Reply With Quote
I disagree. There are various degrees of evil.
Right now, not even close. But that's not the scenario of a taliban regime I'm referring to.
@mogro:
You speak of the Taliban as if they were organizationally coherent, unitary, a regime.
Are they?
I disagree. There are various degrees of evil.
Right now, not even close. But that's not the scenario of a taliban regime I'm referring to.
No...I don't either. But the president is the only person in government capacity that is made aware of all the possibilities at hand regarding national safety and can either proclaim or refute war on his own accord. His decisions are based on the information given by the joint chiefs of staff. Decisions not to be taken lightly one way or the other. In that regard...it probably is the only time a president basis his opinion regardless of political affiliation.
Here's another factor that may influence this Administration decision in regards to the strategy to follow in Afghanistan:
Advertisement
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...enough_on_iran
Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters say President Obama has not been aggressive enough in responding to Iran's nuclear program.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only four percent (4%) think the president has been too aggressive in dealing with Iran, while 38% believe his response has been about right.
In late June, 40% of voters said the president was not aggressive enough in supporting the reformers in Iran protesting the results of the country's questionable presidential election, but 42% said Obama's response had been about right.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters are now at least somewhat concerned about Iran's nuclear program, with 59% who are very concerned. Only 11% are not very or not at all concerned.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...obama-is-weak/
It's doubtful they would risk to be seen as "weak" and "naive" in regards to both theatres. A worst case scenario where Iran announces a ready to use nuclear arsenal and the Taliban movement regains control of Kabul, with OBL recording tapes from the Presidential Palace, in the next 3 years, would probably jeopardize Obama's re-election, especially considering the traditional narrative of associating Democratic Presidents to weakness and incompetence in terms of national security.Even the French think Barack Obama is weak
It is shameful when the White House is accused of betrayal by close allies in eastern and central Europe, but utterly humiliating when even the Elysee Palace thinks the United States has been transformed from a lion to a lamb in the face of mounting global threats. As The Wall Street Journal reported this morning, French president Nicolas Sarkozy was less than impressed with Barack Obama’s performance last week in the face of the Iranian nuclear crisis.
According to the paper, Washington urged Paris to delete key sections of Sarkozy’s UN speech that were critical of Iran and supposedly threatened to undermine Obama’s attempt to project himself as a global peacemaker:
“President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been “frustrated” for months about Mr. Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn’t want to “spoil the image of success” for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombs was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.” (...)
put them in a box, with drones.
you could thin the wolves from a copter, so to speak.
the only option will be to keep their heads down.
43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54807
Now conservatives are counting American bodies.
Nice.
General McChrystal, speaking in London at the International Ins ute for Strategic Studies, said that the campaign had been underresourced in the past. “The situation is serious — and I choose that word very, very carefully. Neither success nor failure can be taken for granted.” Isaf had to show it would support and protect the people. “In the end we don’t win by defeating the Taleban or by a body count but when the Afghans have decided that we have won.” He added that the coalition did not have an infinite amount of time. “These efforts will not remain winnable indefinitely. Public support will not last indefinitely.”
McChrystal is acting like a politician now. He needs to be made a civilian so he can pursue the career. Word up buddy, now is not the time to be leaving a paying job to become a Republican.
Expanding on the phrase: Afghans have decided that we have won.
This exemplifies the problem, we are never going to win, the Afghans have to win. With this head it's about US. In the Afghans mind it's about them; and, it's their country and we are the occupying force. They know that if they keep killing us we will eventually leave; if they quit killing us we might never leave. Wonder if that thought crossed his mind while he was perusing "Afghanistan: The Place Empires Go To Die".
link
Bush always had a plan. It wasn't about politics.
Practically, this appears to be the case, but technically the President can't declare war all on his own. Congress is supposed to declare war.
"Bush always had a plan. It wasn't about politics."
what was dubya's plan about?
The Taliban are a manifestation of historical evil, to be swept ruthlessly from the board? They labor under a satanic spell or something like that?I disagree. There are various degrees of evil.
I was unaware that strategy subscribes, or should subscribe, to demonology.
Of course, wishy washy humanitarianism achieves the same ends without having to exaggerate the potential danger to us. We must save them from falling into the clutches of evil or backwardness; white man's burden and all that.
Can you spell out the gradations of evil, mogro? They are not intuitive to me.
I wouldn't connect it to pseudo-religious metaphysical assessments, to humanitarianism or, even less, to a Kiplingesque worldview - after all, the most virulent, totalitarian and devastating regimes of the modern ages were a production of the European civilization.
I'd rather see it from the perspective of the natural virulence of a regime - using the concept of regime in a broad sense, like laid out by Tocqueville or the Greeks.
No matter how appealing is to morally and politically equate all kind of governments under the sun, I believe that thought is deeply flawed.
I'm not one to attempt a didactic and schematic graduation of the degrees of the evilness of the regimes - being a conservative I think that kind of theoretical reasoning is futile at best but more probably just plainly erroneous and, to be honest, philosophically insane, as all the attempts to explain the complex cir stances of a political society in such terms.
However, such a discrimanition is still possible - and that's why Burke wrote the Reflections. Even though he was aware of the evilness of many regimes, including his own, he was also able to see how some were absolutely intolerable, particularly the new French regime. To the point that Burke, a supporter of many other revolutions and a fierce opponent of war, called for a war agains the new French regime.
A regime that doesn't even acknowledge the most basic rights of its own citizens won't have in higher regard those of foreign citizens - and the Talibans have provided enoug proof on both instances IMO. I'm not as worried about abstract concepts like "justice", "humanity" and such as I am about the very concrete safety of myself, my family, my friends and my neighbours. In the past, the Taliban regime proved to have not only the ability to turn the life of the Afghans in a earthly but the desire to hurt my own. To believe they have changed their nature is not naive but stark madness.
The proper way of containign and frustating them is up to discussion. It should not be influenced by wishfull thinking attempts of minimizing the problem that the existence of such a regime cons utes to our few remaining liberties in todays world.
To assume they will survive as previously cons uted or are destined to resume their hegemony, verges on clairvoyance.A regime that doesn't even acknowledge the most basic rights of its own citizens won't have in higher regard those of foreign citizens - and the Talibans have provided enoug proof on both instances IMO. I'm not as worried about abstract concepts like "justice", "humanity" and such as I am about the very concrete safety of myself, my family, my friends and my neighbours. In the past, the Taliban regime proved to have not only the ability to turn the life of the Afghans in a earthly but the desire to hurt my own. To believe they have changed their nature is not naive but stark madness.
See, and I think it's exaggerated. See how easily we drove them off to start with?The proper way of containign and frustating them is up to discussion. It should not be influenced by wishfull thinking attempts of minimizing the problem that the existence of such a regime cons utes to our few remaining liberties in todays world
Couldn't we contain Afghanistan and whatever it harbors with a much smaller footprint?
I'd think we could.
I don't think of the Taliban as an existential enemy. They sheltered our enemy, but they were not the 9/11 attackers. The Taliban have become our enemy in the conflict that ensued, but it is not clear that either they or Al Qaeda -- as presently disposed -- poses any great danger to the US mainland. This is the element of hype.
Eating and swimming are more hazardous to you than terrorism.
Getting struck by lightning? Way more likely.
See what I mean?
I do, but I can choose what to eat, if I want to swim or where I want to be during thunderstorms (and, if not, there's nothing I can do about a lightning hitting me).
I have no reasons to believe that the Taliban won't be able to reconstruct their narco-theocracy once the NATO forces withdraw and resume their former practices - with an added enthusiasm.
The current state of affairs speaks volumes about their resiliency, IMO.
I don't think that invading and leaving the country every 5 years is an option.
Perhaps. But that goes beyond the point that I don't want my government to treat equally every foreign state I may see as intolerable and that in this particular case I want these guys to be severely contained.
Yeah, I get that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
