got here. Some were actually spit on by anti-war protesters. Some were called baby-killers. Some told tall tales about their bravery, some faked honors they didn’t deserve. But most came home quietly and went to work, or to school, and tried to make-up for the lost years, and losses of other kinds.
Since the murder of JFK, this country has changed in ways those who came after that horrible event, and can thus have no personal experience of the USA of the 40s, 50s, and early 60s, can never know, nor can they understand the sentiments of those remaining lucky ones who lived through it all and also lived to tell about it.
The problem is too many of those who weren’t there think they already know all about it, they learned it from other guys who weren’t there either, guys who are nevertheless certain they do know all about it because they’re the ones who were doing the spitting.
30 October 2009, 1:54 pmJeff:
Because America is in danger of being invaded by Afghan tribesmen?
Phoe, you have the benefit of not having had to deal with the Great American Panic after 9/11. We still have a lot of people who are scared of their own shadow - not to mention those of Afghan tribesmen - over here.
From a rational perspective, of course terrorism is nothing more than a slightly more destructive form of organized crime. But fear doesn’t have to be rational…
30 October 2009, 1:57 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
We are now the bad guy. We’re the neighborhood bully. If we don’t want to share the fate of the bully, we’ve got to either disarm all our enemies (we can’t,) or remove their motivation.
Certainly the Pakistanis are increasingly seeing no difference between the US and terrorists…
30 October 2009, 1:58 pmEric:
Pho, military expert, opines:
The majority of those fighting Americans in Afghanistan are not “Islamic fascists” but tribesmen taking up arms against an invading army and a corrupt puppet government.
30 October 2009, 3:05 pmEric:
More left wing twaddle. “America sucks!” seems to be the only tune you guys know. And the only option when confronted with a war with our enemies is to surrender. No thanks!
30 October 2009, 3:10 pmEric:
Phooey is a far left whacko who hates America and wants us to lose. He wanted us to lose in Iraq and now he wants us to lose in Afghanistan. Why should we take this loser seriously?
30 October 2009, 3:12 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
You were peddling this left wing twaddle 2-3 years ago about Iraq
Having a few problems dealing with reality, Eric?
Turned out Gen. Petraeus was right and you were wrong. Now you’re peddling this same crap again while another general, McChrystal, is saying we need more troops for another “Surge” in Afghanistan.
Again, problems with the facts:
Never mind Eric - I can understand why you have to posture here. You’re feeling much less of a man these days, aren’t you?…
30 October 2009, 3:24 pmEric:
Speaking of “Being a man”, Phooey, why don’t you just man up and admit you wanted us to lose in Iraq, and ended up being wrong about that. And further be a man and simply admit you want us to lose in Afghanistan. We know it’s the truth, so you might as well just come out and say so.
30 October 2009, 3:35 pmPerry:
Sharon:“It’s always better and easier to fight a war in another country than to fight in your own backyard.”
Yeah, that’s what the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Soviets thought, but it came home to roost for them. Now don’t misunderstand, I am not comparing us to what these nations did, but our aggressive preemptive wars on other sovereign nations embrace an identically arrogant attitude.
Moreover, there is something immoral, something detestable, something so black and white about this arrogant attitude, with which, if it were to continue to prevail, will never give us the opportunity for peace.
Indeed, we will continue to live in constant fear of attack, thus continue to allay it with the outcome of our military-industrial empire, and worst, continue to send our own over there to be killed and maimed by our enemies, while our own proceed to do the same. Is this sanity or insanity, I ask?
We need to free ourselves from this vicious cycle, now!
Which is why I favor focusing on our borders, ports, and air defenses, combined with focusing on negotiating settlements of issues.
30 October 2009, 3:46 pmPerry:
Eric:“Phooey is a far left whacko who hates America and wants us to lose.”
No, Eric, I don’t agree at all. You have no evidence for such an allegation, so instead you invent a straw man, then attack it. That really is a very weak argument. Can you imagine taking part in a formal debate and getting up when your turn comes and throwing out this stuff as a rebuttal?
I take Phoenician’s point as being he did not think we should be in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, to which I agree. But now that we are there, and have commitments and collateral damage to attend to, we need to shift from a combat mission to a security, rebuilding, and withdrawal mission, which we have begun to do in Iraq, which we need to do in Afghanistan, then simultaneously focus on homeland security at home.
I also understand that you will characterize this as a sign of weakness; on the contrary, of course, I will consider a sign of great strength. You right wing ideologues think only about black and white, whereas peace loving folks think about turning black and white into rainbows in the sky and beautiful flowers on the earth!
30 October 2009, 3:59 pmmicbro:
Phoenician, after reading a few of your posts, I must say that although you are able to write well, you seem to be a little behind the times. You asked how we would pay for an increased troop level in the Afghan war. I suppose you haven’t heard the news. Our government is now able to create and fund programs for free. For instance, the 900 billion dollar health care reform will not cost anyone a single penny. Indeed, that seems irrational to most, but you must understand that this administration and congress has the ability to spend large amounts of money without any cost to anyone! It seems that they are able to do this just by streamlining and trimming away waste/fraud. I am truly surprised that you have not heard of this new magical system.
30 October 2009, 5:03 pmDNW:
“If we stop people entering, then we stop being the United States of America. And this is a job for police here, not our army in a foreign country.”
Except that,
-no one is talking about stopping people from entering the country; just people who try to enter illegally.
… and doing that won’t stop the United States of America from being the United States of America; unless you mean to say that the United States of America is a synonym for a country that cannot control its own borders or enforce its own immigration law.
… and that it isn’t “the police” who typically handle illegal immigration enforcement, and when they try to do so the Feds get upset about it …
… and
30 October 2009, 5:50 pmNangleator:
micbro: “For instance, the 900 billion dollar health care reform will not cost anyone a single penny.”
30 October 2009, 6:10 pmSee, it’s like every day we walk out the front door and a mugger takes $100 from us. Someone suggests we buy a gun that costs $500, and everyone goes crazy that we can’t afford something like that. Some extravagance, on top of losing $100 a day. Think of the children!
But if we buy that gun, and demonstrate its use to the mugger, we’ll eventually be better off.
Sure, the mugger has bribed people to tell us that the gun will cost more than the price tag, and that the gun will kill all our old people, and that bullets will be rationed… But, dude, that’s the friggin mugger saying this! Can’t you tell? Isn’t it obvious?
And don’t be tempted to buy the squirt gun he offers you instead.
Get the point. We’re spending that $900b anyway. It’s just a matter of who gets it and how soon.
Anyway, back on subject, I realize trillions for killing people in other countries is simply peachy, while a single penny to help an American stay alive is an affront to all that is good and right. (Because the American that receives it might be poorer, and thus lazier, than me.)
Nangleator:
DNW: “no one is talking about stopping people from entering the country; just people who try to enter illegally.”
30 October 2009, 6:19 pmI haven’t really thought too much about it, but I don’t think I have a problem with people who come here illegally, to live. My great grandparents may have come here illegally, or their folks. Maybe yours did, too. The result of their trying to build a better life built a pretty good country.
There will always be people like Lou Dobbs, but immigrants will keep coming, and keep improving America.
Dave A.:
“Dave, it can be argued that President Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan was not te right one to achieve victory, but no one ever doubted his commitment to victory.”
Wow, that’s weak. First of all, there is no argument - Bush had no strategy in Afghanistan. His own Defense Secretary admitted that.
Do you remember what started all this? Do you remember why we went to Afghanistan? Your answer was not only weak but it’s also not what I asked. Produce a blog post (jump in here all you other contributors, too) where you ever questioned Bush’s ’strategy’ in Afghanistan during the seven plus years that we were there. Just one. Anyone?
30 October 2009, 6:54 pmDNW:
Well, that may explain part of your attitude (and your politics).
I knew a girl whose dad was a corrupt purchasing agent, though she seemed to be unaware of it.
She was apparently under the impression that he had just retired early, never having read Crain’s or the Metal Working News.
She liked to wax nostalgic about the wonderful Christmas seasons they used to experience … all those delivery vans driving up to the house. “So many people loved my dad!”
So, anyway, what other laws should we feel free to ignore in the name of improving the quality of our lives?
I can think of a few that I would like to break …
No, they didn’t; those who arrived after there was a U.S.
You seem determined to persist in trying to obliterate any moral distinction between those who abide the laws and those who don’t.
Personally I probably have much less a problem with anarchy than you do. Let’s all improve our lives as we see fit, and to the extent that we have the power to do so, eh?
30 October 2009, 7:18 pmmicbro:
Nangleator, here is the answer to your riddle:
Shoot the mugger. Pretty simple, But, I couldn’t shoot the mugger because the government told me that my gun was not very good. It was functioning, yes, it could have used a tune-up, but functioning none the less. The government told me that they had designed a better gun, and that this gun would be provided to everyone for free, without adding to the national debt or raising taxes, and that I should really just throw my gun away. Because, you see, the government knows what is best. So I gave away my option of choosing which gun I wanted and with trust in my heart, I handed my gun to the government. I have since learned that I have to pay 500.00 per month for the rest of my life for my (free) gun, and the (free) gun isn’t better than the one I had in the first place. Many say their free guns are actually very inferior to the old guns they gave away.
But, the real interesting thing about this story is that the mugger didn’t show up until I had given my gun to the gover……WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
30 October 2009, 7:36 pmmicbro:
Seriously, Nangleator, we do not have to spend the 900 billion. We defeat the bill. Ummmm……..
30 October 2009, 7:44 pmDNW:
LOL Yeah, well consider that he might be an illegal “American” of the sort you are so anxious to import. Which, makes telling who is really an American deserving of help as an American, kind of difficult to determine.
And if that’s the case, then what does it really mean then to be an American, other than a doormat for the world, and a laborer for the managers of the client class. And what’s worth preserving there?
However, when you spend money to kill say, Marxists, or some other kind of annoying totalitarian crap, (remember, there is no God, and so it really doesn’t matter in any cosmic sense) the ones you actually kill, tend to stay dead and to cease their intrusions and annoyances.
But, and here’s the rub: save the life of a lazy man, or some depressive like Phoenician in a time of Romans, and as you might well have said, what good have you really done, “improving-your-life-wise”?
Seriously, sort of … They’re just going to eventually find that type dead, the victim of auto-asphyxiation, hanging in a closet with a rolled copy of the Humanist Manifesto shoved up some orifice, anyway …
30 October 2009, 7:45 pmEric:
Perry, you don’t know Pho the way the rest of us do. He’s a dutiful member of the Surrender Monkey brigade, and has been posting for years to the effect that he hoped we would lose in Iraq. Now he’s doing the same thing, only with Afghanistan.
The bottom line with the Surrender Monkeys is:
1. America sucks.
2. In any foreign entanglement, America is always the bad guy.
3. The enemy are invariably heroic resistance fighters, and should be admired.
4. Whatever military action America takes will only embolden the enemy and encourage them to fight harder.
Leading to;
5. The only option for America is to quit, give up, surrender.
Hence the term “Surrender monkey”.
30 October 2009, 8:19 pmYorkshire:
When I heard BO went to Andrews to witness this event, I thought it was a right thing to do. I have heard pro’s and con’s on his appearance, but I’m going to chalk it up as doing the right thing unless strictly proven otherwise.
30 October 2009, 8:39 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
But, and here’s the rub: save the life of a lazy man, or some depressive like Phoenician in a time of Romans,
Darling, I’m never dating you. You’re wasting your time flirting with me.
Thanks for the pictures of you in the hotpants though. They were… unusual.
30 October 2009, 9:07 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Speaking of “Being a man”, Phooey, why don’t you just man up and admit you wanted us to lose in Iraq, and ended up being wrong about that. And further be a man and simply admit you want us to lose in Afghanistan. We know it’s the truth, so you might as well just come out and say so.
Define “lose”.
I want the Iraqis and Afghans to win. This means I want them to be free - both of idigenous warlords and dictators and occupying American enemies.
Beyond that, I don’t mind seeing the US tied up in these quagmires for as long as possible. The simple fact is that you’re an aggressive hegemon, and if you weren’t tied up in these two places, you might be well attacking Iran or Venezuala over some trumped-up excuse.
I don’t want America to “lose”. I don’t want you to “win”, either, where “win” involves murdering more people.
30 October 2009, 9:11 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Shoot the mugger. Pretty simple, But, I couldn’t shoot the mugger because the government told me that my gun was not very good. It was functioning, yes, it could have used a tune-up, but functioning none the less. The government told me that they had designed a better gun, and that this gun would be provided to everyone for free, without adding to the national debt or raising taxes, and that I should really just throw my gun away. Because, you see, the government knows what is best. So I gave away my option of choosing which gun I wanted and with trust in my heart, I handed my gun to the government. I have since learned that I have to pay 500.00 per month for the rest of my life for my (free) gun, and the (free) gun isn’t better than the one I had in the first place. Many say their free guns are actually very inferior to the old guns they gave away.
Actually, what you’re offered is the option of renting a gun. You can choose to rent a gun for $75 and be free of muggers forever, or keep on paying $100 to the muggers. Your choice. You can still deal with the muggers if you like.
30 October 2009, 9:15 pmmicbro:
Phoenician, if I had not given the gun I already owned away, I could have shot the mugger. There is no need to rent anything. But, let’s leave “once-upon a time” land for a moment.
Larger government is not, and never will be, a better option. The government does not know what is best for each person. The government has “managed” social security, medicare and medicaid into insolvency. The greatest, most abusive source of fraud, waste and abuse resides in the good old government, my friend. This fraud increases as government funding and programs increase. The abuse increases with each thread of freedom we choose to hand over to the government. Sad, but true. We should defeat this bill. If you want to give 60 -70 percent of your earnings to the government, then you go right ahead. They will make better use of the money than you could have.
30 October 2009, 9:44 pmEric:
Well, we can argue about Iraq, but I totally disagree on Afghanistan. Not only did we have every right to go in there, we basically had a duty to after the Taliban made it very clear they were going to protect Al Qaida.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, Obama made a big deal of saying that Iraq was the “Wrong” war, whereas Afghanistan was the right one. He said this all during the campaign, along with making the argument that Iraq “Distracted” us from the real fight, which was in Afghanistan. The implication was that he would take forces from Iraq and finish the job there. So, are you surprised that some of us expect him to live up to his words?
Finally, as supposed proof of his intentions to get tough in Afghanistan, he hand picked McChrystal to lead the efforts there, a tough guy who was clearly there to fight to win. He was supposed to be to Obama what Gen. Petraeus was to Bush, again signaling the desire to go in there and kick ass. Now, he seems to be wavering. Lots of us disagreed with Obama on domestic policy, but believed him on Afghanistan and his supposed promises to win, and now he looks like he might be wimping out. Not good. Not good at all.
30 October 2009, 10:56 pmEric:
And I want Santa Claus to show up every day and bring me free presents. And that’s about as likely to happen as your above fantasy scenario. Fact is, absent US troops, Iraq would still be run by a dictator and Afghanistan by the Taliban. Neither would even remotely be free.
30 October 2009, 11:11 pmYorkshire:
Eric:
I want the Iraqis and Afghans to win. This means I want them to be free - both of idigenous warlords and dictators and occupying American enemies.
And I want Santa Claus to show up every day and bring me free presents. And that’s about as likely to happen as your above fantasy scenario. Fact is, absent US troops, Iraq would still be run by a dictator and Afghanistan by the Taliban. Neither would even remotely be free.
Eric, don’t you know the terrorists are just freedom fighters. You know freedom to torture by the fun throwing people in shredders, or executions in the stadium, the freedom to treat women as property and not human, and you know the list.
30 October 2009, 11:17 pmEric:
Well, that just confirms my points 1, 2, and 5 above. Namely, America sucks, we’re always the bad guy, and we ought to lose/give up/surrender.
PS Who but a left wing whacko uses a term like “aggressive hegemon”? That’s the sort of crap we used to hear from the old Soviet Politburo. As expressions go, it’s at least 20 years out of date. At least try to come up with something original if you’re going to insult our country.
30 October 2009, 11:19 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
PS Who but a left wing whacko uses a term like “aggressive hegemon”?
That would be the historian Niall Ferguson again, Eric.
Deeply, deeply ignorant.
31 October 2009, 6:58 amPerry:
Yorkshire: “When I heard BO went to Andrews to witness this event, I thought it was a right thing to do. I have heard pro’s and con’s on his appearance, but I’m going to chalk it up as doing the right thing unless strictly proven otherwise.”
Dover, DE, not Andrews, is where Obama went. All of our war dead return via Dover, near to where I live, incidentally.
I agree, Obama did the right thing. And btw, the families have an option whether they want the flag draped coffin to be displayed publicly. Bush, as we know, forbid the public display of our returning war dead, a big mistake, in my view. We need to have the opportunity to mourn as a nation, while of course respecting the wishes of the individual families.
31 October 2009, 8:30 amPerry:
Yorkshire:“Eric, don’t you know the terrorists are just freedom fighters.”
Yorkshire, I suggest you need to think a little more about who the terrorists are. Sure, al-Qaeda, the juhadists, the Islamic extremists, that’s easy for us to see. How about those responsible for invading a sovereign country, the bombers, the drone operators, and the like. To those suffering collateral damage of these invasions, the terrorists are us.
We had no right to invade either Afghanistan or Iraq, as neither country represented a threat to our security.
Please explain in the threat to us from Afghanistan or Iraq.
The correct response to 9/11 should have been a massive effort to improve homeland security, to make minimalize the possibility of a repeat attack. Going after OBL in Afghanistan, and invading Iraq, both have proven to be fruitless exercises of power, and very costly indeed in lives and treasure. How much longer do we persist with this invasion mentality of defeat, before we learn our lessons? I think this is the view that Phoenician is trying to convey to us. We should listen to outside observers, then decide for ourselves. I don’t think we are listening!
31 October 2009, 8:47 amDana Pico:
The Phoenician wrote:
But you know that if the Iraqis or Afghanis win, they might be free of American forces, but they won’t be free of “indigenous warlords and dictators.” They will be subject to one or another dictatorship, by whichever group has the military power to win, and, if that military power isn’t quite thorough enough, continued civil war as other would-be dictatots continue to fight.
What would we have had in Iraq without the invasion? We’d have had the continued dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and, when he finally went to his eternal reward, one of his sons would have become the next dictator; that was the system he was setting up. THe common people of Iraq would have been just as oppressed as before, and far moreso than they are now, but that’s OK, that would have been just fine, right?
In Afghanistan, we’d have had the worst Islamic fundamentalist government anyone has ever seen remaining in power, and continuing to harbor al Qaeda. That, too, would have been just fine, right?
31 October 2009, 9:34 amDave A.:
chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp
31 October 2009, 9:52 amPerry:
Dana:“What would we have had in Iraq without the invasion? We’d have had the continued dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and, when he finally went to his eternal reward, one of his sons would have become the next dictator; that was the system he was setting up. THe common people of Iraq would have been just as oppressed as before, and far moreso than they are now, but that’s OK, that would have been just fine, right?
In Afghanistan, we’d have had the worst Islamic fundamentalist government anyone has ever seen remaining in power, and continuing to harbor al Qaeda. That, too, would have been just fine, right?”
Dana, the internal politics of other countries is none of our business. We have no right to intervene, even for humanitarian reasons. These people have to rise up themselves to overthrow corrupted regimes. The Russians did it!
So let us not fool ourselves, our interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq were not primarily for humanitarian reasons, in contrast to the line you are giving us here. In Afghanistan, we said we were after OBL. Never got him, did we? Yet we have incurred, what, a 10 year, 20 year, 30 year commitment now, to nation build. Smart? I don’t think so!
In Iraq, we invaded for geopolitical strategic reasons, to establish a military position there, and to control oil. Humanitarian considerations were touted as a front. Humanitarians do not invade, bomb and kill upwards of at least 100,000 civilians, and sacrifice our own troops in the process!
You have been sucked in by the propaganda, Dana, and either don’t know it or won’t admit it; instead, you continue to mouth the party line.
31 October 2009, 10:07 amEric:
If they’re fighting America, they’re heroes to the Left. Disgusting, but there you have it.
31 October 2009, 12:14 pmEric:
You can’t be serious! Aren’t you aware that Al Q was in Afghanistan when they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks? And the Taliban protected them?? That alone gave us every right to go into that country.
By your logic, we had no right to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor. You Lefties really are a bunch of anti-American whackoes!
31 October 2009, 12:19 pmEric:
Great. Play defense only, and let the enemy plan another attack in perfect safety. That makes sense.
PS You’ll note there hasn’t been another attack in 8 years. Do you suppose that has anything to do with our aggressive actions against Al Q?
31 October 2009, 12:23 pmEric:
Perry, did you read my piece earlier? The one that stated that Obama was on the right track during the campaign, and early in his presidency when he gave every indication of kicking ass in Afghanistan? He hand picked Gen. McChrystal to get the job done, and most of us applauded him for it. Hopefully, he will carry on with the resolve necessary to win. The last thing America needs is another Surrender Monkey for president.
31 October 2009, 12:28 pmEric:
Just because he’s famous doesn’t mean he’s not a left wing whacko. For domestic examples of same I give you Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.
And yes, if he’s calling the US a hegemon, he’s an ignoramus, too. So I agree with you there.
31 October 2009, 12:31 pmEric:
As Dana has pointed out, the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were killed by the terrorists. That’s a tragedy, but you really can’t blame US forces for that. It’s only the America hating Left who’s been peddling the lies about America killing vast numbers of civilians in Iraq.
31 October 2009, 12:34 pmPerry:
Eric:“Great. Play defense only, and let the enemy plan another attack in perfect safety. That makes sense. “
Eric, now be honest. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists have unlimited opportunities to congregate on this globe. So “winning” in Afghanistan will make no difference whatsoever wrt a threat to us.
Again, we are wasting lives and fortune by waging these stupid wars, not to mention the collateral damage we cause, increasing hatred of us. I know I sound like a broken record on this, but you folks never offer a counter argument.
In this war against terror, our only viable option is homeland defense, which appears to be working so far, the enhancement of which must be our main focus. What is wrong with this approach, Eric, or anybody?
31 October 2009, 12:58 pmPerry:
Eric:“As Dana has pointed out, the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were killed by the terrorists.”
I missed Dana’s citation on this point. I hope in it the distinction was made between a terrorist of the al-Qaeda type, and a so-called terrorists who are actually engaged in a civil war in Iraq, you know, Sunnis and Shi’a, and American troops.
If you define a terrorist broadly, as a person who terrorizes another by taking hostile and aggressive actions, you could then, unfortunately, include our troops. This is the tragedy of war, especially since we do not belong in Iraq, never did, shooting and bombing people. This is not to say that we have done good things there too, but these do not counterbalance destroying people, homes and infrastructure. Think about it Eric. Put yourself in the place of an ordinary Iraqi.
Ask the Iraq citizens if they feel terrorized, and by whom! I am pretty sure the list would include Americans, in Afghanistan and Pakistan (with the drones) as well.
You warhawks ought to consider this reality. Maybe you might then change your tune!
31 October 2009, 1:12 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Just because he’s famous doesn’t mean he’s not a left wing whacko. For domestic examples of same I give you Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.
And just because you think he’s a left wing whacko doesn’t make it so. You are, after all, a noticably ignorant blowahrd on an obscure blog, with no credentials, a history of being wrong, and a complete failure to understand the world.
31 October 2009, 3:00 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
And yes, if he’s calling the US a hegemon, he’s an ignoramus, too. So I agree with you there.
Wiki
So what were your credentials again, kiddie?
31 October 2009, 3:03 pmEric:
And what are YOUR credentials, besides being a left wing anti-American loon?
1 November 2009, 3:08 pmEric:
Not so. We’ve already defeated Al Q in Iraq, and have beaten them back to their caves in Afghan/Pakistan. They’re not nearly the threat they were 8 years ago. And your purely defensive posture wouldn’t have helped that one bit.
1 November 2009, 3:11 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
We’ve already defeated Al Q in Iraq
i, They weren’t *in* Iraq until you went there. And then yahoos started adopting the brand.
ii, Funerals begin as death toll rises to 155 in Iraq bomb attack
1 November 2009, 6:01 pmPerry:
Eric:“They’re not nearly the threat they were 8 years ago.”
Right, Eric, that’s what GWB thought when he took no action on the PDB dated August 06, 2001, which said: ” “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,”
Bush was vacationing in Crawford and took no action on this warning. The result: Dots were not connected and a successful strike was carried out on the Twin Towers, remember?
“And your purely defensive posture wouldn’t have helped that one bit.”
It seems to me that you warhawks continuously look for excuses to justify your militancy.
On what basis do you make that wild statement, Eric?
How do you know that “They’re not nearly the threat they were 8 years ago.”? Citation please!
1 November 2009, 6:52 pmEric:
The fact that we haven’t been attacked in 8 years is citation enough. If we had adopted your loser/surrender strategy, that most likely wouldn’t have happened.
1 November 2009, 9:16 pmEric:
Now we’re back to blaming Bush. I imagine presidents receive reports of possible terrorist threats nearly every day. So, what’s your point?
1 November 2009, 9:18 pmEric:
So what? We defeated them there, in contrast to you anti-American surrender monkeys who wanted us to lose.
1 November 2009, 9:20 pmYorkshire:
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a — – service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.
Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in —, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.
Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al Qaeda members — including some who are U.S. citizens — have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
Perry keeps bloviating: Right, Eric, that’s what GWB thought when he took no action on the PDB dated August 06, 2001, which said: ” “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,”
Bush was vacationing in Crawford and took no action on this warning. The result: Dots were not connected and a successful strike was carried out on the Twin Towers, remember?
OK Perry, the memo is above. Divine the 9/11 attacks on the WTC from that.
I love it that the Left keeps touting this memo as the smoking gun that directly leads anyone who read it to say on 9/11 UBL et al. will attack the WTC Towers. If anything, it takes you directions that aren’t even close to that conclusion. So, in the future, here’s the memo, and keep waving it as smoking gun #1. We will ignore that rant.
1 November 2009, 9:44 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
So what? We defeated them there, in contrast to you anti-American surrender monkeys who wanted us to lose.
You go to a doctor to get your broken leg placed in a cast. While you’re there, he breaks your arm and sticks that in a cast as well. When you object, he sneers “So what? I stuck it in a cast, didn’t I?”
1 November 2009, 10:07 pmDana Pico:
The September 11th attacks occurred on President Bush’s watch, period. There are a lot of reasons why they couldn’t be deemed his fault, but there is no reason which absolves him of responsibility for our country’s defense, and to our country’s response to the attack.
The August 6th briefing told the President that al Qaeda planned to attack in the United States, but contained no information as to time and target. Even if it had, the al Qaeda terrorists boarding those four airplanes were not carrying anything illegal at the time; they were breaking no laws or regulations prior to seizing the planes! Unless we had known them personally, and had evidence of the conspiracy, under what regulation could they have been prohibited from boarding?
We can follow the chain of evidence and see that some things leading to the attack occurred during the Clinton Administration, and some happened after George Bush became our president. It could be said that neither President Bush nor anyone in his Administration took the threat seriously enough, but let’s face facts: an attack like September 11th would have been considered the subject of an overheated novel rather than reality up until September 10th. The security precautions taken after the attacks could never have passed the Congress before the attacks, and even now many are fighting parts of the Patriot Act.
1 November 2009, 10:38 pmDana Pico:
Eric wrote:
As our friends on the left try to blame President Bush for September 11th, the fact remains that his response was successful in preventing any further terrorist attacks in the United States. President Obama has another three years and three months (hopefully not seven years and three months) to go to keep our country safe from attack.
If there is one, will our friends on the left then conclude that President Obama’s policies have failed?
1 November 2009, 10:43 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
While there are differences in organizational membership, terrorism itself is not defined by it. Rather, terrorism would be the use of violence to attack non-combatants, to attack civilians, in an attempt to instill so much fear in the general population that it saps their will to resist the enemy.
A car bomb which kills 155 random people who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time is an act of terrorism: it isn’t aimed at the military, it isn’t aimed at the police, but is aimed at the civilian structure in hopes of lowering resistance to the enemy, in hopes of compelling surrender due to weariness and fear.
Even if you are talking about the Shi’a/Sunni differences, except for the attacks on each other’s leadership — there have been a couple — the attacks have been terrorist in nature.
1 November 2009, 10:49 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
As our friends on the left try to blame President Bush for September 11th, the fact remains that his response was successful in preventing any further terrorist attacks in the United States.
You mean apart from those other terrorist attacks in the United States?
1 November 2009, 11:05 pmDana Pico:
Perry asked:
Would you really approve?
President Bush’s policies were forward defense, to attack al Qaeda on their own turf, where the collateral damage would be their problem, not ours. Of that, you disapprove.
Yet I think of the (too few) things we are doing at our borders right now: too infrequent searches of cargo coming into the country, rejecting interception of calls from outside the country, and a completely porous national border. If we were actually serious about doing what you have suggested, the very first thing that should be done is to recognize that the vast majority of terrorists have been Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent; the obvious answer is to immediately exclude all Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent from entering the country, until and unless they have been thoroughly vetted, and to expel all Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent, regardless of the reasons they are here, unless and until they have been thoroughly investigated. That would not eliminate the risk of an al Qaeda attack in the US, but it would greatly reduce the opportunities of such an attack. What are the odds you would agree to that?
Clearly, since the greatest danger of attack comes from Muslim males of Middle Eastern descent, we ought to use ethnic profiling when it comes to airports and public transportation: all Muslim males of Middle Eastern descent ought to be thoroughly searched and investigated at any airport, rather than being oh-so-liberal and wasting our time on blue-haired grandmothers. Again, it wouldn’t be a perfect system, but it would concentrate resources on the greatest threat. Now, what are the odds you would agree to that?
The fact is that, if you will admit it, the liberal mindset in this country would be very much opposed to the measures which would have to be taken to implement the policy you say you favor.
Instead, we are just so committed to not offending anyone. Just the other day, President Obama announced that he would end the restriction barring entry into the United States by people who are HIV positive or who have AIDS, despite the fact that they have a communicable disease; the admission of such people increases the chances that someone who does not have HIV/AIDS will contract it. Because President Obama doesn’t want to discriminate against people, he has announced a policy which increases, if perhaps only slightly, the odds of American citizens getting AIDS. That is a policy based on liberal ethos, and not on public safety. Perhaps you think that the increased chances are worth it, to not discriminate against such unfortunate people, but to the guy who gets AIDS, when he wouldn’t have before, maybe it isn’t such a great idea.
1 November 2009, 11:17 pmDana Pico:
Perry asked:
For Perry and our other commenters from the left, my question is: what would you do, were you President, to meet the stated goal of a secure homeland defense against al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist groups, restricting yourself to our borders?
1 November 2009, 11:34 pmEric:
Good points. Perry talks about playing defense here at home, as opposed to playing offense and fighting the terrorists overseas, but a truly effective defensive policy would have pretty much the same precautions you mentioned. And, to judge by the howling over the Patriot Act and other measures, we can safely say the Left would have stood in the way of every single one of them.
2 November 2009, 2:46 pm