Pfeh. Sometimes I like him, other times not. This time not.
Afghanistan is again being lost to the West, even as a coalition force of more than 5,000 troops launches a major spring offensive in the south of the country. The insurgency may drag on for many months or several years, but the tide has turned. Like Alexander's Greeks, the British and the Soviets before the US-led coalition, inferior Afghan insurgents have forced far superior Western military forces on to a path that leads toward evacuation. What has caused this scenario to occur repeatedly throughout history?
In the most general sense, the defeat of Western forces in Afghanistan occurs repeatedly because the West has not developed an appreciation for the Afghans' toughness, patience, resourcefulness and pride in their history. Although foreign forces in Afghanistan are always more modern and better armed and trained, they are continuously ground down by the same kinds of small-scale but unrelenting hit-and-run attacks and ambushes, as well as by the country's impenetrable topography that allows the Afghans to retreat, hide, and attack another day. 'continuously gunned down'? I guess he doesn't follow "TerroristDeathWatch" or even be able to add correctly? I mean, they do publish casualty figures and they are way-one-sided.
One thing that's different about our invasion of Afghanistan is that we've largely divided the country and have a good number of the ethnic groups working with us. This is really a Pashtun revolt; the other tribes in the north and west like us (at least as long as we spread money and guns around). We haven't united the country against us the way the Brits did in the 19th Century or the Soviets did in the 1970s.
The new twist to this pattern faced by the Soviets and now by the US-led coalition is the safe haven the Afghans have found in Pakistan. This is the basic answer to why history has found so many defeated foreign armies littering what Rudyard Kipling called Afghanistan's plains. Total misreading of history as well as a complete misunderstanding of current military conduct.
The latest episode in this historical tradition has several distinguishing characteristics. First, Western forces - while better armed and technologically superior - are far too few in number. Today's Western force totals about 40,000 troops. After subtracting support troops and North Atlantic Treaty Organization contingents that are restricted to non-combat, reconstruction roles - building schools, digging wells, repairing irrigation systems - the actual combat force that can be fielded on any given day is far smaller, and yet has the task of controlling a country the size of Texas that is home to some of the highest mountains on Earth. We only need to kill the enemy.
And we have a fair number in the Afghan National Army, which is a better than expected army for the region.
Second, the West underestimated the strength of the Taliban and its acceptability to the Afghan people. When invading in 2001, the West's main targets were al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Omar and their senior lieutenants, and because the operation specifically targeted a group of top leaders, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was not sealed, and so not only did the pursued troika escape, so did most of their foot soldiers. The Afghani people are frightened by the talibunnies.
He can't be serious in thinking that the Taliban was ever 'acceptable' to the Afghan people -- the real question is, acceptable compared to whom? The Talibunnies got to power by promising to end the civil war, which they did. They then went around beating women, regulating the length of beards and banning music and kites. If the choice was 'Taliban or civil war bloodbath', then the Taliban were more accepted. If the choice was 'Taliban or rebuild a reasonable country in which you're left alone', the choice is obvious. At least to the Afghans.
Those escapees are now returning in large numbers, and are better armed, trained and organized than on their exit. It seems likely, in fact, that the force being fielded by the Taliban and their allies - al-Qaeda, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, among others - is at least equal in number to the coalition. Better armed? With more ammo? Newer AK-47s? T90 tanks? Please explain.
It's the new Taliban attack helicopters -- reeeeeaally skeeery.
Furthermore, the membership of the force is not just a few Taliban remnants and otherwise mostly new recruits; rather, they are the veteran fighters that the coalition failed to kill in 2001 and early 2002. The Taliban forces are not new; they are the seasoned, experienced mujahideen who are - like former president Richard Nixon in 1972 - tanned, rested and ready to wage the jihad. 'Failed to kill is '01 and '02', huh? How about all those killed in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '-7? From what I read, their tradecraft is stricly jihadi, i.e. absolutely no real military skills, but only a mastery of brutality and willingness to die. There are very few 'seasoned' talibunnies left from 2001, I am sure.
Western leaders in Afghanistan are also finding that many Afghans are not unhappy to see the Taliban returning. Much of the reason lies in the fact that the US-led coalition put the cart before the horse. Before the 2001 invasion, the Taliban regime was far from loved, but it was appreciated for the law-and-order regime it harshly enforced across most of Afghanistan. Although women had to stay home, few girls could go to school and the odd limb was chopped off for petty offenses, most rural Afghans could count on having security for themselves, their families and their farms and/or businesses. 'Odd limb'? Well, they should be able to accept that!. 'Security' is defined as: a state of NOT having fanatical mohammedeans trying to kill them
The odd limb, the occasional wife or sister executed in a soccer stadium, hey, who's complaining about a hard life?
The coalition's victory shattered the Taliban's law-and-order regime and, instead of immediately installing a replacement - for which there were not enough troops in any event - coalition leaders moved on to elections, implementing women's rights and creating a parliament, while the bulk of rural Afghanistan returned to the anarchy of banditry and warlordism that had prevailed before the first Taliban era. Must.stop.now. He called the Taliban 'law and order'. Amazing
To borrow from Orwell, you have to be an 'expert' to make up stuff like this -- no ordinary person would be so stoopid.
Making matters worse was the fact that many of the actions the coalition did successfully undertake - especially elections and women's rights - added to the misery of rural Afghans by appearing to be attacks on millennia-old social, tribal and religious mores. As Afghans were faced with the reality of being in the thrall of criminals, and perceived their culture to be under attack, it is not surprising that the Taliban are finding at least a tepid welcome home. The welcome is only fear, asshat.
So we should have left the women as cattle and breeding stock, left the kids ignorant, and let a small bunch of thugs remain in charge, so as to preserve a millenium-old culture. Got it.
The third problem for the coalition is the amount of time it has spent in Afghanistan. Now in the sixth year of occupation, Western leaders are confronted not only by a stronger-than-2001 enemy, but also by the resurgent insularity and anti-foreign inclinations of the Afghan people.
While not precisely xenophobic, ...
... no, not 'precisely' ...
... the Afghans are historically hospitable and protective to a fault of visiting foreigners whom they have welcomed - witness their treatment of bin Laden - but have precious little tolerance for foreigners who, by intention or default, seek to rule them. Today, the Afghans perceive themselves to be doubly ruled, and doubly badly ruled, by foreigners: the US-led coalition and the pro-Western, nominally Islamic, detribalized and corruption-ridden government of President Hamid Karzai. I think the Taliban government was bribed by UBL and the people has no say in the matter, doofus.
This perception of a "foreign yoke", along with spreading warfare, little reconstruction and endemic banditry, has created a fertile nationalistic environment for the Taliban and their allies to exploit. 'Nationalist' Afghanis? Shit, they are just trying to stay alive.
If by 'nationalist' he means the ones who want to create an islamic emirate and allow all sorts of islamic 'brothers' to attack the west, ...
Finally, the US-led coalition now faces the full brunt of a new era that was started by the prolonged and brutal Soviet occupation and its consequent jihad. Long on the periphery of Islam - almost a backwater - Afghanistan became part of the Muslim world's consciousness during the Afghan-Soviet war of the 1980s.
Not just because the Soviets were infidels, but because they were brutal infidels.
The war focused Muslims, and especially Arab Muslims, on the plight of their Afghan brethren and prompted them to send large amounts of money and arms, as well as fighters to support the mujahideen. The Afghans repaid this assistance by defeating the Red Army, thereby giving the Islamic world its first victory over "infidel" Western forces in several hundred years. The Afghans' victory was the turning point, and the totem for the maturing of a well-defined worldwide Islamist militant movement. This is true.
Today, many non-Afghan Muslims again perceive that the Afghans are being occupied and tortured by another infidel entity, the US-led coalition. This is especially the case because the Afghan war is occurring in tandem with the Iraq war, which broadens the sense that all of Islam is under infidel attack. This is mainly due to the seething mohammedeans and their supporters in the media.
Except that what he claims isn't true. The northern tribes took on the Soviets at least as well, if not better, than the Pashtuns, and you don't see Muslim Uzbeks and Tajiks fighting us today. They understand that they have it good now for the first time in over thirty years.
As a result, the flow from abroad of funds, arms and fighters to the Afghan insurgents - while probably not as large as the flow to the Iraqi resistance - is substantial, and can be seen in the improving combat performance of the Taliban-led forces confronting coalition forces. If you take out the PakiWakis, the rest amounts to a few platoons. ISI=Talibunnies=alQ.
And that's a key point, because this is a fight being waged by Pashtuns on both sides of the border.
Also suggesting this connection are the successful efforts to share expertise across the two theaters, with Iraq war skills in suicide attacks and improvised explosive devices being brought to bear in Afghanistan, while the Afghans' well-honed skills only when they had US Stingers in attacking helicopters are emerging as part of the Iraqi insurgents' toolkit. So jihadis are able to mastermind the complex tasks of uploading and downloading files on the internet. He should know this shit. WAY to easy to fisk.
The future for the West in Afghanistan is bleak, and it is made more discouraging by the fact that much of the West's defeat will be self-inflicted because it did not adequately study the lessons of history.
We succeeded in 2001-2 precisely because we studied the lessons of history. We moved fast and light. We kept our footprint small. We employed Afghan tribes as allies and let them do the bulk of the ground fighting. We double-dealed and split alliances. We worked ourselves in with the locals. We did everything the Soviets couldn't possibly do.
"Efforts to occupy and rule [Afghanistan] usually ended in disaster," wrote eminent British historian Sir John Keegan in The Daily Telegraph in September 2001. "But straightforward punitive expeditions ... were successful on more than one occasion.
"It should be remembered that, in 1878, the British did succeed in bringing the Afghans to heel [with a punitive expedition]. Lord Roberts' march from 'Kabul to Kandahar' was one of [Queen] Victoria's most celebrated wars. The Russians, moreover, foolishly did not try to punish rogue Afghans, as Roberts did, but to rule the country. Since Afghanistan is ungovernable, the failure of their efforts was predictable ... I can dig it. New, more open RoE all around, please!
"America should not seek to change the regime, but simply to find and kill the terrorists. It should do so without pity." WOW! I almost have a sexual reaction to that! Niiiice.
That IS the key. A merciless hunt with no bounds. Everyone warned that we will try and limit collateral damage, but woldn't it jut be better for you to make sure there are NO jihadis anywhere near. If you do that, we won't replay Sherman's march to the sea on you. Got it, punk?
#1
And we have a significant amount of allies in the tribes.
Rudyard Kipling Feh
This right here
"Making matters worse was the fact that many of the actions the coalition did successfully undertake - especially elections and women's rights - added to the misery of rural Afghans by appearing to be attacks on millennia-old social, tribal and religious mores"
#2
That quote above , shows were he is coming from..."the millennia-old social, tribal and religious mores" was the Taliban. Apparently they are the ideal we shouldn't mess with or we are doomed.
Too much time in country, he started to believe their crap.
#3
Let us not forget, this guy actually headed up the OBL unit at one time. Hard to believe guys like this can get any intel work at all, much less important work. Confidence in non-technical analytic work at that outfit remains extremely low.
#4
V: Let us not forget, this guy actually headed up the OBL unit at one time. Hard to believe guys like this can get any intel work at all, much less important work. Confidence in non-technical analytic work at that outfit remains extremely low.
Maybe they picked him because he is an expert on failure, being one himself.
#5
NATO is barely fighting the Taliban. They have surrounded most towns where the terrorists have support, and are aiding Afghan troops in pacification. Allied combat deaths have been minimal. The Asian Times shouldn't be printing propaganda. Rural Pashtos want us out so that they can run their drug operations without being impeded. Again, over 90% of opium production is cultivated in Helmond and Pashto districts. Most of the rendering operations are being conducted there.
#6
The more I read from the Asian Times, the more I think the Asian Times is all about propaganda. Might be over-generalizing.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
03/12/2007 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I actually just got this quote in an e-mail, and it seems to fit quite nicely here:
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
-Robert E. Lee, 1863
Posted by: BA ||
03/12/2007 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
No mention of the Brutal Afghan Winter(tm)? How disappointing.
Spook86 at In from the Cold takes on the Chinese J-10 versus F-22 Raptor debate. Worth a read not just for the aircraft specifics but also for the strategic implications.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/12/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A FREEREPUBLIC poster said it best > the J-10 is early F16 Block(s) 10-20?, while USAF F-16's are already beyond Block 50.
Three years after 3/11, the nation remains divided.
Shrouded in white canvas, the memorial commemorating the March 11 terrorists attacks will be unveiled outside Atocha rail station here tomorrow, the third anniversary. Though the exact design is secret, the high glass structure is said to reflect light at different angles in tasteful tribute to the 191 lives extinguished that day.
It will be out of place in Spain. The aftermath of 11M--once eme, as that day is known in Spanish--has been anything but tasteful. If America unified following 9/11, Spain split along sharply sectarian lines within hours of the commuter-train bombings. An election swung from the ruling and favored center-right Popular Party, whose support for the Iraq war the left quickly blamed for inviting terror, lost to the anti-American Socialists. The Islamist architects couldn't have hoped for a better result in striking three days before polling day. But those traumatic events have been followed by others, shifting the course of Spanish history in ways no one then imagined possible.
The emotional legacy of 11M could be better appreciated a day before today's sober ceremony. An angry million or more were expected to march yesterday in Madrid against the sitting government's soft stance toward domestic terrorism. A fortnight ago, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero let a Basque ETA terrorist serve out his reduced sentenced at home. José Ingnacio De Juana Chaos, convicted in the murder of 25 innocent people, had been on hunger strike.
#1
I would like that uninformed Americans didn't write articles about Spain.
El Pais is not merely socialist leaning. It is more like Pravda in times of Stalin. For instance they photoshopped pictures of Saturday demonstartion in order to change the Constitutional Flags into the old flag used in time of Franco.
For instance when he tells that the parliamentary investigation turned into afarce because both sides had traded accusations instead of doing the work. The fact is that it was socialist counterfires against popular party pointing at glaring holes in the official version. Analysis of explosives never done in the trains. Clues popping up inexpectedly of thin air into a zone who had been already researched.
Two examples: teh Skoda mini-van where the islamic tapes were found along with detonators (first clue pointing to islamist authorship) had already been searched by a sniffer dog and hois trainer who found nothing)
Then the phone whose chip led to the first arrests. According to the official version police collected debris and clues in the Alcala de Henares railway station. One of the objects was a backpack weighing thirty pounds. That is not an usaul object into a commuter train. Most commuters carry far smaller wallets. Only the a few people who are going to catch a plane or a long range train would carry something like that. Because it was unusual you would think the policeman who collected it would remind it. Nope. Also you would think he would be quite nervous about possible booby traps and would triple check with the explosives experts that it had been inspected. Nope again. So the bag goes to Alcala police station (agsint judge's orders to move everything to IFEMA) then to IFEMA then back to Alcala to a different police station, remains unsupervised for a time and suddenly aomeone discovers there is bomb in the bag and a cellphone for setting it up except that the wires were disconnected.
That is the official version about the bag who led investigators to the arrests who turned the result of the elections.
ARLINGTON, Va., March 12 (UPI) -- There was a time when proponents of air power were too blunt for their own good. British Air Marshall Hugh Trenchard complained that Billy Mitchell tried "to convert his opponents by killing them." U.S. Gen. Curtis LeMay told a visitor to his Strategic Air Command headquarters that he didn't care what U.S. plans were for nuclear war, because he had his own plan. Former U.S. defense secretary and current Vice President Dick Cheney fired U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Dugan for "poor judgment" in talking too openly with reporters.
Those were the good old days. Today, the U.S. Air Force has become so politically correct that nobody can figure out what it's saying. For instance, in 2005 Air Force leaders issued a revised mission statement, arguing that "our mission is our guiding compass, and it must be clearer than ever before." The statement began, "The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States..." Sovereign options? Sounds like a mission statement for currency traders rather than war-fighters. Whatever happened to Global Reach, Global Power?
I was in the AF for 24 years. We couldn't figure what the mission statements meant either.
Muddled language constantly gets the Air Force in trouble. Two weeks ago, the service responded to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on flaws in the award of a helicopter contract with a statement that said the Air Force "believes it can comply with the intent of the recommendations more narrowly." As Leslie Wayne reported in the New York Times, an Air Force spokesperson was unable to clarify what the statement meant by "narrowly." What it meant was that the service wants to address the sole issue GAO raised -- cost calculation -- rather than holding a whole new competition. So why didn't the Air Force just say that?
The week before, there was another snafu when a remark by Air Force chief of staff Michael Moseley was misinterpreted as signaling support for splitting the contract for future aerial-refueling tankers between two teams. The Air Force actually can't afford to do that unless it gets a billion more dollars per year for the program. What Gen. Moseley meant was that the future refueling fleet would contain more than one type of aircraft, just as it does today. But by failing to correct a reporter's mistake quickly, the service sowed confusion among legislators and investors.
And then there is the case of Boeing's announcement on March 2 that it would have to start shutting down the production line for the C-17 cargo plane because the Air Force had indicated a need for only two more of the planes. You'd never guess from this bleak assessment that on the day it was made, the service was formulating plans to seek dozens more of the planes. For some reason, the Air Force thinks outsiders can read its mind without getting a formal expression of intent.
In fairness to the Air Force, its current chief of staff is more articulate than any of his recent predecessors, and much more committed to telling the air power story clearly in public. But sometimes it seems like he is fighting a service culture that prefers secrecy to securing adequate support for its mission. This is the missing piece in the explanation of why the Navy always seems to get what it wants out of the political system, while the Air Force seems to get nothing but trouble. It's not that the Navy has a better story to tell, it's just that it knows how to tell the story.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/12/2007 13:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/12/2007 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Unfortunately, we're not so lucky with Mrs. Pelosi.
Posted by: Tibor ||
03/12/2007 21:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
IMPO the USAF anticipates being the lead US armed service or controlling service vv GMD, GAD [areospace], and any future SPAWAR [space recce], despite any "jointness" - for me it appears to be getting itself ready for the day when tactical air power and airlift will be handed back to the US Army. Also bear in mind that, at least for the duration of Dubya's tenure, the USDOD is gener proceeding with "privatization" of many traditional or post-Cold War missions-services.
"History will be kind to me," Winston Churchill once said, "for I intend to write it." Indeed, he did. His multiple-volume histories of the two world wars are still widely read, though discounted by professional historians as incomplete and in some ways misleading.
Churchill is not the only politician who has wanted to write the history of his times; most politicians and political operatives want at least to shape the way history views their actions. Some are better at this than others. In the previous century, Democrats did much better at this than Republicans.
Continued on Page 49
Just when President Bush seemed to have beaten back the Congressional defeatists on Iraq, along comes his own Justice Department to undermine some hard-won antiterror policy gains. The incompetence at Justice is getting to be expensive for Presidential power.
The latest episode involves the FBI's failure to adequately supervise the issuance of so-called "national security letters," or administrative subpoenas for counterterrorism cases that don't require a judge's approval. Congress authorized these letters in 1986 and their scope was expanded as part of the 2001 Patriot Act. An Inspector General's audit has found that some of these subpoenas were improperly issued, and that the FBI lacked the means even to monitor how many were issued, leading to misreporting to Congress.
Continued on Page 49
#1
It's a simple equation. If you give a cop special powers for a special occasion, OF COURSE he will want to use them for run-of-the-mill stuff.
99.99% of our federal law enforcement people would never use and never needed most of the post 9-11 Patriot Act anti-terrorism security laws. But they got them anyway, so they figure why not use them for everything else?
#2
Mr. Iglesias was later sacked and he told Congress last week that he felt "leaned on" and "pressured" by Mr. Domenici's call.
Im sure the former head of FEMA felt a little pressure too for his performance during Katrina, as the heads of Walter Reed and the Army Secretary for theirs recently.
Mr. Iglesias office has bungled corruption investigations in New Mexico. The Donks have owned and operated the state for generations. It rivals Old Mexico for the level of corruption. To steal a phrase, its a target rich environment. The Trunks are not as corrupt because theyve never had the opportunity. So, if the corrupt politician is a Donk its because the Donks have all the means.
In six years his office has only gotten two names, both former treasurers. The statehood act dictated that all revenue from mining had to be invested not spent. So the state has accumulated billions in investments [making NM part of Big Oil in the process]. Both treasurers pressured and collected contributions to their political funds from brokers for the states investments. The federal AGs office got one with a plea bargain. However, even with his testimony and video showing the second treasurer taking the money, they got a hung jury in the first and all charges rendered innocent save for one count in the retrial. In the sentencing, the judge observed that the convicted treasurer was probably guilty of a number of the previous charges. No leadership, no skill, no delivery. If this is all Mr. Iglesia can deliver, he certainly should be collecting a check elsewhere.
The Democrats' road to the White House in 2008 runs through Congress, and it is uphill all the way. The last time either party captured the White House two years after wresting control of both House and Senate in midterm elections was in 1920. Democrats who think that it is their turn to expand their pet programs and please their core constituencies have forgotten how quickly congressional heavy-handedness can revive the president's party.
Right now, President Bush is a lame duck and an albatross. His approval ratings are in the 30s, the GOP has splintered, the economy is sputtering and the public believes that the Iraq war is hopeless. But just in case you think this is more of the usual WaPo whining, check this out!
However, such troubles are not unusual for a president whose party has just lost control of Congress.
It is far too soon to count the Republicans out -- or even bet against them. At this point in 1995, President Bill Clinton trailed Bob Dole in polls, and only 55 percent of Democrats even wanted him to run for a second term. The parties that lost control of one or both houses in 1994, 1986, 1954 and 1946 all won the White House two years later.
Early in 1987, to pick a powerful recent example, the Republicans' prospects looked even bleaker than they do today. Democrats had just recaptured the Senate and retained the House, and polls showed that the public had more confidence in them than in the Reagan administration to reduce the federal deficit. The Iran-contra hearings investigating the secret sale of arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages and the funneling of the profits to the Nicaraguan contras were the big story, and looked ominous enough to derail Vice President George H.W. Bush's White House aspirations. Then in 1988, Bush handily dispatched Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic nominee.
But this wasn't a new story. In 1946, President Harry S. Truman was lower in the polls after his midterm defeat than were George W. Bush, Clinton or Ronald Reagan after their midterm losses. Truman was reelected in 1948.
Presidential parties have also done well in the legislative battles that have followed every midterm takeover since World War II. Presidents and their parties recover after midterm wipeouts because, as Clinton had to remind people in 1995, "The Constitution makes me relevant."
The president's party begins to recover when he wields his veto pen -- especially if he can establish his relevance as a defender of the center against the other party's excesses.
Each time since 1948 that one party has retaken one or more houses of Congress and then two years later lost the race for the White House, that party has scapegoated its candidate for the party's sins. But in each case, the congressional party placed onerous burdens on the candidates. Would Truman have won without the "do-nothing Congress" to run against in 1948? Would anyone have known about the Dukakis-Willie Horton episode if the congressional Democrats had produced a defensible record on crime in 1988? Or if Democrats hadn't pushed for a welfare bill that looked "soft on work," would "tax and spend" have been such a powerful epithet in 1988?
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/12/2007 07:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
His approval ratings are in the 30s,
But the ratings of Congressional Democrats are in the 20s. A bit of a conundrum, that.
#2
I dont recall even the GOP ads linking Willie Horton to the Dem congress. Duke ran on his Mass record, and this was an attack on his Mass record, period. And he failed to respond strongly to the attacks. It also didnt help that he sat on lead, taking the month off after the Dem convention.
No one is making those kinds of mistakes again.
I dont know as much about 1948, as far as the Dewey campaign is concerned, but my vague impression was the there was a lot of complacency there as well.
Which mainly says whoever is the Dem nominee shouldnt be complacent. I doubt very much whether Hilary would be complacent. Dont know about St Obama.
#3
Interesting story in todays Wash Times. Its about how Dem strategists are questioning Hilarys electectability.
Whats very interesting is that the only named Dem strategist, is David Sirotta, a leftie blogger. Usually the Wash Times is quick to name a leftie as such. This time there was no such reference - if you didnt know better, youd think Sirotta was mainstream. The only other Dem quoted was an anon "press aide".
They also quoted some polls showing many folks think Hilary is not the most electable Dem. They did NOT compare her numbers in one-on-one matchups to those of other Dems.
If the Wash Times is so busy looking for stuff on Hilary, this suggests to me that Hilary is who the right is afraid of. Definitely not St. Obama.
#4
His approval ratings are in the 30s, the GOP has splintered, the economy is sputtering and the public believes that the Iraq war is hopeless.
This is what passes for journalism ???
'the GOP has splintered' - 'the economy is sputtering' - 'and the public (those who swallow our constant line of shit) believes that the Iraq war is hopeless'; 3 complete bullshit lines in one sentence.
The republicans have lined up 12 good, and great candidates for president, some kind of splintered. The economy is flourishing, and many of us know we will win in hopeless Iraq because we would have to run away for them to win. And, fighting in Iraq is a win in the first place.
#6
The Fred Thompson thing is very interesting. The news he is considering jumping in is very welcome, indeed. He's solid, the hardcore conservatives will have few, if any, quibbles with him... and he can swing that segment of vacuous twitters that put the Dimmicrats over the top last November.
I heard Vitter (R-LA) say today he had talked with Giuliani at length and had decided he was okay with the man. Thompson, wouldn't need individual sit-downs with conservatives to convince them.
Lots of time remaining on the clock. I'm glad Billery and Hussein started so early - they will cut each other's throat long before it elapses.
Besides, I'd enjoy seeing (a) Fred elected Prezzident, LOL.
#7
GEORGE WILL + ROBERT NOVAK are in rough consensus that the Dems are hurting themselves going in 2008 POTUS andor Congressional elex - gonna be an uphill battle agz a hill the Dems built = are building themselves.
Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.
After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should.
It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.
This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.
But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this "surge and leverage" strategy.
By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.
Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this critical juncture.
Bush's wartime leadership does not inspire much confidence. But he has made adjustments to his team, and there's little doubt that a few hundred legislators do not a capable commander in chief make. These aren't partisan judgments we also condemned Republican efforts to micromanage President Clinton's conduct of military operations in the Balkans.
Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the essence of the choice the United States now faces to stay or go and putting their money where their mouths are. But too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln.
#1
A maddening irony. During the Rumsfeld regime the dems were screaming "quagmire," admitting defeat in Iraq, keen on disengageing, pulling out. Now General Petreus is kicking a** and running the bad guys out of Baghdad the dems are screaming "quagmire, pull out, end the funding." They are never satisfied.
We need a speaker who has been there, been a soldier, slept in a fox hole that might end up his grave, been so afraid he cant speak, carried a dead friend, spent the holidays in some shit hole country alone and away from family, understands what it costs to win and to lose, willing to do whats right, willing to see an action through to the end no matter how hard it gets, and we need a speaker that understands the constitution is a damn site more important than the Republican or Democratic party and certainly more important than oneself.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/12/2007 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Oh, and while I'm dreaming-how about the winning lotto numbers? I think the odds of winning lotto are better than getting a patriot for a speaker.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/12/2007 16:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A generation from now -- when some of those who are now fighting have run for office and won, and been in office long enough to have risen through the ranks -- your dream will become a reality, 49Pan. Congress will once again hold rank upon rank of Jackson Democrats and whatever the equivalent is for Republicans.
There is always a moment during a raging battle when one side realizes that the field has been won, and the other side collapses in retreat and confusion. The curious thing about the Iraqi insurgency is that this moment has arrived, yet both the victors, in this case the Americans and the Iraqi government, and the losers, Al Qaeda and the other jihadist groups, are reluctant to acknowledge it.
But make no mistake, the battle has been turned and we are witnessing the beginning of a jihadist meltdown. . . .
Go read it all: it's long, detailed, and very contrary to what you hear in most of the press.
There is no greater joy for someone who cares about Iraq than to watch Al Qaeda and these other jihadist groups go at each other with the bloodthirsty abandon and frenzy that only crazed zealots can muster. The bloodletting has gone far beyond the point of any possible reconciliation, for Al Qaeda must destroy all the others in order to survive, and ditto for the others as they face down Al Qaeda. It has turned into an all-or-nothing fight among the most dangerous insurgents, and it is heartening to see them engaged and distracted in destroying each other.
Now if only the American press would report on this jihadist meltdown so that policymakers in Washington can rally the martial spirit to bring this battle to a crushing end for the enemy.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/12/2007 12:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
very contrary to what you hear in most of the press
The problem is that Al Q in Iraq has been effective at replacing losses, finding new recruits, acquiring bombs and penetrating into high population areas. Even when we are at full surge levels, there will still be a suicide or car bomb every week or so. It may be a 'win' but its not even close to a complete win.
#3
Al qaeda has lost because the Sunnis have lost. Near half of the Sunnis have already been pushed out of Iraq. The civil war will be over when the rest are ethnically cleansed. Instead of making nice and making a go of a democratic government and sharing the pie, the stupid fucks thought they could terrorize their way to power. But that doesn't work when the other side has most of the manpower, firepower and an even bloodier ideology.
Posted by: ed ||
03/12/2007 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The situation on the battlefield is hardly relevant. The US Congress will decide who wins the war.
Syed from Islam-Watch covers some familier ground, e.g.,
A. Some Cosmological Flaws: (Scientific contradictions)
(1) God created the Heaven first or, the Earth first (?)
...
(2) Numerical contradictions
.......
3. Allahs Days Equal to 1000 Years or 50,000 Years (?)
....
(5) A resting place for sun WAS CONFIRMED BY SAHI HADITHS
...
(6) Quran wonders why/how Sun and Moon do not collide/catch each other (?)
...
(7) Why Allah created Stars(?)
...
The more interesting part is Syed's explanation of why moslems believe the Koran is easy to understand, simple and without contradiction. Basically, he says it is because they don't know what the Koran says.
...Millions of devout fanatical and gullible Muslims (Arabs and non-Arabs) recite (parroting) Quranic verses at least 5 times daily. Strange thing is non-Arab Muslims do not understand the meaning of a single word at all [and I doubt many Arab speakers really can figure out much]. Yet, unlike any others, Muslims recite their Quran like Tantor Montor or Abra-ka-dabra of a magician, or like Mantro of a witch hunter. From the very childhood brainwashing, these Muslims were taught that reciting Holy Quran even without understanding any meaning is the best practice of worshipping Allah and can earn unlimited blessings from Allah. Therefore, these Islamic Zombies recite Quranic verses with sweet melodious voice daily, and they will also recite Quranic verses during their daily five time prayers. Even western educated highly qualified devout Muslims have no qualm or shame that they do not really understand what they are reciting from the Quran....
I think Syed lives in Virginia but otherwise not much is known of him.
(1) The Quran differs widely from the Bible on such persons as Adam, Noah, Lot, Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, and Moses.
(2) The Quran denies the actual and physical crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
(3) The Quran grants 'special' marriage privileges only to Muhammad.
(4) The Quran allows a Muslim to be polygamous with up to four wives.
(5) The Quran grants Muhammad twenty percent from raids, wars, and conquests.
(6) The Quran permits husbands to hit their wives
(7) The Quran says that Muhammad had little or no authority over some evil jinn (genii) who came into his presence. Also, meteors kill jinn.
(8) The Quran allows mature men to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.
(9) The Quran orders the mutilation of male and female thieves.
10) The Quran allows slavery, and Muhammad himself traded in slaves.
11) The Quran says that slavegirls are sexual property for their male owners.
12) The Quran orders torture (crucifixion) and mutilation.
13) The Quran orders sexual sinners to be whipped.
(14) The Quran says that a woman's testimony counts half of a man's testimony because of her 'forgetfulness.'
(15) The Quran allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revengephysical eye for physical eye, literally.
16) The Quran orders death for individual critics and opponents of Muhammad.
17) The Quran celebrates Muhammad's slaughter and enslavement of a thriving Jewish tribe (Qurayza) and his confiscation of their property.
(18) The Quran orders warfare on Christians and Jews during Muhammad's first Crusade (long before the European ones).
19) The Quran orders warfare and death for polytheists who refuse to convert.
(20) The Quran testifies against its own reliability and incorruptibility.
(21) The Quran shows Muhammad nervously taking refuge in Allah from dark powers and magic.
(22) The Quran recycles events in young Mary's life that really come from apocryphal gospels, even though Muhammad claims that he received this information only by revelation.
23) The Quran confuses the doctrine of the Spirit.
24) The Quran says that Muhammad is only a human and mortal messenger.
25) The Quran denies the divine and eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ.
March 12, 2007: Four Moslem nations (Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan) have joined forces to fight Islamic terrorism via efforts to promote moderate Islam among young people throughout the Islamic world. The United States has long urged such a program, but the four nations involved here are acting largely out of self-interest. All four have suffered from attacks by their own young people, acting out their Islamic radical fantasies. All these nations have long ignored Islamic radicalism, feeling it was too risky to confront radical Islamic clerics. Like most Islamic countries, the U.S. is blamed for the recent upsurge in Islamic radicalism, brought about by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The traditional approach to Islamic radicalism in Moslem countries is to leave it alone, unless there are acts of terrorism committed locally. Then there is a savage crackdown, and the knowledge that the Islamic radicalism will return in a generation or so. It always does. It's a "holier than thou" thing, which makes Islamic radicals difficult for Moslems to criticize, unless the radicals start killing women and shildren, which many of them eventually do.
When the Islamic radicals move their operations to foreign countries, there is a public pledge of help in catching them. But in practice, the radicals are tolerated at home as long as they behave at home. These governments don't like to get involved in religious politics, because you can't win. The clerics all invoke the power of God to back their arguments, and there's not a lot a politician can do in the midst of all that.
The war in Iraq has been very useful for Moslem nations trying to deal with Islamic radicals. Many of the most dangerous Islamic radicals have gone off to fight, and die, in Iraq. Those that come back home are far fewer than those who left, and easier to keep an eye on. Many are not transformed into "experienced terrorists" by their time in Iraq, but into disillusioned and shell shocked veterans of things they had not expected to encounter.
Most Islamic clerics have a hard time condemning the "martyrs" who "died for the faith." But Islamic governments see an opportunity to overcome this, because in Iraq, the Islamic terrorists appear to have crossed the line. The numerous murders of Moslems, especially women and children (who are traditionally left alone when Moslems fight each other), has appalled most Moslems, and al Qaeda is way down in the popularity polls as a result. The Islamic radicals have openly condemned the new program to support moderate Islam, which indicates that this new policy may help. By declaring all "moderate Moslems" to be enemies, the Islamic radicals isolate themselves even more in the Islamic world.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
All these nations have long ignored Islamic radicalism, feeling it was too risky to confront radical Islamic clerics. Like most Islamic countries, the U.S. is blamed for the recent upsurge in Islamic radicalism, brought about by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The traditional approach to Islamic radicalism in Moslem countries is to leave it alone, unless there are acts of terrorism committed locally. Then there is a savage crackdown, and the knowledge that the Islamic radicalism will return in a generation or so. It always does. It's a "holier than thou" thing, which makes Islamic radicals difficult for Moslems to criticize, unless the radicals start killing women and shildren, which many of them eventually do. 
