RT eats crow (re: Afghan war strategy)

[RTFirefly]

A couple weeks ago, in Scylla's Shrub thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=97747), I made the following comments about the Administration's conduct of the Afghan war:

I'm trying to see an overall plan to this war - I think such a plan (not tactical details, mind you), at least to the Afghanistan portion of the conflict, is a reasonable thing for the Administration to share - and I fail to see one. We've bombed - to what purpose? It wasn't preparatory to bringing in the infantry and tanks; mostly, it seems to have been a morale-booster for the Taliban, and helping to unify the Afghan people behind them against an outside enemy - us. Smart move, Shrub, Colin, Condoleeza, Dick.

Are we going to capture Osama with Special Ops forces alone? I don't believe it. (If we don't send in 'real' ground troops, and we do kill or capture ObL, remind me later so that I can eat crow.) Are we going to capture ObL by aiding the Northern Alliance in capturing Kabul? That won't work either: controlling Kabul gives them one corner of the country, at best. Still plenty of room for bin Laden to avoid them/us. Are we going to send in a significant ground force? Good - but by doing an extended bombing campaign first, we've made it significantly harder for them to be perceived as rescuers of the people, rather than hostile invaders.Boy howdy, was I ever wrong.

We haven't yet gotten bin Laden, but I was so totally wrong on everything else that I thought I'd go ahead, eat crow now, and avoid the Christmas rush.

Seems our Northern Alliance allies now control a good deal more than 'one corner of the country, at best', and wherever the Taliban leaves, men are shaving their beards, women are burning their burqas, and there is general celebration in the streets. Can't ask for a much better outcome than that, at this point.

Got to say, I'm very, very glad to be this wrong about the Administration's war plans.

So, could someone please pass the Tabasco? :D

[Scylla]

I can't wait to use this the next time I face you in Great Debates.

[Jonathan Chance]

It's OK, we still love you.

And try the honey mustard, it's better on city fowl.

[RTFirefly]

Be my guest. :)

[IzzyR]

I could join you, for having started The war does not seem to be going well - now what? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=95983). OTOH, from what I've been reading, the US actually did adjust its strategy, to a closer alliance with the Northern Alliance, due to the fact that not enough progress was being made.

[Stoid]

Good for you, RT. I sure know how to pick 'em! (favorite posters, that is.)

I know for myself, reading about the women throwing off the burqas and going back to living real lives, I feel kinda like I think free blacks must have felt for slaves after the Civil War... Sometimes stuff works out in ways you never expected, and even if nothing else major is accomplished, this is more than enough for me.

stoid

[elucidator]

Requisition for sackcloth: denied
Requisition for ashes, suitable for pouring over head: denied.

You didn't know? Hell, Arty, nobody knew! Nobody knows now! Unintended consequences is war's middle name. Brilliant strategies fall apart for a whim, suicidal attacks prove the genius of drooling doofuses (doofusi? doofusim? something)

And now we will be treated to the spectacle of our noble allies dispensing justice. Afghan style. Getting Old Testament on thier respective asses.

Or not. 'Cause you never know.

Beside, even I was wrong, back in '68. Thought I made a mistake.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Stoid
I know for myself, reading about the women throwing off the burqas and going back to living real lives...
I saw a picture yesterday of Kabulites (Kabullians? Kabulsters?) practically knocking each other down to get into a movie theatre. It was opening for the first time in years; films, you see, were banned by the Taliban. They didn't even say what was showing - folks were just thrilled to get to see a movie.

It's easy to take our liberty for granted, and easy to forget that it's worth fighting for, until you see what life is like without it.

[Duck Duck Goose]

What Elucidator said.

I think a lot of folks were looking forward (well, not "looking forward") to a Vietnam-style "grinding along in low gear for years" fiasco. Who could have expected that the whole thing would be over, not by Christmas, but by Thanksgiving?

Send the crow (still frozen, one hopes) over to Cal Thomas's house, RT.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20011102.shtml
President should...employ the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons against the Taliban...

[S]imilarities between...Japan in 1945...and Afghanistan now. Then, Japanese troops frequently hid in caves and pillboxes and fought with a religious fervor inspired by their Emperor in whom they vested divine power. Now, the Taliban use caves as protective cover and are inspired by religious zeal.

Japan, like the Taliban today, had started the war and would not give up. The Japanese, like the Taliban, promised more American dead...

The Taliban fight with the weapons of terror, determined to kill every man, woman and child they can. The United States should spare no effort in wiping out the Taliban and all terrorists who would follow in their sandal-steps.

...Like the fanatical Japanese of Truman's day, the fanatical Taliban will not be dissuaded from murdering as many Americans as they can....It is a time to wipe them out before they wipe any more of us out.

That's the kind of fanaticism the United States faces in Afghanistan...
uh huh.

But see, they're just playin' possum...

snippety snip snip snip
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20011120.shtml
The weapon of choice following the hoped for vanquishing of the Taliban appears to be kindness.

Similar efforts to pacify those who hate us were tried by a group of Christian clergy more than 20 years ago.

Where have I seen this pacification scenario before? It is in a 1997 novel by Peter De Rosa called "Pope Patrick." The story takes place in 2009. It is about the first Irish Pope, but there is a subplot that can teach us something about the Islamic mind if we will listen...

Before we start planning the victory parades for the returning troops, we had better get off the charm offensive and start improving our defenses. As "Pope Patrick" ends, the "FIR (Federation of Islamic Republics) missiles, unleashed from submarines in the Atlantic, from silos in a broad band from Morocco to Pakistan, started annihilating the free world."

We may not have much time before this fiction becomes fact.
I love the smell of paranoia in the morning...

and yes, cal, i agree with you that the u.s. should make all its foreign policy decisions based on novels--the cuban missile crisis would've been over MUCH sooner if the state department had read the old man and the sea--there was a subplot that could have taught us much about the Cuban mind if we would only have listened...
not to mention the way they could have wrapped up the whole cold war thing in a couple of weekends if they'd read the hunt for red october sooner
as it was, we all had to wait for the movie version to come out, and by then it was all over but the shouting

[Duck Duck Goose]

I know what movie it wasn't--I think it's safe to say that the Kabul theater is probably the only theater on the face of the planet that isn't showing Harry Potter.

:D

[gobear]

You didn't know? Hell, Arty, nobody knew! Nobody knows now! Unintended consequences is war's middle name. Brilliant strategies fall apart for a whim, suicidal attacks prove the genius of drooling doofuses (doofusi? doofusim? something)

And now we will be treated to the spectacle of our noble allies dispensing justice. Afghan style. Getting Old Testament on thier respective asses

C'mon, Elucidator, don't you ever get tired of the same, old, cliched rhetoric? Fact is, the U.S. bombing worked! It demoralized the Taliban and made them scatter and abandon their positions. We were right, you were wrong (no big surprise there). People in Kabul are free to shave their beards, to watch TV, to live their lives unrestricted.

You were WRONG!

And who said the Northern Alliance were noble? Useful, yes, but not noble. They come from a tradition that doesn't believe in whipping the enemy in a fair fight and then having a drink in the pub afterwards. They kill their enemies, rob the body, and cut off a souvenir or two.

The problems we have now are to 1) prevent the renewal of tribal feuds and warlord squabbles that allowed the Taliban in the first place, and 2) to cobble together a coalition Afghan government that will be acceptable to all ethnic groups.

[Bricker]

There's class - and then there's class.

Acknowledging you're wrong when someone calls you on it it classy - although I'd suggest it's actually the minimum conduct required for a participant here. But it happens rarely enough that I'm happy to call it "classy" when it does.

Starting a thread pointing out your earlier mistakes is, in my view, the epitome of a reasoned debator. Yy got class, RT!

- Rick

[gobear]

I should have acknowledged the depth of character exhibited in the OP, RT, well done!

[elucidator]

Ahhh, the stalwart goober. Ever dependable, a light dim but constant.

But you bring up an interesting point, albeit inadvertantly. Without tiresome research, did anybody post "The Taliban will crumble toot sweet, our allies prove loyal and forbearing, the trajectory of the shit shall not intersect the locus of the fan and, this time, Our Boys will be home for Christmas..." In other words, did anybody call this one?

[december]

Originally posted by elucidator You didn't know? Hell, Arty, nobody knew! George W. Bush expected the policy to work. That's why he selected it.

So W is smarter than the SDMB panel! :D

[elucidator]

Originally posted by december

So W is smarter than the SDMB panel! :D

Ye Cats and Little Fishes! What if its true! The Yale bumpkin with the Kennebunkport drawl is just an act, we are in the thrall of an evil genius.....! Or just an ordinary lab mouse bent on world domination.

"are you pondering what I'm pondering, Dicky..."

RTFirefly was right. History went wrong. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

[John Corrado]

So elucidator's position is, "Even though RT was wrong, I'm vindicated in my theory that things would be a clusterfuck because other people believed it as well"? I'm confused.


And as always, RT is classy as hell.

[gobear]

Aside from being petty and immature (Goober? That's the best you can come up with?), Elucidator is dishonest.

RTFirefly was right. History went wrong. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it

No, W and Colin Powell were right, and you and your kind were WRONG! (God, that feels good to write)

[Scylla]

RTF, depth of character. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

How come it's never a compliment when people tell me what depths I've sunken to?

[Scylla]

I mean I've sunken far lower than RTF ever has, and you don't see anybody lauding me over it.

[RTFirefly]

Thank yew, thank yew, one and all.

::bows::

While I'm coming clean, this isn't the only thing I've been completely and totally wrong on, this fall. After all, just a few weeks back, I was still one of the more vocal Schottenheimer detractors (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90098). (That's about football, for you non-sports-fans.)

One of the plusses of being a pessimist is that when you're right, you're right, and when you're wrong, it's an occasion for rejoicing. Hard to beat that. :)

Oh, and DDG? Gotta agree with you about Cal Thomas. He has just barely enough brain cells to rub together, to make worse than no sense at all. The day the papers that run his column wise up to what a complete and total moron the man is, and stop printing his gibberish...if it ever happens, it should be made a national holiday. They could call it "Combatting Ignorance Day".

[Fenris]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Got to say, I'm very, very glad to be this wrong about the Administration's war plans.

So, could someone please pass the Tabasco? :D

RTF, since I'm mostly a lurker in GD, you may or may not know that you and I disagree on a lot of stuff; That said, I always pay attention to what you write primarily because of the sort of honesty and class you've shown in this thread!

Fenris

[Tranquilis]

I'd like to chime in here as say that RTFirefly has my admiration. Being able to recognize when you're wrong, before having your face rubbed in it, is a "Damned Good Show". BZ, RTF.
I've been a little cautious on this all too, but not nearly so much, and so at this point can claim no credit whatsoever

[John Corrado]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
While I'm coming clean, this isn't the only thing I've been completely and totally wrong on, this fall. After all, just a few weeks back, I was still one of the more vocal Schottenheimer detractors (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90098). (That's about football, for you non-sports-fans.)


Hmm. Perhaps I *do* understand what elucidator was trying to say, for I don't think Schottenheimer has led the team out of the woods, yet; and quite frankly, I think he was the one that led them *into* the woods in the first place.

So if what elucidator was trying to say was, "it ain't over yet, so don't apologize", then I withdraw my confusion. And state that line regarding the 'Skins as well.

[tradesilicon]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Boy howdy, was I ever wrong.
Mr. Firefly, may I first point out that no one was predicting this even a few days a ago. (There seemed to be a very sharp turning point, when the Northern Alliance actually started attacking).

But you are a big man to post what you did, and with an excellent attitude as well.

I'll take your que, (Q? queue?) and state openly that I had serious doubts about the plan to unseat the Taliban (what with all the talk of the endless mountain caves) but I am very glad to see the celebrations in Kabul.

Please save a small piece of the wing, and pass the 'taters!


elucidator is such a poopy head

[elucidator]

Jeez, I really hate to vivisect my own damn jokes.

Under the circumstances of the time, Arty was right: the whole thing was fraught with peril. We got lucky! Couldn't be more pleased.

The punch line "history is wrong" see, is kinda like some guy who won't admit it might say, sort of a parody?

Still dont see anybody coming forth to claim the "Got It Right" prize.


Tell you what, goober: you don't gotta read another one, egotist te absolvo, go forth and sin no more. My name is right there at the top, there will be no quiz and nobody gives a shit. Peace on you.

[John Corrado]

Sigh. Now I'm confused again.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by tradesilicon
I'll take your que, (Q? queue?)

cue

[tradesilicon]

I was just continuing the trend from previous posts Stoid. But since I can't spell worth a damn, than-cue. ;)

[UncleBeer]

¿Que?

Good show, RTF. That OP took some chutzpah.

[Sofa King]

Somewhere in front of that wise, amiable exterior is a wheelbarrow, isn't there, RT? To cart the doo-dads about, that is.

I'm happier than a pig in poopy to see that things have worked out, but let's not forget that the Taliban can re-solidify itself at virtually any time on their home turf, in spite of the current successes. And more importantly, there's only one known al-Qaeda pheasant in the bag so far.

This was the easy part.

And while we're at it, allow me to take this opportunity to revoke my disdain for Washington Football, too. I was way, way more wrong than RT was on that one.

And elucidator, I understand exactly where you're coming from. It is only natural that you would underestimate the Americans, since you did such a fine job of hiding from them yourself.

[elucidator]

Gee, Sof', I'm afraid that one got past me, defeated by parsing the syntax, ya know? Tell you what, I'll just take your word for it, that its a scathing example of sardonic perception. and you can take my word for it, about how giving a rat's ass I am.

And the horse upon in which you rode.

Now, those cordialities aside (so many swine, so few pearls...) does anybody got an nominees for SDMB Nostradamus? Anybody on record as seeing this coming?

[Sofa King]

Well, buddy, the ballots aren't all counted yet, but I'd say that one candidate for a prognosticator would be me, you asshole (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=91576&pagenumber=2).

I said,

The particulars are abhorrent, but we should not lose the lesson in the distasteful details. Overwhelming violence works, and it may be the only thing that works. We now have the ability to focus our overwhelming violence against the small number of people whom we seek, sparing most of those who are not closely associated with them. Yes, we should minimize collateral damage, but we should terminate our enemies with extreme, public, personal prejudice in a most fear-inspiring way. This is what war is, and we must show that we fight wars for keeps--and the losers lose badly.

To do this, we need the support of the sane part of the world, of course. But we also need to teach the Islamic world, which may or may not meet my definition of sane, that when we are attacked, our enemies are not safe anywhere, and anyone who gives them solace is endangered.

This is, in my opinion, the only way to reduce the viability of terrorism. Anything we do beyond this point is going to reinforce the hatred for America that the Islamic world already harbors unless we can make them respect us. The only way I can see to earn that respect is to hold forth the promise that engaging the United States will result in a radical reversal of fortune. Only then will the niceties of diplomacy and trade hold any weight.


Do you remember what you said, dodger?

Sofa. that would sound better in German.

I'll ride out now. Just remember that my horse fucked you.

[Cervaise]

Although I'm sympathetic to the general tenor of elucidator's original position (until he went totally off the rails and into la-la land), to wit: we shouldn't start celebrating until we're absolutely sure things are going as well as they seem to be, I want to observe that Sofa King just nailed him to the wall with a flaming speargun. Ker-SLAM!

Nicely done, and based on the utter incomprehensibility of e's last couple of posts above, well deserved. :tips hat:

[Shodan]

gobear saith:
The problems we have now are to 1) prevent the renewal of tribal feuds and warlord squabbles that allowed the Taliban in the first place, and 2) to cobble together a coalition Afghan government that will be acceptable to all ethnic groups.


Actually, 1) I don't give a rat's posterior whether or not the Afghanis go back to killing each other for fun and profit, as long as they do not harbor those who kill my countrymen, and
2) there are no such thing.

Provided we dismantle the terrorist training camps and string bin Laden and his ilk up by their unmentionable parts, I rest content with our efforts in Afghanistan. On to the other terrorists of the world, and a big No Thank You to nation building. Let the UN deal with that, if they are so smart.

and

countThoseImpressedWithRTsClass++

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

Shodan: I don't give a rat's posterior whether or not the Afghanis go back to killing each other for fun and profit, as long as they do not harbor those who kill my countrymen

The last time we didn't care about Afghan civil war, we got the Taliban reign of terror, the links with al-Qaeda, and the subsequent events. Maybe next time we should try caring about brokering a more peaceful and stable solution before the situation gets quite so toxic.

[Kimstu]

Sofa King: Overwhelming violence works, and it may be the only thing that works. We now have the ability to focus our overwhelming violence against the small number of people whom we seek, sparing most of those who are not closely associated with them.

There is certainly some truth in this, but I'm not sure that the current Afghan situation is an example of it. Last I heard, the bombings had killed maybe 1500 Afghanis, of which fewer than 100 were solidly identified as al-Qaeda members. Most of that "small number of people whom we seek", including the most-wanted bin Laden, are apparently still alive and well.

But we also need to teach the Islamic world, which may or may not meet my definition of sane, that when we are attacked, our enemies are not safe anywhere, and anyone who gives them solace is endangered.

Teaching that lesson will be useless, and even strongly counterproductive, unless we can also teach that (1) our enemies have no just cause to resent and attack us and (2) we do not attack those who are not our enemies. Otherwise, many people will feel it their duty to fight us, whatever the risk to themselves---and they have given ample evidence that risk will not necessarily deter them.

[Derleth]

I would like to take this chance to eat my own words. I predicted this would be akin to the Pacific Theater in WWII, with US soldiers taking horrible losses in cave-hopping campaigns. I predicted a decades-long war with a constant erosion at our liberties, with groups like the ACLU becoming marginalized and, perhaps, banned by an increasingly paranoid and ultra-patriotic government. And I predicted that more planes would crash, this time in the Midwest and near airbases in the Southwest.

I was wrong, and I've never been so happy about that.

Kabul has fallen to our allies. Konduz has fallen to our allies. We are winning with a speed comparable to the Gulf War. And the Taliban, once believed to be a highly-motivated, extremely well dug-in fighting force on a par with the Imperial Japanese and the Viet Cong, has been proven to be, well, a bunch of pussies.

Free Afghanistan in our time!

:D

[Milossarian]

* I'd like to think this was the second time RT was completely wrong. (He knows what I'm talking about, I'm sure.) :) But classy of you to make this thread.

* I was never doubting that the course the U.S. military was on in Afghanistan, if not perfect, was at least necessary.

And I think this is further proof of the soundness of The Powell Doctrine, as practiced in the Gulf War - bomb your enemy to the point of insanity first, then troops. At that point, they're surrendering to CNN crews.

The military objectives the U.S. has accomplished over the last decade, with American soldier casualties numbering only into three digits, is amazing. (Knock on wood.)

We still haven't found and killed bin Laden yet, though. We still haven't had a major round up of high-level al-Qaeda members. We are far from out of the woods. But it's nice to see the despicable Taliban (with the exception of a city or two) squashed in Afghanistan.

* I did some admonishing in GD of the people hand-wringing over how terribly the war was going because it had been four weeks and we weren't having a ticker-tape parade in New York yet. So I will allow myself one or two pats on the back.

* Those sights of the jubilation in liberated Afghan cities were quite a juxtaposition from what we saw for the previous month, weren't they? If you went solely by the media up till then, you'd think all we were doing was slaughtering innocents. Even the UN presence in Afghanistan was acting like a propaganda wing for the Taliban.

I couldn't help but think, though, that were it not for the Taliban harboring OBL, they would likely still be oppressing those women and others, with little meaningful opposition from the West. That's a scary and sad thought.

* The ability of a couple of you to tortuously maneuver around giving the Bush Administration credit is positively laughable. Rock on, Dweezil and Moon Unit!

* Programs! Get your programs early! Be the first ones in line to criticize the upcoming Iraq campaign!

* The Redskins aren't as good at being sucky as the Lions. HA! Take THAT!

[Sofa King]

I have no qualms at all with your observations, Kimstu.

[wring]

Originally posted by Milossarian
* Those sights of the jubilation in liberated Afghan cities were quite a juxtaposition from what we saw for the previous month, weren't they? If you went solely by the media up till then, you'd think all we were doing was slaughtering innocents. Even the UN presence in Afghanistan was acting like a propaganda wing for the Taliban.
let us not forget the film footage of those dancing in the streets after 9/11. Point being - film footage released to news media, especially from places where freedom of speech/press are not necessarily big on the old agenda, are exceptionally shitty ways to figure out the real 'mood' of the people there.

I couldn't help but think, though, that were it not for the Taliban harboring OBL, they would likely still be oppressing those women and others, with little meaningful opposition from the West. That's a scary and sad thought. and what's more, had the attacks of 9/11 not been so universally/globally condemned (and obviously condemnable), we wouldn't be there now.

I hope that we will have learned, the lessons Kimstu points out.

* The Redskins aren't as good at being sucky as the Lions. HA! Take THAT! Feign indifference to football. It's worked for me for years. (go figure our household, I'm a lifelong MI resident, he's a lifelong Redskins fan. We'll be watching Heidi tomorrow)

I hope this is the end, but since our military is sending in more troops, and I'm still hearing that they're cautioning for a long haul, I fear the conclusion that 'this will be over before Christmas' is premature.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Kimstu
The last time we didn't care about Afghan civil war, we got the Taliban reign of terror, the links with al-Qaeda, and the subsequent events. Maybe next time we should try caring about brokering a more peaceful and stable solution before the situation gets quite so toxic.Absolutely not. The more you get involved in brokering things, the more you are giving one side or another reason to hate you. The less brokering you do, the better. The reasons for the problems the US has have to do with all the brokering that the US does in the Middle East.

Of course, if you can actually solve an international problem, by all means do it. But many problems are intractable to one degree or another, and often the only thing accomplished by "brokering" things is that now you're a part of the problem. (Beyond this, it is often difficult for foreign observers to fully grasp the nuances of local issues).

I do agree that in this particular instance, the US has some degree of moral obligation to do right, as it created the present situation. But as a general rule that is a bad idea, and even in this situation, the US should avoid involvement as much as possible.

I agree with wring's comments about the "sights of jubilation" (though not about the comparison to the 9/11 celebrations). It is my impression that it is standard procedure for people to greet conquering armies with jubilation. This is partly because it is a good idea to appease the victors. But also because both sides generally tend to have supporters. The ones who dance around in the streets are those who support the regime in control. The other ones hide.

[Essured]

Not that you probably give a rats arse, but I just have to let you know, that you, RTFirefly have careened up the ladder and are now in my all time top ten posters !

Good on ya ! :)

[TVeblen]

Congrats and a deep bow of respect, RT. Humbling how earnest reading, thought, etc. can blow into so much chaff by actual events. Chalk me up as a "worst case scenario" worrywort who's been suprised and cautiously pleased that the initial military phase in Afghanistan has gone as well as it has.

It's far from over; the hardcores are scattering into boltholes where they can--and probably will--dig in for a protracted guerilla war. Unfortunately factional war is a way of life in that poor country. I too am wary of the public jubliation. Don't mean to be a cynic but celebrating the exodus of one faction under intensive western military pressure is a far cry from a basis for peace among other factions. We're vacuuming one player off the board but plenty others are jostling for position. We're temporary (I ferverntly hope); they're the real players.

Maybe I AM a cynic. I just--faintly--hope that our diplomatic wisdom is better than it has been in the past. Our track record in the region sucks, i.e. "the enemy of my enemy" often ISN'T a friend, just someone sensible enough to play off opposing powers for their own ends. We've been remarkably heavy-handed, not to mention dense, and thereby managed to offend and alienate a good chunk of the Islamic world.

I agree w/ IzzyR: the less brokering we do, the better. (Though possibly for different reasons. Not trying to impute reasoning onto him; just spinning off thoughts.)

Veb
Whose powers of foresight are nil

[elucidator]

Do you remember what you said, dodger?

Sofa. that would sound better in German.

I'll ride out now. Just remember that my horse fucked you. [/B]

Better in German? Clausewitz. Kissinger. The very idea of realpolitik.

Dodger? Guilty, I suppose. See nothing whatsoever to be asamed of. My cousin went, came back, asked me for the number of the nearest VVAW (that's VietNam Veterans Against the War). He didn't know, had to ask me.

You seem to pride yourself on your head-headed realsim.

Think it over. Is it really worth one hundred Marines (whose Mama's didn't intend to raise Marines) to bring home the head of OBL? What will we do with it? We could attach it to London Bridge, I suppose. Its in Arizona now.

For one thing, they're not smart enough to be afraid of us. When someone tells them that Israel did 9-11, they believe it! If someone else tells them that Allah will destroy America, they believe that as well.

Finally, as I hate fear, I hate thugs, those who practice fear. If I have a dogma, this is it: no good comes of fear.

[Sofa King]

Good lord. Of course it's worth the lives of a hundred Marines to take out someone who is actively advocating the deaths as many of the 250,000,000 of us that he can talk others into killing.

elucidator, pal, I admire your commitment to the concept of peace, I really do. You've apparently committed yourself to it for longer than I have lived, and that, too, is admirable.

We need your voice.

But the positions you espouse are completely incomprehensible to me, if not to most of us. They are, on the surface, disturbingly contradictory.

It is difficult for me to respect your concept of realpolitik when it appears to incorporate all of the nastiness and toothy pragmatism of real life so long as it doesn't involve your own ass and whatever it is you need to continue your own existence. That's the problem I've had with you in the past, and right here in this thread.

If you think you have a solution, bro, you need to refine your message. You need an argument outside of Mark Twain's cynical evisceration of humanity in general, and you need to step off of the platitudes and start dealing with the practicalities of what is happening right now.

There are new ideas, of that I am certain. And there are good, old ones like that of Thoreau, Ghandi, and King. Maybe it's time for you to come up with a message that can accurately deal with the real politics that exist right now, and try to feed us the solutions.

As it is, however, I see you simply as the voice of unfocused dissent. Abhorrence of war is something that is ingrained in all of us, but not so well that it isn't overridden, every day, or so it seems. How do we put it into practice?

The answer is your very namesake. I look forward to a cogent, considered answer.

[PhiloVance]

A class act. :cool:

[elucidator]

Sofa King, let us review a few things, all right?

I originally chimed in talking to RT, to the effect that he shouldn't be so concerned with being wrong in ths instance. No body could have reasonably forseen with what ease the Taliban are being defeated. As any reading of history will instruct, chaos, disorder, and the Unintended Consequence are in the very nature of warfare.

The situation presented by a ground war in Afghanistan was fraught with peril. At the time, it was being presented to us by every "expert" as a virtual certainty. This has proved not to be the case, and all to the good. The next best thing to no war at all is a short one. But no one expected it, and that was my "challenge": did anyone post then that they honestly expected the outcome to be as swift as it is apparently progressing.

Short: nobody should blame themselves for not seeing it, nobody could have seen it. It would be like predicting Custer's glorious victory at Little Big Horn.

At this point, you insisted on making my personal history somehow relevent. You have some problem with that, but I submit that is your problem, not mine. The tone of your most recent post is civil enough, so I will take your question as sincerely put.


"It is difficult for me to respect your concept of realpolitik .....etc"

When I use that term, I am alluding to an extreme in world-view, the kind of cold-blooded political calculation embodied by Bismarck. By no means is this meant to imply approval for that sort of heartless death-algebra.


...so long as it doesn't involve your own ass and whatever it is you need to continue your own existence. That's the problem I've had with you in the past, and right here in this thread....

You cannot fail to know that this is a deliberate insult. If, as you seem to imply, you seek a civil dialogue and an honest explanation, it won't happen again. For my part, I feel no need whatever to apologize for my life and my decisions. I ain't Ghandi, you ain't either. I propose to leave it at that. Of course, however many resolutions are passed by the sheep supporting vegetarianism, its all rather moot as long as the wolf is of a diffent persuasion.

Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" is one of the most scathingly brilliant short pieces of satire ever, period. The target of the piece is the horror embodied by the piety of war, the obscene blasphemy of praying to a just and loving Father for favor in war. Truly savage satire, like Twain's, springs from different sources than mere cyncism can command.


...you need to step off of the platitudes and start dealing with the practicalities of what is happening right now...

Maybe it's time for you to come up with a message that can accurately deal with the real politics that exist right now, and try to feed us the solutions.


Jeez, gimme a break, will ya? Just a while ago you had me in league with the Father of Lies, now I will disappoint you if I don't reveal The Answer from on high?

I am not a pacifist. I believe that violence is acceptable, even commendable, in defense of oneself and in defense of the helpless. I fully supported our intrustion into Bosnia and regret only that it wasn't done much sooner. I doubt I have ever felt so patriotic, and if they had put out a call for middle aged layabouts, I would have cheerfully thrown in my lot. (Easy to say, of course: you'll just have to take it or leave it.)

On the gripping hand, our military adventure in Grenada, Operation Urgent Fury, was a numbing display of Amerrogance.


How do we put it into practice?


Exhibiting a grave reluctance to resort to military force would make an excellent start. Which was not shown by our leaders. There was never any serious doubt that bombs were going to fall. Perhaps we might start by not shouting down the voices of caution and moderation? Perhaps by refraining from suggesting that those voices spring from ignoble persons?

"Make no mistake about it": if we cannot rid ourselves of war, we will die. Our grandchildren will live in a world without war, or they won't live at all. The trouble with Really Big Facts, they all sound like platitudes when boiled down.


I look forward to a cogent, considered answer

That would take too long. This will have to do.

As M. Twain once wrote, "I would have sent you a shorter letter, but didn't have the time"

Now, if Arty Firefly is quite surfeited with public self-castigation, perhaps we can let this thread drift off to its resting place.

[Sofa King]

Not quite.

Thank you for the explanation, elucidator. I feel I understand you a little better than I did.

[Milossarian]

elucidator:

Exhibiting a grave reluctance to resort to military force would make an excellent start. Which was not shown by our leaders. There was never any serious doubt that bombs were going to fall. Perhaps we might start by not shouting down the voices of caution and moderation? Perhaps by refraining from suggesting that those voices spring from ignoble persons?
So, it was not what they did, but how they felt about doing it?

If they would have sucked on their lower lip, and had a more empathetic look in their eyes, and did the exact same thing, that would be better?

You honestly don't think anyone around the table weighed a non-military option, and deemed it unworkable in this particular case? You've all but admitted the same yourself!

And I think the Bush-led effort in Afghanistan has been historically empathetic to that country's citizens, while accomplishing a war aim.

"Make no mistake about it": if we cannot rid ourselves of war, we will die. Our grandchildren will live in a world without war, or they won't live at all.
Replace "war" with "highly-organized, well-funded terrorist networks who have decided they want Americans dead - men, women and children," and I wholeheartedly agree.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Milossarian
The military objectives the U.S. has accomplished over the last decade, with American soldier casualties numbering only into three digits, is amazing. (Knock on wood.)
...
* The ability of a couple of you to tortuously maneuver around giving the Bush Administration credit is positively laughable.

"The last decade", hmm? Am I the only one noticing Milo doing some tortuous maneuvering of his own there?


Look, folks, it's still way too damn early to declare success or admit failure or claim to have been right or even to admit having been wrong. Any predictions any of us have made have been guesswork based on probabilities - and that includes Powell and Cheney. There's nothing to apologize for or gloat over yet.

This is not over, or even close. The specific individuals we want dead are still not dead, or even in known locations. The bodies are still being recovered. The battle for hearts and minds in the region has barely begun. True, a set of warlords we have some influence over has replaced another, and so far so good there, but making that change has always been a desirable side effect, not a primary goal.

Everybody chill out for now, m'kay?

[Milossarian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Milossarian
The military objectives the U.S. has accomplished over the last decade, with American soldier casualties numbering only into three digits, is amazing. (Knock on wood.)
...
* The ability of a couple of you to tortuously maneuver around giving the Bush Administration credit is positively laughable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The last decade", hmm? Am I the only one noticing Milo doing some tortuous maneuvering of his own there?
I give full credit for the above to Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush, and their military leaders. And the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who had a role in the strategizing.

In case that wasn't self-evident for some of you.

[Ramsmilk]

Funny how a couple of days makes all these comments seem dated.
What is it about this war that we all have such short attention spans with our own principles?