Fred Hiatt's Simple Mind
By Jason Sigger Monday Dec 07, 2009 3:00pm"There is no difference between GW Bush's Iraq surge in 2007 and Barack Obama's Afghan surge in 2010. Only silly Democrats could object to one but support the other."
Actually, Fred, there's a big difference between the two. The Bush administration and its supporters saw (continue to see?) Teh Surge 1.0 as essential to "winning" in Iraq, while most left-of-center military analysts saw it as a measure to protecting US troops but not really the central or sole contributer to stabilizing the country. With Teh Surge 2.0, once again, it isn't that this troop increase will allow the US government to "win" but it might be (again) one measure among many needed to stabilize Afghanistan. (no, Karl, it isn't to "fight terrorists." ).
But nuanced arguments about the reality of military operations aren't what Fred's all about. He'd rather continue his man-crush on GW and dream about the "success" that Iraq has become. And when the RNC supports the Afghan surge, you can be sure that it's more because they are still defending Teh Surge 1.0 of Iraq and not really thinking about how to finish operations in Afghanistan after Teh Surge 2.0.
Login or Register to post comments.
Never read Hiatt - too much drain bramage for me.
Oh goody! What did we all win?
... and we got perennial oil contracts.
We won, I guess... depends on the definition of "we"
..more fireworks:
Coordinated bombings kill 103 and wound 197 in Baghdad.
That's today. I wonder what the number of dead and wounded will be tomorrow. And we can all thank w for this!
And speaking of w, isn't it time he be charged with war crimes?
...similar arguments since Obama made his speech concerning Afghanistan.
and Monroe's. (per previous thread)
It's the same crap as SurgeIraq (more men so we can withdraw safely, go village by village, have the Afghanis take responsibility) with the added dumbassery of ignoring the history of the region.
Afghanistan has defied the British EMPIRE, the might of the Soviet Union, and now we're trying the same approach.
Which means we're going to meet the same fate.
opposition against the war, was based purely on marketing/branding disagreements with the previous administration.
Hiatt strikes me as the kind of guy who lends credence to "conventional wisdom" factoids like "we only use 10% of our brains"... because it's clear that DC pundits like Hiatt really *do* only use 10% of their brains...
both "strategies" amount to pissing in the ocean.
you can't fix a war that has been wrong since it was started (by US).
we went into Afghanistan to capture the Saudi Arabians (wtf) who (purportedly) planned 9/11... a 'war' to capture criminals... brilliant.
then another war of aggression in Iraq, an "enemy" who had not attacked us.
an "enemy" who was as threatening as a four year old with a broken arm.
brilliant.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
In addition to the surge in afghanistan, we have a proxy war in pakistan, and we're trying to start another war in iran. all the while waving the flag and terr'ists at us. shameful.
... but
escalating"surging" a war that doesn't have justification, or whose justification changes as convenient, sounds pretty similar to me.Or are we supposed to buy that < 100 Al Qaeda justify 30,000 more troops? ... that the Taliban is now our enemy? ... that an undeclared war in Pakistan is needed or we'll be killed in our sleep?
Smells kind of
Bushyfishy to me.Ever. What part of this makes Americans so stupid that they think they can reverse this trend?
surge 2.0 is utterly useless, there is no merit to the strategy whatsoever. afghani mentality and society is not set up for central government nor democracy, attempting to impose it is a fool's errand. all the country is useful to us is as a staging area for missions into pakistan to assault al qaeda strongholds, nothing more.
i'd really love to have an opportunity to support dr dean in 2012 to primary challenge obama
Don't care about him.
That doesn't automatically make him wrong.
How is Obama any different than Bush in defense or most anything else right now? I can't see it.
Which assumes progressives/liberals are worshipping the ground Obama stands on.
Try reading some of the other comments, and you'll find that more than a few progressives DO treat Bush's surge and Obama's surge the EXACT same way.
THEY BOTH SUCK.
I don't think all progressives/liberals worship him, but he is still getting a pass he doesn't deserve anymore. I take a lot of grief from my friends for not giving him a lot of rope.
but even a drooling retard is right once in a while.
Afghanistan is where empires go to die.
the Obama butt kissers can make up any kind of operational logics they want to justify the actions of the administration, but the simple facts remain: we have no business being in Iraq at all, and our mission in Afghanistan was so horribly botched by the Bush Junta, that there is no point in being there either.
So, in that sense, yes, Iraq approx. equals Afghanistan, and Obama's actions approx. equal that of Bush. don't like it? Tell Obama to get out of Afghainstan and Iraq NOW.
"Afghanistan is where empires go to die."
i agree, attempting to pacify or coerce the afghani populace into virtually anything is doomed to failure.
all two and a half thousand years of it...
into Afghanistan to "rout out the Taliban" is like shining a light into a kitchen full of roaches at 3 a.m.
Sure, they all scatter and "disappear", but as soon as it's dark again (the U.S. "leaving") they will come right back out and continue to foul the area...
The Taliban and their ancestors before them are of a completely different culture/mindset than the average American who is headed out of work tonight to haunt a local watering hole and "watch the game".
Afghanistan will likely remain a backward, war lord led country plagued by the illicit drug trade and corruption long after the last U.S./NATO body bag has left the region.
If "terrorism" and a deep hatred for all things American is the REAL reason Obama wants a U.S./NATO presence in Afghanistan, then he must realize that our very presence there is causing the creation of many more "terrorists" who are hell bent on leveling "Blowback" at us for our continued support of Israel and our constant militaristic and imperialistic behavior.
We need a full investigation into the events of 9/11 to answer ALL pertinent and yet unanswered questions and we need to call for a "cease fire" at the U.N. of all global hostilities so that honest talks can be held with ALL parties, including Israel and the Palestinian territories.
I'm afraid that's the truth.
Unfortunately, because corporations dominate the political landscape in the United States we will never see this happen.
Obama is sending our soldiers on a fool's errand.
al qaeda is long gone from afghanistan, so why are we still there?
Pakistani nukes?
national honor?
corporate profits?
or because washington knows that about a third of the electorate would just as soon "turn that place to glass, by gawd!"
I am wondering who these folks are.
The military wing of the Social democrats perhaps?
WorkersWarmongers of the world unite!---
Patrick Porter, Kings College London in a very insightful interview, here
They rolled for the Kaiser in 1913 - why not now for Obama?
It makes the baby jebus cry.
CNAS, CAP, others. I have to admit, I can't tell the difference between conservative hawks and liberal hawks some times. I suppose that my point, which doesn't seem as strong as before, was that Hiatt and company all think that supporting the surge leads to victory uber alles. Those of us on the left who watch and report on military issues felt that more troops were needed if (and only if) one were really serious about progressing toward any end-state. But none of us on the left equated surge to winning.
So from a point of view, yeah, I guess there are some on the left who thought that the Bush Surge and Obama Surge were the same - not leading toward "victory" but necessary as a temporary measure to protect US troops so that we could get the hell out.
Or maybe both surges just suck and we should stop pretending there was any point to it at all.
On the Right we have George W strutting around on an air craft carrier with his junk on manly display.
On the Left we have a 10 year old boy lying on a stretcher with both arms blown off not yet aware that the rest of his family are dead.
Oh-and in the middle? Did'jah hear bout Tiger??
Well did'jah?
What nobody ever mentions is that the only flank of Bush's surge was to PAY the insurgents to switch sides.
So unless Obama's plan is to turn Afghanistan into a big protection racket like Iraq, then there really isn't much comparison.
Another reason violence decreased after the Iraq surge was because the gangs had almost run out of people to kill.
By the time of Bush's surge, he had been caught it multiple lies to the American people. We had very good reason not to trust him or anything he said. Obama did not start this war, but he has a responsibility to bring it to a responsible conclusion. I would like to get out of there yesterday, but for now, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this, considering the danger posed by a nuclear Pakistan and extremists that live there.
americans love affair with capitalism is finally paying off
most are becoming have nots or lower class
corp fascism has taken control of america and this includes demos and repubs
but karma is not silent it will give perfect feedback
not to punish but to teach
any country that thinks it is ok to make mega profits off the sick and needy is a country that will be rewarded with the gift of much karma.
I see pain and suffering everywhere in job loss massive hours worked
and the latest a friend has to work 12 to 18 hours per day and all of his time off without pay or hit the door.
two jobs three jobs to make ends meets
bankruptcy for medical bills
wall street bailed out main street next to nothing
americans look at history
the have mores control the media and the congress it is open season for them
corp fascism has hit america and it came from greed and self righteousness and war mongering imperialism three primary components of capitalism
very severe history lessons for americans
yet they whine and point fingers while they line up to vote for these capitalist politicans in bed with corp america.
in a low information dumbed down society facism is king.
Tanks.
The use of teh's is distracting from trying to follow the meaning of the article.
However, there is one big thing to consider. Iraq won't be officially over until the refugees can come back from surrounding states and live in relative safety.
It's rather easy to keep the peace someplace that has been largely depopulated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAdaQhitdKg
It's strange that this advocate of surging manliness doesn't appear to know the slightest thing about war. Remind me again, Fred, where did you serve? Do you have any relatives in the service? Do you have any relatives who are Afghan civilians? Do you have any skin in the game, or does everything you know about war come from GI Joe comic books?
Here's another of Fred's gems:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Fucking douchebag.
We need a revolution. PERIOD!!!!!1
Login or Register to post comments.