** 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.
**
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
**
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.
**
Replace “war” with “highly-organized, well-funded terrorist networks who have decided they want Americans dead - men, women and children,” and I wholeheartedly agree.
“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.
**
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.
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?
