The US and NATO have been in Afghanistan for about eight years now, so let me know when the Russians are going to start doing that. I suppose it takes them a decade or so to get started arming these people.
If you agree that the article is isolationist, and I agree it is isolationist, then the word “isolationist” isn’t an ad hominem, it is a perfectly valid description.
I am not a pacifist, but that doesn’t make me a neo-conservative. Funny how those who want to blind themselves to the world outside our borders have to toss around insults like “war party” and “sheeple.”
Originally, to get the infidel military out of the land of Mecca. Bin Laden has been clear about that all along. But the movement has become much larger and more diffuse, and now has about as defined an agenda as the teabaggers do.
Almost by definition, “the War on Terror” can not be won. Same reasoning why the War on Drugs can never be won.
Bush should have known that and the phrase should never have become popular but there you are. What’s needed is clearly defined goals for whatever current and future actions the US undertakes abroad. The Iraq war clearly had very little to do with terrorism, though there could have been some kind of mission that would have the support of the UN (even if hesistantly) but US civil security was never part of that war until Iraq went to hell and AQ moved in, but even now the effect of AQ on the US per se is probably minimal.
If the Iraq war was founded on some achievable goal or if it had never been started, Afghanistan might in a much better situation right now, but I don’t know. It could have.
“Homeland security” is a law enforcement matter, and can’t be secured by military means. The best you can do for that, aside from policing is to try and reduce the kind of enemies you make as a country. This clashes with the US need to enforce freedom and democracy in other countries (if you’re willing to believe that that’s what the US is doing).
What I’m trying to say is that what the country needs (as far as I can see as an outside) is just clearly defined goals:
Foreign aggression against the US will not be tolerated. Military actions to counter that will be limited to removing capability to act on the agression and based on real intelligence.
Whatever lofty goals the US has to help the oppressed of the world. With an emphasis on doing so with the support of the UN and with the understanding that an invading military cannot build a democracy on its own.
1 is easily reachable as long as you don’t mess with North Korea.
2 can get you in to a world of trouble if you don’t plan and sell it well.
I disagree. The War on Terror can be won. All we have to do is stop being afraid. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
The criminals who want to scare us… are a completely separate issue. Deal with them like pirates. But there is no War on Piracy. They are simply enemies to all nations.
Well, just to be precise, there was never a declared War On Piracy™, but there certainly was (and still is actually) a war against piracy, and a lot of treaties and naval maritime law tied up on the subject.
Actually, perhaps a better way would have been (or still is) to do something similar against terrorism as what was done against piracy. And just accept that you can’t get em all…but when you do, you come down on them like the wrath of the gods.
BenLaden is not Al Qeada . If he dies tomorrow it will still go on. He may already be dead. We have created enemies, lots of enemies. We claim to be at “war” against a tactic. Terrorism is not a place or a people. How do you know when you win? You don’t ,this is just so stupid.
Mutallab was recruited in London. I suppose we are going to shoot some drones in the neighborhood, perhaps a bombing raid . I hope the people of London will understand.
Until we’re intellectually honest with ourselves and admit that we are in a clash of cultures, “winning” isn’t an outcome that is even available to us.
The truth that we refuse to see, is that our enemies have a single common denominator, and that is they are radical islamists. It’s not a matter of rich or poor, educated or ignorant, politically disenfranchised or from a thriving democracy. A quick look at the majority of the major players shows us that they’ve hailed from a variety of different nations, many of which were democracies, and the majority of these people have ranged from educated middle-class to privileged.
The idea that we’re at war with people who want nothing more than a means to support their families, educate their children, and live in peace free of interference from “Western Imperialists”, simply is not true.
That said, the average “Taliban” on the battlefield is just a hillbilly who’ll fight for the side that 1) pays, and 2) he thinks is going to win in the long term. He’s seen many foreign armies come and go, and he’s not going to throw in with NATO, have NATO lose interest and go home, then have to deal with the repercussions of having been a collaborator. He doesn’t give two shits about democracy, whether or not his daughter learns how to read, or the global effects of poppy production. He just wants to beat his wife, fuck his goat, and smoke a little hash, in relative peace. He pisses off ISAF and he’ll get punched around a little and spend a few weeks in detainment. He pisses off the Taliban, and he gets to star in a low budget decapitation video. The enemy is mostly a whole lot of farmers and goatfuckers who’ve chosen the side that they think is the lesser of two evils, surrounding a small core of bona-fide mujahideen. As with Iraq, we need to kill the core of true believers, and show all the goatfuckers that they picked the wrong team. We do that, they’ll lay down their RPG-7’s and go home. If winning means getting the fuck out of Afghanistan, that’s how we win.
Some well planned assassinations in the ISI would help a lot too.