Our NATO "Partners"
By Jason Sigger Wednesday Oct 28, 2009 7:00amEditor's note: Please welcome to the Crooks and Liars team Jason Sigger, who many of you may already know from his superb work at the Armchair Generalist. Jason is going to be writing about national-security issues for C&L; we're pleased and excited to have him aboard.
There has been some talk in the papers about the NATO Secretary General's support for Gen. McChrystal's report. I would suggest that what he said was that Afghanistan clearly does need some COIN support. What he also said was this (see around 3:30 mark):
"NATO will consider the addition of ground forces when the time is right."
Wow. So it's okay to endorse the strategy, but there's no way that NATO is going to actually add any substantive amount of troops to the mix. Other than Britain, I am not sure we're going to see more than a few dozen military personnel from the rest of the community. So whenever NATO wants to get serious about sending its fair share of troops - say, about 20,000 or so of the 40,000 request on the table - then feel free to discuss how our operations in Afghanistan ought to be conducted, Mr. Rasmussen.
Minor disclaimer - My usual audience at Armchair Generalist knows that I am not a COIN fan and pessimistic as to how NATO works in these coalition operations. As others wiser than I have noted, the US govt can certainly stay and do COIN, but it's long term and very expensive. I'd much rather see a limited COIN/CT strategy such as the one described by VP Biden, Gen Krulak and others, with a disengagement and pull out before 2012. The US engagement won't end overnight, but we certainly need to put a cap on the future investments of "blood and treasure" in this region.
Login or Register to post comments.
Is moving forward with the end of Afghanistan.
All one needs to do is read the press from Germany, France or the UK.
Afghanistan is not just unpopular it is costing politicians in those countries to lose elections.
I think the end is closer than most people think. If Germany or one of the others drops out then all bets are off.
Here's how 12 UN workers - election workers - were just killed in Kabul, which supposedly is the home turf of the corrupt Karzai brothers:
-A runoff election is being prepared for. The Taliban pre-warn they will target election workers.
-Three men only, three Taliban men, storm the United Nations building the workers were in, wearing old-style uniforms, had a two hour gun battle killed twelve people -then all three left to claim victory for the attack.
Two hours - and no one else was around to fight but the UN workers.
Master McCrystal had his troops elsewhere -heavily focused on drugs and money, and NOT on the "people" of Afghanistan.
That's the same American/CIA 'strategy' responsible for fouling the air and plans in Columbia and Iraq and on and on we continue to go...
meaning those who appear in the media constantly to say,
"Look people we need to end this warfare state and here is how to do it." If the Vietnam War was ended by overwhelming public demand why isn't that happening today?
It's not daily on the front-pages
Or foremost in the news broadcasts
I've heard more about MJ's lame new posthumous album.
from War obviously is going to be hesitant to step up and make loud noises that is obvious. Basically, I don't think most people give a sh*t anymore. Of course without a draft . .
have you ever wondered where they get their bullets from? I mean, when you're looking at people who are still living essentially with Bronze Age technology, how is it that these dirt poor people living in places with no roads, no technology, no infrastructure, no income, no education, barely subsisting - but they never seem to run out of bullets. They are always armed.
Ever wonder about the corporations who supply these endless bullets, guns, bombs and explosives? Who makes C-4?
Whether it's Pakistan, Palestine, Rwanda or Afghanistan - they never seem to run out of bullets, do they?
We are so damn schizophrenic about war - we have the whole "we'll save the world" delusion going on, God help anyone who points out the obvious - we profit most from the grandiose delusions we go to war on.
Who supplies the never ending weaponry to the poorest of the poor?
`Beats giving them a welfare chek
"Vice Guide to Travel" where they went to Afghanistan. They essentially have an endless supply of reconstituted weapons from prior conflicts, most of them either Russian or American.
You're absolutely right Rooth. It's no coincidence that we are continually fighting wars. It's because we either leave the weapons behind during a conflict or, most often, UNLOAD our second-hand weapons to unstable countries.
The U.S. Government can't possibly believe that unloading these weapons will somehow create more peace. They know the weapons will create conflicts, so we'll then need to develop more sophisticated weapons to deal with those conflicts. It is called "Creating the market."
...about other countries not getting involved in America's inane wars, you've come to the wrong place.
Speaking for everyone on the American right, I'd just like to say we're gosh darn upset that France was right about Iraq.
I'm new here, and will eventually get used to the audience who comes here. My intent was to clarify what the MSM stated as "NATO support for McChrystal's plan" when what it really should have said was "hey, you Americans keep trucking if that's what you want to do." I thought Mr. Rasmussen's fervent support for a COIN approach was pretty useless if NATO doesn't actually support it with significant numbers of its own troops.
And for clarification, I don't support the proposed surge or any sigificant extention of COIN operations to support Karzai's government.
It is applicable to this audience and US foreign misadventures.
I agree - that's the general whiff I got from this posting. Kind of a "put up or shut up" attitude from Mr. Sigger. I don't blame NATO one bit for sitting this one out.
I know my hope was with the change at the top other countries might lend support.
I think bush so completely burned bridges that even Obama can't rebuild them regarding these wars.
they think we are so barbaric.
when you publicly laugh at your allies, and then expect them to send their boys and girls to die to defend the same people that were laughing and mocking them openly.
For crying out loud, we were telling the French what a bunch of pussies they were, when they were actually putting a lot of effort in the ground to capture Osama. We openly mocked the Canadians as they were having one of their worst weeks regarding their casualties in Afghanistan.
I think Americans expect everybody else to be not only as naive as we are, but to also have the same gold fish-like historical short term memory as we also posses. A couple of speeches is going to do diddly squat to mend the bridges the GOP (and a large percentage of the US population) burned. And it could not have happened to a more deserving bunch.
I have acquaintances and family in Europe who openly state how they wish could take back the tears they shed for us after 9/11 seeing the trail of destruction and warfare that the Americans chose to take to avenge the twin towers. I can't think of insults that could be worse than that...
If anything, I think the best thing that can happen is that NATO cuts their supply of extra troops and they force the US to get the hell out of that hell hole.
about the French?
where they drink from.
Basic law of nature, which seems to have been ignored by a large part of our population.
And yes, we were wrong about the French.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWFXf2qjXeg
.
set. Comes with a certificate of non-vaccination.
... mine is recycled from cage free humans, it is not organic though.
the humans caged but free the chickens.
Frankly hippies have little fat, and all that vegan diet makes them almost useless for this enterprise. And don't get me started on the pachouli smell, a total deal breaker for my boutique stuff.
I use 100% beef-fed, midwestern morbidly obese tea-baggers. I found the lazy-boy and the hoverounds tenderize their meat real nice, and the corn syrup gives a real nice aroma to the final product.
but once you drive em across Oklahoma
their butts is skinny and the meat is tough as the hide.
the remains of our troops were brought back into the country in the middle of the night, so the media couldn't show the never-ending stream of the returning dead.
When the remains of an Italian soldier are brought home, the entire country stops for the service and to mourn the loss of one of their own with the grieving family.
And we wonder why they think we are so barbaric.....
they literally shut down the highway and people show up en masse to give their last respects when the motorcade with the body of one of their fallen soldiers goes by. When I saw it in the news it was actually quite moving, of course in the American media... usually not even a peep and we see just the slightest acknowledgment for our own fallen soldiers.
The reaction of the Spaniards after the Madrid bombings was also quite amazing. Instead of crying for blood, millions of people came to the street the day after and stood in silence, signifying that they were not scared of the terrorist and that they would carry their lives.
I wish we had grown up after 9/11 and we would have embraced the grief and support the rest of the world was providing us. There are things that bombs and bullets can't fix, period.
The thing is wwe have already fulfilled the mission in Afghanistan. That was to get rid of Al Qaeda. Even Gen. McChrystal Meth says there are under 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Just leave. 60,000 more troops? Why?
We gonna have to leave by the Back Door: As all Empires Do.
Who's gonna pay for all of the DEBT were are in now. The "Defense"
Budget for the Next Year is 704 Billions, Higher than ever.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com...
This is all about OIL and GAS nothing to do with neither terror nor the Afgan People.
If I ruled the universe I would bring all the troops home today and make wars a hell of a lot more difficult to start. I don't have any military experience, but I really don't know how you end a win-less war. I'm not even sure who we are fighting or what a "win" might be. I hope the President is getting the best advice from all sides and that he finds some way to end this bloody mess.
It's going to be cloudy for a while.
Now we're fighting just to keep fighting - way too much money too be made.
There are currently between 2500 and 2800 Canadian troops in Afghanistan and since 2002, 131 have been killed.
love your book - 'Tao Te Ching'! Too bad none of our military or political leaders have ever taken the time to read it....
not Lao Tsu
"Laozi (Chinese: 老子; pinyin: Lǎozǐ; Wade-Giles: Laosi; also Lao Tse, Lao Tu, Lao-Tzu, Lao-Tsu, Laotze, Lao Zi, Laocius, and other variations) ....
The person who chose the moniker chose Lao Tsu....
http://www.321dogs.com/pictures/shih_tzu_wall...
I will enjoy reading it.
the suspects that is obvious. It's . . look at us, we're the worlds enforcers! We're taking care of all your problems! Cleansing the world of the Terrorists! Relax no charge!
guarantor (bag holder) anyway. I mean consider Reagan and Bush Sr. . these guys have us in the hole - in hock to countries that haven't even been invented yet.
having very little to do with deterring terrorism - in fact, they pretty much ensure that more terrorists will be created.
The real point is that Cheney/Bush et al and their oil/gas industry CEO buds planned and executed these incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan for the sole purpose of securing their rights to exploit the humongous gas and oil reserves and routes for pipelines, etc. (and maybe some heroin, too).
There's no doubt we can use the fossil fuels to maintain the Western way of life, but as these wars are bankrupting our country, it seems like it would be more prudent to remove our troops and just bargain with these countries and Pay for the stuff.
dead bodies down this black hole.
It should be more than obvious that more troops in Afghanistan will only accomplish more death. And for what? To help the herion trade? Help the arms industry? What?
I say bring all our troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Set them, (the troops, not private contractors), to building bases all along the border with Mexico and Canada.
When I was in, we didn't need private contractors. The military did whatever the military needed done, build bridges or blow them up. Get rid of the Blackwaters and KBRs that are bleeding the treasury and killing our troops. There should never be mercenaries on our government's payroll. Get rid of them - save billions.
Less war, less death, more security.
Bring our troops home. Build bases along the Mexican border and station our troops along our borders and in our main transportation hubs, like Israel does. Then, our troops will be safer, our borders will be more secure, and when our troops get paid, the money will stay in local communities.
The only reason Mexican drug lords are getting away with taking over Mexico is because they can come and go over our Southern border so easily. The reason we have a problem with illegal immigrants is because our border is so open. What the hell are we doing trying to monitor the Pakistan border when the Mexican border is like a sieve that poison is pouring through?
Of course, we would have to face up to the fact that it wouldn't be the Mexican drug lords who would really try to stop this, it would be the American arms industry, which makes billions world-wide by selling eternal war, that would be dead set against it.
Cheney is just being their lobbbyist when he keeps fear-mongering for more war - it keeps his profit margin as big as his ego.
Bring our troops home - take care of our business here.
I agree on bringing the troops home, I disagree on building bases.
We need to modify and ameliorate globalization through renegotiating NAFTA and the WTO so as to limit the unhindered flow of capital while opening the movement of people.
Also to dramatical extend protections for the environment and labor rights across borders to shut down the sweatshops.
That will greatly help countries like Mexico which is severely damaged by the current situation that their people see no choice but to flee.
I have yet to hear of Canadians fleeing their homes for the enlightenment of the USA. I somehow doubt it.
I thought that part about building bases along the Canadian border pretty funny.
Perhaps he meant along the north side to keep Americans from leaving though? :)
although, if you will remember, the 9/11 killers came through Canada, didn't they?
I'll say it again - I'd rather have our troops protecting our borders - even the safe Canadian border, than to see them dying in Afghanistan.
And I'd rather see our military pay being spent all along the northern and southern bordersn of our country than I would in the Middle East.
Wouldn't you?
heck their visas were renewed even after the fact.
corrected. I thought a couple of them came through Canada into Mass. and caught their flight there. I know their visas had been renewed.
if we bombed their infiltration routes along the Appalachian Trail. Just ask the expert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Not a single one of the 911 hijackers entered the US through Canada. Every single one flew to the US directly from overseas.
roooth is not an idiot. Far from it. I always enjoy reading her posts because she's thoughtful and intelligent.
Over the years, politicians from both parties have perpetuated the 911-hijackers-entered-the-US-through-Canada myth: Sen Conrad Burns, Newt Gingrich, John McCrazy, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and the Head of DHS herself, Janet Napolitano, to name a few.
Most of them apologized afterwards, but the damage had been done.
"although, if you will remember, the 9/11 killers came through Canada, didn't they?"
I did not know that Cheney and Rumsfield and The PNAC Cabal were Canadians!
We can no more control our border with Mexico than we can the Pakistan border - unless we build a lot more bases all across it, it simply won't happen.
And renegotiating NAFTA won't do it either - NAFTA has nothing to do with the drug trade, or with Americans who are willing to hire illegals so they can pay them pennies instead of paying other Americans minimum wage.
I want to bring all the money we're pouring down the black hole of the Middle East back to this country. Military bases are like small towns and they usually have a positive economic effect on the places where they are located. And I bet our troops would rather be in Southern Texas than in Southern Iraq.
If you ever drove the East or West coasts of the country, you might be surprised at how much of our coast line is already actually owned by the government for military bases. I'm just saying, let's do the same across the obvious problem border with Mexico.
And our port security should be handled by our military - not farmed out for politics to a company owned by a Middle Eastern theocratic dictatorship like Dubai, as it is now.
Why is our military fighting in the Middle East while Dubai is profiting off of private corporate contracts to provide security for our ports?
Bring our troops home - let them guard us here. Maybe we should pay Dubai to keep the Pakistan border secure.
Yes.
NAFTA does an impact jobs lost here and the degrading nature of jobs and conditions in Mexico.
Legalize drugs which will end illegal trafficking, that war, which is a sham, is lost. It was never meant to be won. The war on drugs is foisted on us first by the alcohol lobby and second by the obscene and barbaric prison industrial complex.
Put all available money into counseling and rehabilitation, this will be a fraction of the money now wasted on interdiction and incarceration.
The National Security Act of 1947, the National Security State, the Military Industrial Complex and the promise of pertual war which we have had since then have been repeatedly sold as a jobs program.
It is very cost ineffective jobs program. The obscenely bloated Military budget should be cut by 90%.
Enact a WPA 2.0 as a new jobs program of direct hire with a livable minimum wage. This of course would not be available to undocumented and thus illegal immigrants
The military budget is way, way out of proportion to the actual threats we face. We spend as much as the rest of the world combined and we are bankrupt because of it.
That would require the repeal of Posse Comitatus which I do not favor. Use the WPA 2.0.
Corruption.
I agree, bring the troops home and give them quality WPA jobs if nothing else is available.
1 - Why does Nato even continue to exist? Disband it.
2 - End the 'wars', end the empire, end the MIC, end the CIA and cut the obscenely bloated War budget by 90% which would put it more in line with our actual requirements.
3 - End the coercive relationship with the rest of the world so the would be terrorists can go back to fighting among themselves.
other peoples oil resources to our full advantage without a militarism?
The exploitation is NOT to OUR full advantage, but the advantage of the Trans National Oil Corporations and various Oiligarchs…
so the public has a steady diet of Britney . . (sports) . .
I took part in a meeting of Naval Reserve officers. The topic was the importnace of keeping sea lanes open so that the flow of oil would never stop.
No national bounderies mattered. International waters was just a phrase. Our national interest was the only thing that mattered, and the constant flow of oil was integral to our national interests - so, whatever it took was what we were always willing to do to keep it that oil flowing.
It hasn't changed a bit since then. And it won't change until those at the top of our American pyramid scheme are either gone or wake up.
The French, Germans, Canadians, and Spaniards kept the pressure in the area while we were dicking around in Iraq. Even as they were having pretty large casualty counts our wonderful politicians were publicly laughing at them (esp. the French). And now we label them as "partners"
Some Americans clearly put the ass in class....
I think we've been pretty stupid to even stay as long as we have.
As a Canadian I appreciate the recognition :)
Thanks from me as well, Tyler. Your posts on this thread are spot-on.
Define "pretty large" casualty counts.
Casualties to date:
France - 36
Germany - 34
Canada - 131
Spain - 26
Britain - 223
USA - 906
There are three coalition member countries who are bleeding for the rest of Europe's benefit. SecDef Gates has gone numerous times to NATO pleading for more troops, more boots on the ground, and for the power to use them where required (i.e., not just for policing peaceful areas). They are and continue to be mum. Those are partners that we don't need.
Admittedly, our strategy sucks, our chances to suceed suck, but if NATO agrees that COIN is the way to go, this is a lousy way to show their support of that strategy. So I come back to the point, NATO, are you in or are you out? We don't need cheerleaders, we need players. Or we need to go home and focus on defense of the homeland and containment of al Qaeda (the last gets my vote).
You also left Italy out of that tally.
Put together their casualties and they're pretty darn significant if you compare the size of their populations with respect to ours and couple it with the fact that they are HELPING US.
With gratitude like yours, no wonder...
See http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx
I left Italy out only because you didn't mention it in the original reply at 08:50. Not denegrating the sacrifice, just saying that it's low compared to US/Brit/Can., and that NATO's stake in this adventure ought to be higher considering the benefit to Europe and its Muslim community.
I agree that NATO has other things on its mind and each country has its own motivations to participate in whatever measure. I merely suggest that it's not working the way it should. Either put up or shut up, and if NATO pulls out, great, maybe that will encourage Pres Obama to do the same.
exactly?
(PS. The UK and Canada are also members of NATO).
and making mistakes about France.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMK6lzmSk2o
At marker 2.43:
"It is my impression that we will support the overall approach set out by Gen McChrystal... because it is a significant contribution to our own security..."
Have to get work done. Day job intrudes. Maybe we can revisit this discussion in a later post.
BTW, I think that what the Euros are saying is "suuuure... we'll be there, just don't wait for us." Because they damned well know they can face the US directly, as we're the biggest bullies around. so they are simply engaging in a diplomatic way of telling us to sod off regarding Afghanistan, which serves them no purpose (neither does to us).
You think Afghanistan was invaded for the benefit of Europe?? That is utterly preposterous. Where did you get your "information" about the history of Afghan conflicts? FOX and Friends?
Also... though it may well be that the average American has the short term memory of a boiled potato, but things are a bit different in Europe. Bush managed US foreign policy in a manner that will not be so easily forgotten in Europe and all talk about joint military adventures will be received with a healthy amount of skepticism, for a very long time.
"You think Afghanistan was invaded for the benefit of Europe??"
Of course not. Invading Afghanistan was purely a US operation based on the need for revenge and a desire to get bin Laden. The post-conflict phase of operations, intended to support a new government in Kabul, was supported by European allies under the NATO structure because it was in their interests to see a stable Afghan government. And that's what Mr. Rasmussen repeated in his statement.
"need for revenge and a desire to get bin Laden" was purely based upon the PNAC's Strategic Defense plans and their actions in creating the 'New Pearl Harbor' - - 9/11.
Their 'defense strategy' was based upon spreading US hegemony all through the Middle East in order to secure the oil and gas reserves; first stop, Iraq - to set up the forward operating bases for our military from which to 'engulf' the other fossil-fuel rich nations in the area.
The original US 'invasion' of Afghanistan was just a sham to make it appear we were chasing the bin Laden & his merry band of terrorists. Cheney et al were much more interested in acquiring the oil reserves in Iraq....only later did they bring more focus to Afghanistan, looking forward to the time when we'd need pipelines from Turkmenistan and other 'Stans' to steal their resources, too.
Someday, IMHO, when the truth about 9/11 is actually revealed, this will be clear to all.
" Invading Afghanistan was purely a US operation based on the need for revenge and a desire to get bin Laden"
Sorry but you need to know the ABC of the "WAR ON TERROR":
IT'S A HOAX
Please watch this Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776...
Or maybe they aren't fucking incompetent about sending their soldiers into the line of fire hopped up on bennies.
Or maybe they first try to resolve situations by talking to the locals instead of running in there guns-a-blazing.
You are complaining BECAUSE YOUR ALLIES DON'T DIE ENOUGH.
Asshat.
131 of my countrymen are dead fighting YOUR WAR while you go gallivanting around in Iraq and you call us CHEERLEADERS?
FUCK. YOU.
... more Canadian troops have died in Afghanistan than American troops.
Some people really do have a certain level of gall, don't they?
Of course the author of this article could sign up and fight the good fight to show those pussy furingers "how it is done."
This is the first time I've been on this site where something has pissed me off in a gut-burning way. Every week during the hockey games Don Cherry shows pictures of our fallen and holds back the tears. Every goddamn week.
Joined the Army, got the ribbons and the t-shirt, now I'm too old to rejoin and I just want to stop the current military from wrecking my Army further. The faster we get this right, the faster we stop sending people into the sausage machine. It's not a difficult thing to understand. The grown-ups in this discussion realize that there is a responsibility here not to fuck it up more than it's already fucked.
And if you're a NATO defense minister claiming you like the COIN idea but you don't want to actually support it with troops and resources, then I really have no use for you.
Good day, sir.
I SAID GOOD DAY.
... it seems you are of the opinion that the only grown up is you.
What you don't seem to grasp is that there is a clear difference between supporting the general idea of a plan, and blind adhesion to the American leadership. Most NATO countries are representative democracies, which conduct their military engagements following the mandate of their citizens... not the wishes of the American supreme command. And these conflicts are so unpopular, and so incredibly mismanaged... that frankly we're lucky the Euros still have boots in the ground.
Anyhow, so far you have had a "fantastic" beginning in this site...
Today, from the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/26/f-af...
... you Canadians are sending your boys to die for the "privilege" of being "partners" to us "grateful" Americans.
It means a lot to us, Tyler. Thank you.
Look, if your PM wants to support the fight, fine, but war causes casualties. You don't think this is the right fight, pull out. It's a democracy, a coalition, not a dictatorship.
I didn't call Canada a cheerleader, I called the European countries (sans Britain) out as being disengenuous in their praise. No one is "cheering" for this war, not me, not your comrades, but our political leaders evidently want to stabilize Afghanistan before they pull out because CheneyBush started something and left it half-assed. So we can be professionals and back out carefully or just pull out hard and let the place go to shit. What do you want to do, hero? Call your political rep. But if you want to do this clean so that we don't pull more jihadists down on our ass for the next decade or two, then OWN UP and send some more troops - NATO.
26 human beings is a lot to lose to a war that you think was a bloody stupid idea in the first place. Especially if you live in a culture that places a decent value on human life.
Frankly, if you're going to go starting wars, you should pick ones you don't need to bully and bribe folks into helping with. You certainly shouldn't be complaining that other countries are not sacrificing enough of their young people on the altar of US foreign policy.
This sort of post may play well with a certain segment of your readership, but I can tell you that many of your non-US readers are far from impressed, though I doubt you care much what we think. I hope your exceptionalist nonsense is not going to become a fixture here.
Thanks Tyler, as a Canadian I was building up a really good rage over this moronic (and I say that with all due apologies to morons) assessment
Since the start of Bush's war to prevent China's access to the oil and gas pipelines through the 'Stans (you really didn't think it had anything to do with Osama or the Taliban did you?) Canada has lost around 150 soldiers in Afghanistan and continues to send troops there.
Mr. Amato - If this is the extent to which Jason Sigger does his homework you have done C&L no favor bringing him on. All you've done is lower the tenor of the debate.
...war(blood drinking profiteers)mongerers claim, the entire world should jointly participate in this misbegotten waste of lives and treasure.
We need to get the fuck out of Afhganstan and Iraq. We haven't accomplished shit but obliteration and death in either nation.
is piling up faster than I can keep track of that is a fact.
I'm about as left-wing as they come and against ALL war.
But if this is a case that the Taliban is going to be launching massive terrorist operations from this country if we lose, send in an INTERNATIONAL FORCE of 200,000 troops, kill every single man, burn every single gun, then send in relief organisations to deal with the refugees and rebuilding.
These endless conflicts are just a gravy train for the bloody war profiteers. I'm no economic genius, but I do know that it's much better to pay off your credit card in one big chunk than keep paying the minimum for years.
I think you'll have trouble finding international support for open genocide. Well, amongst your usual allies anyway. Russia and Sudan might be up for it.
then fucked off to play "this is for ma daddeh" in Iraq, while simultaneously renaming foods previously named for countries that tried to tell you that was a BAD IDEA, you should not be fucking surprised that they are less than enthusiastic about spending any more of their blood and treasure just because you want them to.
love yo pappy as much as some. But other than that you have a point.
Here we have weeks and months of perfectly reasonable anti-warmongering posts on this website and then the danish minister is posted describing an approach where force and violence is minimized and what happens? You go all Holy and fucking redneck on him!
Americans should have bloody listened to their "partners" (as you put it in the header) before you raped Iraq and killed a million people. But no, this is the same Ceneyesque, pig-headed, neanderthalic attitude as before; "omg... NATO is full of pussies, lets show them how to solve things and kill everything"
Jason Sigger. What a fantastic start.
... couldn't agree more.
Cage free chairbound tea bag embryo's with freedom fries?
... we is still recovering from breakfast in the West.
"Mr. November" can only signal the end of civilized observance of time and date in my book.
Brown said he'd kick in 500 troops max and only if the US could show that there were substantial gains being made that indicated the country was being stabilized.
In other words the US walked into the Pottery Barn and proceeded to smash up the place, your friends saw what was going on and have started leaving the store without really telling you and now you are being asked for your credit card by the management.
It's not a good sign when your best friend in Europe, the UK, is distancing itself from you.
American fire. I am not surprised they weary of further involvement...
is that the US isn't engaged in true COIN operations. COIN operations are digging wells, building schools, etc; things that build trust with the local population. Dropping bombs from unmanned drones unto farmers families doesn't build much trust. What the US is engaged in is fighting for the losing side in a civil war, the same as in Afghanistan, Angola, Central America, etc. I guess that's where the money is because that's what this is about - money.
That NATO, that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, built to counter the Warsaw Pact (which no longer exists, Poland is now a NATO/OTAN member) is not to keen to invest more lives and treasure after the U.S. abandon them on the crags of Afghanistan while it chased Imperial dreams of conquest in Iraq.
I didn't see it spelled out in the post. Maybe I missed it.
INsurgency
:)
Lt Justin Boyes, 26, was killed by an IED yesterday.
I send my deepest condolences to his parents, his brother, his sister, his wife and his 3-year old son. Their lives will never be the same.
I honestly don't know what to think anymore. I certainly don't want this thing to continue. The Prez has set a deadline for withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq. That's a start. But what we have now is an escalating problem in Afghanistan. I honestly can't see a way to win this conflict there. I have in the past said I'd like to see us all get out of Afghanistan. To see all parties sit down and negotiate a peace . Ultimately , That's what I want. But it does raise a question. Can the extremists be trusted? So far I've seen nothing to say that they can. I hope they do try to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. But all they've done is slip over the border into Pakistan.
I certainly don't want to see this escalate. I want this to end.
I'd like to see all the allies soldiers be able to go home to their families. I don't want the Prez to send anymore troops. I don't want the allies to send anymore troops.
But we're talking an unstable Pakistan now. And to be honest, the thought of Pakistan being under threat of extremists. Is unsettling. Actually, it's kinda scary.
So, now what do we do?
If we leave Afghanistan, the Pakistani military will push the taliban and their friends back into Afghanistan. Where they'll just start all over again.
I really don't like this situation at all.
When Boosh invaded Afghanistan, I was all for getting OBL.
I was wrong. OBL is just the boogieman.
But when Boosh invaded Iraq, I never could understand why he did it.
I never believed all the bullshit that was told to us about Iraq. Not once.
So, I figured it was to flank Iran.
That was the only reason that made any sense to me.
My opinion on that is, If they want them, they should be able to have them. They're a sovereign nation. They should entitled to what ever they want. But that comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility.If they use them, they get repaid in kind. Nothing like mutual destruction to quell interest. On the other hand, a Middle Eastern Nuclear arms race is a bit too much to comprehend.
So, what do we do about the middle east and central asia?
In order to have a strong voice at the table. There needs to be a strong coalition of governments. But again, we're not talking about any government here. They are a bunch of cavemen who are in fact making us and the allies work pretty hard for a peace.
Now, they're attacking women and children. At schools, in the market place. That's pretty low.
So, allies. Does this situation warrant more allied troops. I hate to say this, but I think so. I hate it. I really do. But these extremists are reaching out around the globe now.
I would prefer to see a more police like action. Not using the term loosely. And certainly not in the context of the police action in Viet Nam. More like an actual investigative action with the proper authorities. This has already been happening around the globe.
Governments have done a fairly good job at cracking down on extremist activity . But sadly, I think more is needed right now.
The only way we can ever hope to put an end to this is for other countries to band together and provide a unified front on the action against these suicidal extremists. Without that, this kinda thing will never end.
Good topic Jason.
welcome.
for your thoughts. I appreciate what you're saying.
Like you, I don't know what to think anymore. Afghanistan is a giant mess and it seems the longer we stay the worse it gets.
The futility of the whole situation makes me sad, depressed and angry.
I think BushCo was delierately muddying the water. They used the fact that the so-called "Millenium bomber" was caught in December 1999 crossing into Washington state from Canada. Of course, that was under the Clinton's "law-and-order" approach to terrorism, which was much derided by BushCo.
My understanding was that all of the 9-11 folks used visas, 15 of them from Saudi Arabia. A previous administration (Bush Sr?) had streamlined the visa process from Saudi Arabia, to make it easier for Saudis to visit the US.
Login or Register to post comments.