Airing the Afghan debate
Has Gen Stanley McChrystal over-stepped the mark?
The debate on the United States' future strategy in Afghanistan continues apace this week, with growing pressure on President Obama to make a decision.
Until he does, the private debate is bound to spill over into a public debate that can look like a row. Obama has two meetings this week with his top-level security team, and they will be again looking at whether to back Gen McChrystal's advice to opt for a counter-insurgency strategy, which implies nation building and more troops, or continue with a counter-terrorism strategy, apparently preferred by Vice-President Joe Biden.
The UK's Telegraph reports that Obama is "furious" with the general and that White House staff were "shocked" by a speech McChrystal made in London last week. No American newspaper or network has reported any fury and his spokesman has just said that he is "comfortable" with the way the debate is going.
But it would be hardly surprising if there was some irritation in the White House. After all, the general told his London audience that pulling out would lead to "Chaosistan" and, as the debate continues in Washington, said in the speech: "Uncertainty disheartens our allies, emboldens our foe. A villager recently asked me whether we intended to remain in his village and provide security, to which I confidently promised him that, of course, we would. He looked at me and said, 'Okay, but you did not stay last time.'"
Now McChrystal's boss, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, has suggested: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately." Rebuke or slap-down may be journalistic shorthand, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for McChrystal's decision to speak his mind. What should stay private, what should be public?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
You are correct that any disagreement between McChrystal and the President is not getting much play in the US, although I have not been reading The New York Times, where I would expect to see it covered, if anywhere.
Complain about this comment
"What should stay private, what should be public?"
Conclusions about what direction policy should take, when the proposed policies are under review by the President and his top advisors, should be private.
Complain about this comment
In our democracy, you can't keep a secret in Washington DC for five minutes. Unlike the lack of debate about Lisbon and the EU in Britain and the rest of Europe, there will be a public debate on how best to proceed. It will be debated in both Houses of Congress in the Congressional armed services committees, probably in other committees, and discussed by pundits, Defense and State department officials, retired military, elected officials and then the Commander-in-Chief will make his decision. A lot is riding on the outcome of this war, one which President Obama fully supported and discussed waging during the campaign. Americans have a right to know the truth and hear it no matter how bad it is from their top military leaders. If President Obama wanted McChrystal to remain silent, perhaps he should have kept in closer contact with him. Reports are that he only had direct contact once so far. That is not a good sign of leadership. Even Parade ground generals keep in touch with the front line troops more often than President Obama has. Another one of his failures? Maybe he should not have gone to Denmark last week to campaign for holding the Olympics in Chicago. That loss was already a foregone conclusion. Mister President, please stay home and do the job you were elected for. The time for campaigning is over. This is not a community organizing job, you are the military leader of the strongest military force in human history. ACT...NOW!
Complain about this comment
I suspect that there is a deeper problem. There was, apparently, a ten-day or so tour of Afghanistan by various well-known think-tank members who, as soon as they were back in Washington appear to have gone around briefing the US media not only on what they thought, but also what General McChrystal thought.
I have more than a suspicion that that in fact is where the Woodward 'scoop' actually came from.
Some certainly appeared (in a tactic that will be familiar to readers of this blog) to be ensuring a wide reception for their opinions by repetition and volume.
I am surprised, but perhaps it became clear to General McChrystal that his own quite well-reasoned arguments (assuming the London speech is truly representative of them) were going to be either drowned out or seriously misrepresented. Indeed, I don't think they have received the thoughtful discussion they deserve, since the headlines have really amounted to little more than "It's either more troops or if we're losing, ler's get out".
Complain about this comment
Thank you Marcus. You have it correct. But everyone should also keep in mind the longer this president "has things under consideration", the bigger the odds more U.S. military personnel are going to be killed. That is totally unacceptable. Which is why McChrystal allowed himself to be quoted by the Telegraph. He had to get Obama's attention somehow. Obama sure wasn't listening to him until the General Commander of the Afghanistan theatre embarrassed him by going to the press. As CINC, Obama should be ashamed, not "furious".
Complain about this comment
Well first fox has reported that the Obama team is upset.
Who is on the foriegn policy team? Considering they are promoting the apology tour they should be dismissed.
Complain about this comment
Gen. McChrystal should be sacked the way Gen. McArthur was, and for the same reason. He has clearly forgotten the CIC is the President of the United States, that US generals develop strategies to win battles not set or influence policy, that the path he is supposed to follow to request support or give an opinion is through the Secretary of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff, and that he is not a general in a banana republic.
Delivering speeches to foreign audiences warning of the dangers of withdrawing or not increasing troops levels in Afghanistan is not the job of a field commander.
I disagree with President Obama's decision to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan by sending an additional 30,000 troops a few months ago, but support his focus in what was a neglected "war" front since W decided to invade Iraq.
The best approach, IMO, is to withdraw our forces from that country as soon as possible and focus strictly on counter terrorism operations, with emphasis on infiltration and fighting Al Qaeda with rapid deployment special forces, rather than fighting the Afghans that oppose our presence in their country the way we would under similar circumstances.
Our top priority, however, must be to state what our goals are. It is hard to win a "war" when we don't know what would constitute victory. Increasing troop levels in a country with an incipient army and police force, no air force, and no NAVY suggests we are not fighting terrorists, we are imposing our will on another country and judging by history we are bound to fail. We may have the military capacity to control the people of Afghanistan physically if we increase our troop levels to 500,000 and stay there indifinetely, but we can not control their minds or change their yearning to be a sovereign and free nation, regardless of how fragmented and primitive they may be.
Complain about this comment
I can see there is going to be the usual confusion between strategy and tactics. What McChrystal has outlined is his choice of tactics and his reasons for that choice.
The strategy however, that is, what impact various actions or inactions will have not only on the political and economic futures of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and India, is also hopefully under discussion in the White House, and that is much less likely to become public until it is put into effect.
And even then, I suspect most people will be guessing, including the pundits and the armchair generals, along with the governments of Pakistan, India, Britain and the other NATO countries given recent history. Of course, it is also possible that there neither is, nor will be, a long-term strategy being considered, also given recent history.
Someone btw should be reminding the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon that 'General Winter' will also soon be arriving on the scene just to complicate matters.
Complain about this comment
Mark .... "After all, the general told his London audience that pulling out would lead to "Chaosistan"
Heaven forbid we leave Afghanistan the way we found it!!!!
Complain about this comment
saintDominick (#7) "Gen. McChrystal should be sacked the way Gen. McArthur was, and for the same reason."
That's pretty extreme at this point. MacArthur was cur a lot of slack before he finally went too far, and he wasn't doing too well in Korea, besides. McChrystal just got to AfPak, and he may do a good job whatever the policy turns out to be. He won't be replaced for this.
Complain about this comment
Our top priority, however, must be to state what our goals are. It is hard to win a "war" when we don't know what would constitute victory. Increasing troop levels in a country with an incipient army and police force, no air force, and no NAVY suggests we are not fighting terrorists, we are imposing our will on another country and judging by history we are bound to fail. We may have the military capacity to control the people of Afghanistan physically if we increase our troop levels to 500,000 and stay there indifinetely, but we can not control their minds or change their yearning to be a sovereign and free nation, regardless of how fragmented and primitive they may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make afghanistan one of the states of usa, and all your problems are solved,no need to think about troops withdrawl or staying there indifinetely. and they are as fragmented as the republicans and demoracts. and as primitive as your average american..No more and no less.
30 yrs of total war like conditions, and still they manage and still they have a whole country...Imagine 30 yrs of war like situation in usa, it would definately go back to its wild wild west era and dis-united.
Complain about this comment
7. At 8:18pm on 05 Oct 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"Increasing troop levels in a country with an incipient army and police force, no air force, and no NAVY suggests we are not fighting terrorists, we are imposing our will on another country and judging by history we are bound to fail. We may have the military capacity to control the people of Afghanistan physically if we increase our troop levels to 500,000 and stay there indifinetely, but we can not control their minds or change their yearning to be a sovereign and free nation, regardless of how fragmented and primitive they may be."
You might find yourself more in agreement with McChrystal's paper to the IISS than you appear to think. Except that for very good geographical reasons he sees no necessity, as far as I saw, for an Afghan navy.
Complain about this comment
McChrystal did not come out with these public statements for nothing. He came out with these public statements, because he wants an answer and President Obama has not given him one yet.
President Obama has to take a stand on Afghanistan. McChrystal and the military need to know what the plan in. SO far, Obama hasn't really offered much of a plan, except to stay the course.
Well, the decision of to send more troops or just simply leave needs to be answered. I do not think McChrystal would have gone to the public, if Obama had spent time with him and told him the plan.
The public wants to know: Should we stay or should we go?
If it was up to me, I would say we need to get out of there! It's time to leave! Bring our troops home!
But President Obama has not made a decision yet.
Time to take a stand, President Obama.
Complain about this comment
I've read Gen McChrystal's report and support his proposals. the additional forces are not needed for "escalation" but rather for his alternative tactics. VP Biden & other Washington bureaucrats are just thinking about how they can win public approval polls. Sadly, most people in the US don't give a hoot about promoting peace around the world, just in what they believe affects or threatens them.
Complain about this comment
But it would be hardly surprising if there was some irritation in the White House. After all, the general told his London audience that pulling out would lead to "Chaosistan"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going in was blunderistan, pulling out will lead to choasistan, and americans staying in afghanistan is..amerikistan.
Complain about this comment
If it was up to me, I would say we need to get out of there! It's time to leave! Bring our troops home!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What without ben laden? you will loose the war if you left without him.
Complain about this comment
Basically, the military knows no way to solve the problem, without more manpower, and the public wants no more manpower committed, so Obama wants to avoid that issue by not increasing manpower.
On the other hand, that is a religious war, and we are not prepared to do what has to be done to "win" it. World opinion is too important to us.
That being the case, we should admit our unwillingness to do what is needed, and extricate ourselves, with the full knowledge that the Taliban will regain control of the country, and provide a safe haven, yet again for Al-Qaeda.
Those are, after all, the only two viable options.
Complain about this comment
The elephant in the room is Pakistan. If Afghanistan is lost to the taliban that is one thing, but the loss of Pakistan to the taliban is quite another. Whether there's a domino effect or not the truth is that Pakistan is incapable of riding itself of fanatical elements in it's country. If the taliban/al-qaeda win in Afghanistan then they can focus on Pakistan. That absolutely doesn't need to happen. Whatever fear is associated with Iran and North Korea having the bomb will pale in comparison to a radical controlled Pakistan with the bomb.
Complain about this comment
On the other hand, that is a religious war, and we are not prepared to do what has to be done to "win" it. World opinion is too important to us.
That being the case, we should admit our unwillingness to do what is needed, and extricate ourselves, with the full knowledge that the Taliban will regain control of the country, and provide a safe haven, yet again for Al-Qaeda.
Those are, after all, the only two viable options.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not a religous war, its a war against the bogus liberation that americans gave to afghans..Giving power to the most hated people, the northern alliance, and declaring, "hence forth you are liberated because we say so" isnt the kind of liberation afghans were expting. To betray them once after withdrawl of soviet union and its fall was one thing, but to betray them again in the name of this liberation in which taliban were replaced by the most hated people were again given power is the betryal that afghans are having difficult to overlook. negotiate with alqaida, if you ever manage to locate its leaders..And ask your military and the political leaders just one question, Was it worth keeping american troops in saudi arabia? If only those troops were relocated else where in the region. The root cause of all this problem.
Complain about this comment
I don't even think bin Ladin is alive anymore. Those videos look fake and the voice sounds digitally synthesized.
We need a goal, but no one has ever defined the goal, except to root out terrorism. USA supports that, but no one has answered how we are to do it?
I don't know if President Obama has ever really stated his goals on Afghanistan, except to say he wants to end it responsible. Well, now is his time to do that. You have your chance to end it responsibly, Obama. That is what we want, too. To end it in the best way we can.
Complain about this comment
Illinoisan (#13) "McChrystal did not come out with these public statements for nothing. He came out with these public statements, because he wants an answer and President Obama has not given him one yet."
Yes, and that's precisely why he is in the doghouse with Obama. McChrystal is in the chain of command, four steps down from the President. It's not his place to try to force the issue.
Complain about this comment
It has been interesting to watch the Obama administration do a slow pivot on its Af-Pak war strategy. In the spring, General McChrystal was our next, best hope, having performed so admirably in Iraq. Now he is in the President's dog house, and his grand plans for protecting Afghan civilians are coming to nought.
I believe Pakistan is the sticky wicket in this mess. Unless and until they get serious about cleaning out the nests of al-Qaeda operatives along their western border, it matters little what we do in Afghanistan, which is, after all, a failed narco-state with a figurehead president who plays both sides of the fence in order to keep the billions in U.S. money flowing into his government's coffers. If Afghanistan is much different 20 years from now than it is now, I'll be surprised.
Complain about this comment
Illinoisan (#20) "We need a goal, but no one has ever defined the goal, except to root out terrorism. USA supports that, but no one has answered how we are to do it?"
That is the goal, and I find it encouraging that the President, in his recent statements, has focused on that message, instead of on nebulous things like "building democracy."
As for how to do it, that is up to the President and his advisors and commanders. That is what all the recent discussion surrounding McChrystal has been about.
Complain about this comment
One gets the impression that there's no strategy at the moment. When Obama made his speech at the UN he not once mentioned the Taliban - he seemed to say everything but the Taliban. Is the focus to shift on to the terrorists with perhaps getting the Taliban on-side? Or are they just a problem?
I'm not impressed with Gen McChrystal going public like that. It looks like he's undermining his C-in-C and Head of State. It looks like a sign of weakness to me.
Complain about this comment
The elephant in the room is Pakistan. If Afghanistan is lost to the taliban that is one thing, but the loss of Pakistan to the taliban is quite another. Whether there's a domino effect or not the truth is that Pakistan is incapable of riding itself of fanatical elements in it's country. If the taliban/al-qaeda win in Afghanistan then they can focus on Pakistan. That absolutely doesn't need to happen. Whatever fear is associated with Iran and North Korea having the bomb will pale in comparison to a radical controlled Pakistan with the bomb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not as if pakistani nuclear bomb is hanging from the street lights at islamabad. And its not as if radicals get training to upload those bombs to some missiles and then attach them to the war planes and its not as if the radicals are taking pilot training courses in their religous schools..Your fear is baseless..and when some fear is baseless, its called anxiety..and anxieties are usually treated by exposing yourselves to the object you have irrational fear. Pakistan is a fedration. If taliban came into power it will be in one province..and then they will be made powerless by the larger provinces..Now its taliban, 20 years ago, it was the pro-communists who were doing exactly what these taliban do..twenty years from now, who knows what group would be doing the same things..In early 70s benezirs father was forcing the military to throw people from those areas from helicopters Now, its benezirs husband who is allowing army to kill its own people..
Complain about this comment
RickMcDaniel refers to the Afghanistan situation as "a religious war" but surely it is more of an idealogical war?
I am not an expert but it seems to me that it is wrong to assume that 'one size fits all' and I am perturbed by the ready dismissal of Afghans as 'primitive' just because their preferred or naturally evolved system of government/social cohesion, is not the same as that of the USA.
Perhaps at the root of terrorism is a reluctance to being made to conform
to alien traditions or to capitulate to globalisation, in the sense of making everything the same?
As for the General... he should have done his duty and kept his allegiance. There was an old saying when I was in the Army - 'obey first, ask questions later'. For me he should have concentrated on doing the best with the resources he has and made any needs known privately - airing them in public just reinforces the view terrorists may have that 'democracy' is ineffectual, and indicates that the military forces deployed are weak.
Complain about this comment
I don't even think bin Ladin is alive anymore. Those videos look fake and the voice sounds digitally synthesized.
We need a goal, but no one has ever defined the goal, except to root out terrorism. USA supports that, but no one has answered how we are to do it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your goal is clear cut. Prove that those videos are fake and that ben laden is dead, and pull out..Its not as if afghans are going to sue you for acheiving your goal..They appreciate the enemy who manages to acheive its goals..Dont under estimate the sense of acheivement of afghans..Noone can root out terrorism, its only in biblical scenarios that such things happen..peace on earth, equality for all, no more terrorism, everyone living happlily ever after..YOur president Obama is a fine speaker, tell him to write a nice speech about how we cannot make this world terrorism free and your problem is solved.
Complain about this comment
I believe Pakistan is the sticky wicket in this mess. Unless and until they get serious about cleaning out the nests of al-Qaeda operatives along their western border, it matters little what we do in Afghanistan, which is, after all, a failed narco-state with a figurehead president who plays both sides of the fence in order to keep the billions in U.S. money flowing into his government's coffers. If Afghanistan is much different 20 years from now than it is now, I'll be surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 million people internally displaced in pakistan so that american and nato forces could do their small contribution inside afghanistan before the elction, looks like a joke to you? Pakistani millitary has lost enough soldiers killing its own people..And all because of the american generals incompitencies..Who told these generals to attack afghanistan without first planning some sort of stragety about these areas in pakistan?
Complain about this comment
This is bordering on insubordination. Of course the White House is furious. The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If McChrystal doesn't like the pace of government he should resign and run for public office. Any officer at McChrystal's level knows the score and trying to force the President's hand is a sign of his disrespect for the man holding the office, and by extension the office as well. I cannot believe he is so naive as to think his remarks would not come extremely close to violating his military oath. This isn't about policy, it's a power struggle.
Complain about this comment
This is bordering on insubordination. Of course the White House is furious. The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if obama wants to be a commander in cheif of armed forces, he should first take some training at the west point, wear uniform and then decide what military startgy is best.He is here for four years, the general however will have to defend or stand by his decisions for the rest of his life. Obama wants to win votes next time, if the naive voters dont want him to send more troops, he will not, the military guy doesnt need such election, so he will say what is correct, just like a good dictator.
Complain about this comment
I had not seen this story before. Interesting. It's surprising that this speech would be given to a London audience, considering the view of Americans in Britain.
--------------------------------------
#11 colonelartist:
"Make afghanistan one of the states of usa, and all your problems are solved,no need to think about troops withdrawl or staying there indifinetely. and they are as fragmented as the republicans and demoracts. and as primitive as your average american..No more and no less."
-------------------------------
Average Americans are indeed primitive. Very perceptive remark.
No doubt Britain would take care of the situation with their eyes closed.
Complain about this comment
Gen. McChrystal is enagaging in the time honored military tradition of covering his rear by saying he needs more resources to do the job he's been assigned to do. While the timing and venue of his remarks was not strictly according to protocol they certainly don't amount to the level of willful insolence that got Gen McArthur relieved of command by President Truman.
In McChrystal's defense, if he doesn't get his request for more troops on record publicly the odds are very good that he would become the scape goat for the Obama administration's policy failure in Afghanistan just like his predecessor was for the previous adminstration. It's not reasonable to expect him to sacrifice his own career for the policies of the commander in chief.
Complain about this comment
Regarding Mr. Gates' comments:
What exactly is the chain off command regarding civilians? Who is above whom? ...president or citizens?
This seems like a broad comment intended for a specific target.
I'm unaware of a meaningful dialog which exists for the average person and the president. In a proper command situation, the lower-ranking members report to the higher-ranking members for orders. The problem in the civilian world is that the pyramid is upside down, so the President is the top of the military pyramid, but the bottom of the civilian one. How does that work with regard to 'private meetings'?
The military procedure is quite clear. The civilian one is neither clear nor in Mr Gates' jurisdiction.
I'm shocked to hear a military leader suggest that civilians ought to report to the government before voicing their beliefs or opinions.
Complain about this comment
Ref 12, Squirrellist
"Except that for very good geographical reasons he sees no necessity, as far as I saw, for an Afghan navy."
Thanks for the geographical reminder. The point is, however, that we are not fighting a formal military force. neither in size, training, equipment, nor logistics. With that in mind, why do we need such a large military commitment and, most importantly, what is it that we are trying to accomplish>
The initial goal was to destroy the Al Qaeda training camps, and that was accomplished quickly and with little difficulty. The ancillary goal of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden remains unfulfilled, although it would not surprise me if he died long ago and we are keeping his image alive to justify our presence and activities in that part of the world. The removal of the Taleban from power, justified because of their inability to expel or acquiescence to an Al Qaeda presence in their country was achieved long ago, but it seems unsustainable without a large foreign contingent in that country to impose our form of government and values on people who clearly don't want them. Poppy fields are flourishing and made a tremendous come back since the ousting of the Taleban, and judging by the images we see on TV women continue to wear their traditional clothing and except for a few tokens they seem as detached from politics as ever.
The only conclusion I can reach is that our objectives encompass a lot more than military tactics and fighting terrorism. It seems fairly clear that are goal is to occupy that country indifinetely for reasons that escape me. Sacrificing our young people without knowing why they are there or what it is that they are supposed to accomplish is wrong, and we simply can not afford to pay for this crusade forever. It is time to declare victory and bring the troops home. Let the Afghans decide what form of government they want and how they want to live their lives...so long as Al Qaeda is not allowed to regroup and operate in that country.
The most basic problem with the "war on terror" is that we are fighting an invisible enemy. They can be anyone living not only in the Muslim world, but in our own country. Don't forget Timothy McVeigh.
Gen. McChrystal is entitled to his opinion, but he should convey it in private, the way most US officers do. Undermining the credibility of the CiC and forcing his hand is not the job of a field commander.
Complain about this comment
This is the White House where both Petreaus and McChrystal are not given the respect there deserve.
But what do you expect from a man who has never been in the real world like Obama. Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard. What does Obama know?
Nothing, when will the Obamaphiles admidt the savior is a zero?
Complain about this comment
30. At 10:04pm on 05 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
And if obama wants to be a commander in cheif of armed forces, he should first take some training at the west point, wear uniform and then decide what military startgy is best.He is here for four years, the general however will have to defend or stand by his decisions for the rest of his life.
The job of Commander in Chief comes with the office of the Presidency and we have had a dozen Presidents who did not serve in any branch of the military before they attained the office. They are: Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson, William Taft, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, John Q. Adams and John Adams. Of those who did serve only two, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower, graduated from West Point. Of the rest, some, like Abraham Lincoln, only served a few months and saw no action at all, or had honorary commissions in their state militias, like Thomas Jefferson, or hid out in the National Guard, like George W. Bush. So your comment is not only ridiculously partisan, but extremely ill informed.
In addition, if you were a colonel in any military, which you are obviously not, then you'd know very well that McChrystal has no right or need to cover himself like this. That's what internal reports are for, and anyone with any military experience knows how to document their objections to policy within the chain of command. Taking it public is McChrystal's way of telling a sitting president that not only had he'd better jump when he's told to jump, but he'd better ask how high and for how long too. And that is what the White House rightfully finds offensive!
Complain about this comment
People are not making distinctions between the Taliban and al-Quaeda, Their interests may, for the time being, coincide in some respects, but the Taliban have shown no interest in anything much outside Afghanistan.
Nor are the tribal areas of the North West territories representative of Pakistan. I am very depressed to read the relatively new term 'AfPak', which suggests to me that the same mistakes that were made over Vietnam are in prospect again. In other words, by treating Afghanistan and Pakistan as some sort of homogenous whole. the way Vietnam became a regional Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos war. A seriously mistaken concept and one which led to a whole series of disasters.
If the US does not treat Afghanistan and Pakistan differently, and does not also quickly start distinguishing between the various philosophies of Islam instead of confounding them all into some glib 'fundamentlist/Taliban/al-Quaeda' single mould, then the serious risk is that the whole of the region will be made fearful and unstable. And we will have one enormous 'Chaosistan'. A prospect I think McChrystal is well aware of, but frankly, much of the civilian administration, its advisers, the US media, pundits and public, seem blind to.
Complain about this comment
This new surge about renewed interest in afghanistan war and how its impossible to win without more troops and etc etc seems to be artifcially created. Up until last year it was considered safe enough to send one of the english prince over there, and all of a sudden the place once again out of the blue has become very dangerous..the Equation of logic doesnt balance..Either the general is looking for more military budget and he has added the afghan scare to add more weight to his demand, or its some kind of power struggle between defence department and some other department..Its an internal issue which both sides have made quite external to score some easy cheap points.
Complain about this comment
30 colonial
"And if obama wants to be a commander in cheif of armed forces, he should first take some training at the west point, wear uniform and then decide what military startgy is best."
Heads of State are almost always the ultimate head of a country's military, so your idea that they take military training is absurd. They have military advisors to give information on which they base their decisions.
If the military was not ultimately beholden to the elected civilian govt we would have a military dictatorship .... or are you from a country where that is the norm?
The Queen is, I believe, C-in-C of the British Armed Forces ... should she go to Sandhurst?
Or perhaps John "gets shot down alot" McCain would have handled things differently....
Complain about this comment
re. 11. Acolonelartist:
"Increasing troop levels in a country with an incipient army and police force, no air force, and no NAVY..."
Afghanistan is a landlocked country. I certainly hope they aren't squandering our money to build a navy. But perhaps they would anticipate a naval conflict with Austria.
Complain about this comment
re. 31. TimothyR444 wrote:
"No doubt Britain would take care of the situation with their eyes closed."
Just like they did in 1842.
Complain about this comment
31. TimothyR444 wrote:
"It's surprising that this speech would be given to a London audience, considering the view of Americans in Britain."
--------------------------------------
Just once it would be good if you could comment within the eternal suffix of presumed British htred of America. It has tinges of paranoia. Have you ever been to the UK?
Considering the UK is the USA's major military ally in its current adventures, it seems totally UNsurprising that a speech should be given in London.
"Average Americans are indeed primitive. Very perceptive remark.
No doubt Britain would take care of the situation with their eyes closed."
What is this supposed to mean?
If you can actually read, you should review the British comment where relevent to the UK govt. You will find much criticism of the UK's participation.
You seem to fall into a dichotomous world where things are black or white, "for us or against us" etc .... whereas many of us see in shades of gray.
Complain about this comment
35 magic
"Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard."
Have you ever heard the phrase "clutching at straws"?
Complain about this comment
In addition, if you were a colonel in any military, which you are obviously not, then you'd know very well that McChrystal has no right or need to cover himself like this. That's what internal reports are for, and anyone with any military experience knows how to document their objections to policy within the chain of command. Taking it public is McChrystal's way of telling a sitting president that not only had he'd better jump when he's told to jump, but he'd better ask how high and for how long too. And that is what the White House rightfully finds offensive!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The white house should leave its sense of offensive outside at the door steps..that kind of attitude looks good on ordinary people..Obama needs to learn to digest the offensiveness because his postion doesnt allow that. General was just speaking to people, he was speaking at the international institute of strategic studies, where he was probably invited to talk about Afghanistan..Like I said, he is not a politician, the politicians have given him the difficult task of going to war, in which they want america to win and not have their soldiers killed...
Complain about this comment
34. At 10:46pm on 05 Oct 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"The point is, however, that we are not fighting a formal military force. neither in size, training, equipment, nor logistics. With that in mind, why do we need such a large military commitment?"
The Taliban appear to be as well equipped for their purposes as they need to be. On numerous occasions in the last couple of years they have fielded anything from 200 to as many as 800 fighters in one location. That is at the lowest the equivalent of a regular army company; at its highest nearly that of a regular army battalion.
At the same time they will take and maintain control of a village with the equivalent of a platoon.
We are not talking any more of handfuls of individuals armed with rusty Lee Enfields. Remember? These are the same forces that were given and trained with very sophisticated and modern weaponry by the CIA and the Pakistani army when the US wanted them to fight (and defeat) the Russians.
So there is the answer to your question.
Complain about this comment
The basic problem is the same as it's been since the end of WWII. The United States no longer fights wars with the single minded purpose of winning them. As a result it has lost every war except possiblly Serbia it has fought since that time. It is no surprise it is losing here in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq, in Iran, and in North Korea. If President Obama does not want to fight to win, he should pull all of the troops out and let the chips fall where they may. He should not be concerned with worldwide public opinion, nor with our worthless so called allies.
General McChrystal was right to bring the situation to the attention of the American people since President Obama who hasn't seemed more preoccupied with getting the Olympics in Chicago, speaking before the UN, speaking at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, speaking at the climate change summit than he is about issues regarding the life, death, and welfare of the American nation. But then that is what you get when you elect a Community Organizer instead of a real President.
Had Truman listened to MacArthur and Patton, neither the cold war nor the problems we are having today with North Korea would likely ever have materialized. They'd have nipped them in the bud. These are men who knew war, the causes of war, and wanted to stop future wars before the seeds of them could take root. But they were overruled by politicians.
Complain about this comment
ref #43
RomeStu wrote:
35 magic
"Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard."
Have you ever heard the phrase "clutching at straws"?
Have you heard the phrase"Disregarding facts"?
The fact is right now we have a naive man whose apology tour has resulted in embarassment. The country is more polarized than ever. And Obama plays basketball while the country burns.
Complain about this comment
re. 35. MagicKirin:
"Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard."
I'm not sure that Bush's activities in the Texas Air National Guard constitute "serving." His flight status was revoked and he had an unexplained gap in his attendance. I will give him credit for not crashing his planes, unlike John McCain, who crashed several times before ever reaching combat. I understand we differ on McCain's politics and policies, but Top Gun material he was not.
And Bush's vast military "service" gave him the insight to invade Irag. That kind of military wisdom is something we can do without.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The Queen is, I believe, C-in-C of the British Armed Forces ... should she go to Sandhurst?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, she should have..Her next in line went there, or are there..Just because she is a woman, doesnt mean that she is exempted from certain things.However, since she became queen at the time when women didnt go to Sandhurst, Iam just taking a wild guess here, so she can be exempted.
Complain about this comment
38. At 11:10pm on 05 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
This new surge about renewed interest in afghanistan war and how its impossible to win without more troops and etc etc seems to be artifcially created. Up until last year it was considered safe enough to send one of the english prince over there, and all of a sudden the place once again out of the blue has become very dangerous..the Equation of logic doesnt balance..Either the general is looking for more military budget and he has added the afghan scare to add more weight to his demand, or its some kind of power struggle between defence department and some other department..Its an internal issue which both sides have made quite external to score some easy cheap points."
The general knows he has been sold a pup and he is making sure that when the deck of cards collapses it is not his head on the block.
All that will happen in Afghanistan is that the US will hand out weapons to "friendly" militias, slaughter will increase, the warlords may take over again, and the powers that be will call this a victory.
That is what usually happens in these situations
Complain about this comment
36. At 11:07pm on 05 Oct 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
30. At 10:04pm on 05 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
And if obama wants to be a commander in cheif of armed forces, he should first take some training at the west point, wear uniform and then decide what military startgy is best.He is here for four years, the general however will have to defend or stand by his decisions for the rest of his life.
The job of Commander in Chief comes with the office of the Presidency and we have had a dozen Presidents who did not serve in any branch of the military before they attained the office. They are: Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson, William Taft, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, John Q. Adams and John Adams. Of those who did serve only two, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower, graduated from West Point. Of the rest, some, like Abraham Lincoln, only served a few months and saw no action at all, or had honorary commissions in their state militias.
Lincoln himself was of course highly derogatory about his military experience and for much of the CW proved disastorous in his choice of army commanders.
Complain about this comment
And finally if I had been this general, i would have told obama " sir why dont you go to afghanistan and acheive everything you want me to acheive with the troops you have given me and i will sit in the white house and rule the country"
Complain about this comment
These are the same forces that were given and trained with very sophisticated and modern weaponry by the CIA and the Pakistani army when the US wanted them to fight (and defeat) the Russians.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to make you feel a bit happy, last week one such top trainer who once was trained by the americans, was killed in a drone attack..first they used millions or thousands of dollars to train him, and then they use millions of dollars to kill him. Do you know how much a drone cost? and the americans are sending them as if they were bullets from a 303 rifle.
Complain about this comment
35. At 10:57pm on 05 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
This is the White House where both Petreaus and McChrystal are not given the respect there deserve.
But what do you expect from a man who has never been in the real world like Obama. Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard. What does Obama know?
Nothing, when will the Obamaphiles admidt the savior is a zero?
"
As disrespectful as a buffoon who dresses up in military jackets and serves plastic turkey for the cameras to his troops in Iraq? This to men and women who were putting their lives on the line.
As contempt goes this is pretty much as bad as it gets.
If they had been Australian troops Bushies army jacket may have needed a dry clean afterwards. And it would not have been food that needed cleaning off.
To try to claim Bush showed respect for anyone but his own far right looney tunes is ridiculus.
It has recently emerged that he declined to give JK Rowling a "Freedom medal"
(some ghastly US trinket)not because of her appalling books (which at least would have made sense) but because it was considered she was "encouraging witchcraft".
And to think this individual was shipped around the world as the supreme rep of the US.
Never has the Presidency sunk so low, and it has seen some pretty base occupants.
Complain about this comment
31. At 10:08pm on 05 Oct 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
No doubt Britain would take care of the situation with their eyes closed."
If it meant not having to witness the US armed forces blundering around again, it could be an effective strategy
Complain about this comment
43. At 11:20pm on 05 Oct 2009, RomeStu wrote:
35 magic
"Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard."
Have you ever heard the phrase "clutching at straws"?
Yes there seemed to be some trouble in finding this gallant soldier's war record.
Complain about this comment
31. At 10:08pm on 05 Oct 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
"I had not seen this story before. Interesting. It's surprising that this speech would be given to a London audience, considering the view of Americans in Britain."
Since he did (at the highly respected Institute of International Strategic Studies, where Prime Ministers, Defence Ministers and even American Presidents also accept invitations to speak and discuss policies) perhaps that in itself may suggest your perception of us Brits nay not be entirely accurate.
It is doubtful, by the way, that a serving officer, even a General, would have given that paper at the IISS without the agreement of the Chief of the General Staff--or whatever the US equivalent is--at the least. Invited speakers there do not go for a casual conversation or a headline in the press the following morning. They know very well that their papers will form the bases for serious military and political discussion.
Complain about this comment
Interesting about the Queen not having gone to Sandhurst. So I guess that helps explain why it took the British Royal Navy 6 weeks to sail an aircraft carrier to the Malvinas and why they nearly lost to a fifteenth rate South American military power. I'll bet Mad Maggie would have run an entirely different sort of ship. With her mentality, she could have taught at Sandhurst. Gorby didn't call her "The Iron Lady" for nothing.
Well, with the Community Organizer's closest encounter with the US military probably standing outside a US Army Recruiting Center trying to register voters for Acorn before he was elected to the US Senate it's small wonder we are not doing well in Afghanistan. Perhaps we should start him off on an easier military objective...like capturing the Malvinas from the British. After all, whom would he be up against, QE2? If he can't beat her, how can you expect him to beat the Taleban?
Is it true Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was Jewish but changed his name? OK, refer this to the moderators, see if I care.
Complain about this comment
Ref 45, Squirrellist
"The Taliban appear to be as well equipped for their purposes as they need to be. On numerous occasions in the last couple of years they have fielded anything from 200 to as many as 800 fighters in one location. That is at the lowest the equivalent of a regular army company; at its highest nearly that of a regular army battalion."
Should we be impressed by the fact that the most powerful military force in the world, with tens of thousands of troops deployed in Afghanistan and the most lethal and sophisticated weaponry money can buy is engaged in fighting an enemy that has mustered an army the size of a regular battalion?
I guess it could have been worse, it could have easily been a re-enactment of Grenada...
I am puzzled by President Obama's determination to fight this war, escalate it, and by all indications planning to remain there indefinitely. This decision is so inconsistent with the quiet diplomacy that has been going on since he became President and the progress we are making in Iran and now in North Korea that it simply doesn't make sense. If the reason is to look macho to impress his Republican opponents, he might as well forget it. He will be attacked regardless of whether we stay in Afghanistan, pulverize the place, or withdraw. To make matters worse, he is losing his political base, a fact that may prove more lethal than the Taleban in 2012.
Complain about this comment
50. At 11:35pm on 05 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
The Queen is, I believe, C-in-C of the British Armed Forces ... should she go to Sandhurst?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, she should have..Her next in line went there, or are there..
Actually, I don't think Prince Charles did; he was in the Navy. His sons volunteered for the army.
In any case, this is not strictly comparable. The responsibility for sending people to war lies not with the monarch at all, but solely with the Prime Minister, and we do not expect our elected Prime Ministers to have military experience, That is what we have generals, admirals, and air marshals for.
In fact, we have only I think, had one Prime Minister with high level military experience, and that was the Duke of Wellington, who was not a great success as PM. We do not particularly like military figures doing civilian jobs. Probably something to do with Cromwell. It is very difficult for us to imagine an Eisenhower or a de Gaulle as our head of government. As it is for most other European countries now.
In fact, our senior military officers have been very careful to stay away from formal politics for many years.
Complain about this comment
51. At 11:39pm on 05 Oct 2009, Simon21 wrote:
"All that will happen in Afghanistan is that the US will hand out weapons to "friendly" militias, slaughter will increase, the warlords may take over again, and the powers that be will call this a victory.
That is what usually happens in these situations."
Regretfully, I anticipate precisely that.
Complain about this comment
IMHO
Whether the wicket is sticky,
Or whether the wicket's just tricky,
Whichever bitter cup we drink
'tis sure to be a mickey!
We can not deal with barbarians as though we were dealing with civilized oponents, however much we might want to do so. Invited for a civil chat over a cup of tea, they might remove your head. To cut the Gordian knot of Afghanistan, offer them a deal consonant with their own culture.
Oh Taliban, the friend of my enemy is my enemy, and as long as you give shelter to the murderer of our women and children we are at blood feud.
Bring us the heads of Bin Ladin and Zawahiri and our blood price is paid. We will leave Afghanistan within one month thereafter.
Inshallah in accord with Pashtun Wali let it be so.
Complain about this comment
44. At 11:24pm on 05 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
The white house should leave its sense of offensive outside at the door steps..that kind of attitude looks good on ordinary people..Obama needs to learn to digest the offensiveness because his postion doesnt allow that. .
The White House cannot leave it outside, nor should they. Mark made a comment in a previous post about the "old world" manners and traditions of Washingtonian society. There's a reason for that. If you want people to respect your President and your various offices of government then there have to be social rules for conducting business. Otherwise, you might just as well hold Congress in a saloon and let the President tend bar, for all it will matter once any subordinate can start dictating foreign policy whenever they please.
General was just speaking to people, he was speaking at the international institute of strategic studies, where he was probably invited to talk about Afghanistan..Like I said, he is not a politician, the politicians have given him the difficult task of going to war, in which they want america to win and not have their soldiers killed..
Gen. McChrystal knows very well that in his position he is also an official representative of the United States of America. As long as he is in uniform he is not a "regular guy" who can say anything he pleases in a public forum, no matter who printed the invitation. He was making another point besides his comments. The one that says he should be making foreign policy and not the President of the United States. You really need to differentiate between the two. His comment versus the inappropriateness of his making those comments where and when he did. Or did you not see him jump to meet Obama in Copenhagen as he was ordered - for the very well deserved dressing down his Commander in Chief no doubt gave him?
52. At 11:41pm on 05 Oct 2009, Simon21 wrote:
Lincoln himself was of course highly derogatory about his military experience
Actually, he was more self-deprecating than derogatory - but only after having to listen to the prattling of another congressman talking up a man with equally poor military qualifications - though Lincoln did three tours in the Black Hawk war. Here is the relevant portion of that very amusing speech. One of my favorite "Lincoln in Congress" moments, btw.
"...did you know I am a military hero? Yes, sir; in the days of the Black Hawk war I fought, bled, and came away. Speaking of General Cass's career reminds me of my own. I was not at Stiliman's defeat, but I was about as near it as Cass was to Hull's surrender; and, like him, I saw the place very soon afterward. It is quite certain I did not break my sword, for I had none to break; but I bent a musket pretty badly on one occasion. If Cass broke his sword, the idea is he broke it in desperation; I bent the musket by accident. If General Cass went in advance of me in picking huckleberries, I guess I surpassed him in charges upon the wild onions. If he saw any live, fighting Indians, it was more than I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes, and although I never fainted from the loss of blood, I can truly say I was often very hungry. Mr. Speaker, if I should ever conclude to doff whatever our Democratic friends may suppose there is of black-cockade federalism about me, and therefore they shall take me up as their candidate for the Presidency, I protest they shall not make fun of me, as they have of General Cass, by attempting to write me into a military hero."
ref 52 continued:
and for much of the CW proved disastorous in his choice of army commanders.
His first choice was Robert E. Lee, on the advice of Gen. Winfield Scott - the only active general in America at the time who'd had any actual combat experience - and that was during the Mexican-American War of 1846-48! You work with what you have. But the truth is even McClellan was a decent choice because he built the Army of the Potomac and turned 100,000 plus farmers, plow boys and shop clerks into a fighting force in less than a year. The rest simply weren't Grant, whose sheer doggedness in moving forward even after a defeat is what won the war.
Complain about this comment
#39. RomeStu: "The Queen is, I believe, C-in-C of the British Armed Forces ... should she go to Sandhurst?"
When she was of an age to enter Sandhurst, women were not admitted. However she did serve in the military during World War II.
Complain about this comment
Ref 51, Simon
"All that will happen in Afghanistan is that the US will hand out weapons to "friendly" militias, slaughter will increase, the warlords may take over again, and the powers that be will call this a victory.:
There is a good chance this will be the case. Another possibility is emulating Gen. Petraeus strategy in Iraq and put the Taleban on our payroll. The latter may prove to be the most cost effective and logical strategy of all.
Complain about this comment
Historically, American theater commanders have been required to communicate with the American people directly, mostly because the American people won't have it any other way. These guys are putting our kids in harm's way. We need to know what they think.
However, that arrangement can be problematic. MacArthur's public insistence on bombing China cause Truman a great deal of embarrassment and led to his firing. This is a rebuke from the White House. I'm sure the Joint Chiefs are none to pleased either. Still, I think it's wrong to take it as any indication of a lack of confidence in his command abilities.
In this case, I appreciate the General's candor. It is ultimately after all, our decision to make. We bear the responsibility. We take the consequences.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 64, Gavrielle:
"The rest simply weren't Grant, whose sheer doggedness in moving forward even after a defeat is what won the war."
Yes, McClellan could build an army, but he couldn't fight one. I think the ability to fight an army is a minimum requirement for a general, don't you?
Meade wasn't bad. He did command the Army of the Potomac to the greatest Union victory of the war. evidently, Grant thought he was good, too, because Grant kept him on his staff.
Grant fought the first war of attrition. He won, but it was pretty ugly. His command was marked by some ghastly mistakes (e.g. Cold Harbor).
Complain about this comment
# 6 MagicKirin wrote:
"Well first fox [sic] has reported that the Obama team is upset."
Well - if Fox said it, it must be true.
I'm sure they have excellent contacts in the Obama White House...
"Who is on the foriegn [sic] policy team? Considering they are promoting the apology tour they should be dismissed."
This is all rather reminiscent of the fabled technique of The Big Lie. That is to say, you repeat The Big Lie endlessly, without proof or evidence, and hope people will believe it.
So - exactly what is this "apology tour" you're forever whining on about? To whom, exactly, did your President apologise? And for what, exactly? [Apart, perhaps, for the idiot who ran the country for 8 years in one of the most reviled and disastrous administrations in US history?]
"Just the facts, Magic"
For once.
Complain about this comment
# 35 MagicKirin wrote:
"This is the White House where both Petreaus [sic] and McChrystal are not given the respect there [sic] deserve./But what do you expect from a man who has never been in the real world like Obama. Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard. What does Obama know?/Nothing, when will the Obamaphiles admidt [sic] the savior is a zero?"
Yes - it must have been GWB's [and Cheney's] vast frontline military experience that made them such outstanding and successful military strategists....
What does Obama know? Many things. Many many more things than your friends GWB, Cheney or Palin, to name but 3.
And both he and the First Lady you despise so much know how to compose a literate sentence....
Complain about this comment
# 46 MAII
{I know, I know, paying him any attention only encourages him...]
MAII wrote
"Usual rant
Usual rant
Usual rant
Usual rant
Usual rant
Had Truman listened to MacArthur and Patton, neither the cold war nor the problems we are having today with North Korea would likely ever have materialized. They'd have nipped them in the bud"
The only 'sense' - and I use the word in its broadest possible sense - I can make from this is that MAII thinks the US should have gone to war with the USSR and then China.
All becomes clear
MAII isn't a vampire, a Dalek, Cheney's older, weirder brother, or even a cunning ploy by enemies of the US to make the country look bad.
No - he's Doctor Strangelove...
[Oh, and Markie, I'll save you a bit of time with your reply. How about this. "Bent Over Double In Dublin, Pubs, Guinness, Priests, Stereotypes, Europeans are all the same, we are the Supreme Beings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc"]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 42 RomeStu wrote: [to TimothyR444]
"Just once it would be good if you could comment within the eternal suffix of presumed British htred of America. It has tinges of paranoia."
"Tinges"??!!
Complain about this comment
68. At 03:01am on 06 Oct 2009, AndyPost wrote:
Yes, McClellan could build an army, but he couldn't fight one. I think the ability to fight an army is a minimum requirement for a general, don't you?
McClellan did have the ability to fight an army. His problem wasn't incompetence per se, but an over abundance of caution. He came up with battle plans that would have succeeded - if he hadn't consistently imagined the enemy's forces were greater than his own. McClellan was repeatedly ordered to move forward by Lincoln in cases where he should have won and would have, and yet he repeatedly disobeyed those orders. Personally, I think he was just a treasonous little snake, who was interested in becoming President himself, so he threw entire campaigns to make Lincoln look bad. But not being able to finish what he started, for whatever reason, doesn't mean his battle plans were flawed or that, if he had chosen to fight, he couldn't have won.
Meade wasn't bad. He did command the Army of the Potomac to the greatest Union victory of the war. evidently, Grant thought he was good, too, because Grant kept him on his staff.
Meade was very good, though I can't quite forgive him for not crushing Lee at Gettysburg when he had the chance. Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved, but Meade lacked vision and let Lee escape.
Grant fought the first war of attrition. He won, but it was pretty ugly. His command was marked by some ghastly mistakes (e.g. Cold Harbor).
Yes he did, and yes it was. No argument there from me. And even Grant admitted the mistake at Cold Harbor. His memoirs, like Sherman's, are fascinating reading.
Complain about this comment
"The UK's Telegraph reports that Obama is "furious" with the general and that White House staff were "shocked" by a speech McChrystal made in London last week."
What else would you expect from that publication? It hasn't exactly been enthusiastic about Mr Obama; writing of his supposedly negative reaction is typical. With the exception of its parliamentary expenses revelations, investigative reporting has never been its strong suit.
Complain about this comment
#56
Simon21
"If it meant not having to witness the US armed forces blundering around again, it could be an effective strategy"
--------------------------------------------
This open insult of tens of thousands of military who are putting their lives on the line seems a bit much even for this site. Usually they are above the more obvious and tasteless insult - however strongly one opposes a policy or a strategy or indeed an entire nation.
It would be unimaginable for me to insult the military of Britain. I would never think of doing it.
But I am well aware that such concerns and standards are not an issue here.
Complain about this comment
#37
squirrelist:
"If the US does not treat Afghanistan and Pakistan differently, and does not also quickly start distinguishing between the various philosophies of Islam instead of confounding them all into some glib 'fundamentlist/Taliban/al-Quaeda' single mould, then the serious risk is that the whole of the region will be made fearful and unstable. And we will have one enormous 'Chaosistan'. A prospect I think McChrystal is well aware of, but frankly, much of the civilian administration, its advisers, the US media, pundits and public, seem blind to."
----------------------------------
I agree with the absolute necessity of determining and understanding the nuances here. Both the regional and the specific religious differences must be grasped as well as the complexities.
You do go rather too far on blmamng everything on Americans. Surely even we are not responsible for every aspect of the 'fearful and unstable chaos' of the region? It seems to me that Britain faced similar confusion and chaos through the nineteenth century. Surely they are responsible for at least some of their behavior and responses?
And Americans in general are far less blind to this than you would assume, although this will not be accepted as true here.
Although I agree with your choice of words, your focus of blame reflects a sweeping hyperbole that is highly characteristic of this site and which I cannot accept.
Complain about this comment
#42:
RomeStu:
"You seem to fall into a dichotomous world where things are black or white, "for us or against us" etc .... whereas many of us see in shades of gray."
------------------------------------------------
I find it fascinating that you feel the need to address my posting style and my presumed presuppositions and assumptions. My understanding is that this site is for discussion and analysis, not for amateur character study.
You are in fact entirely wrong in regards to your assumptions about me. I have no wish or interest to pursue comparable speculations regarding your motives or assumptions. But it is necesary to set you straight regarding myself.
Complain about this comment
#67:
AndyPost:
"Historically, American theater commanders have been required to communicate with the American people directly, mostly because the American people won't have it any other way. These guys are putting our kids in harm's way. We need to know what they think.
However, that arrangement can be problematic. MacArthur's public insistence on bombing China cause Truman a great deal of embarrassment and led to his firing. This is a rebuke from the White House. I'm sure the Joint Chiefs are none to pleased either. Still, I think it's wrong to take it as any indication of a lack of confidence in his command abilities.
In this case, I appreciate the General's candor. It is ultimately after all, our decision to make. We bear the responsibility. We take the consequences."
-----------------------------------------
I think this is quite a good post covering several issues. I am in agreement on this.
I would like to have heard similar candor and forthright communication from the Bush administration.
I take it you are from the US. I have not seen almost any coverage of this story. Have you?
Complain about this comment
#77. TimothyR444: "You do go rather too far on blmamng everything on Americans. Surely even we are not responsible for every aspect of the 'fearful and unstable chaos' of the region?:
Today, yes.
"It seems to me that Britain faced similar confusion and chaos through the nineteenth century. Surely they are responsible for at least some of their behavior and responses? "
So you want to blame Britain for the problems that have been created by the US presence there? If her actions in the nineteenth century are to be considered then she must be responsible for almost all of the world's ills. I'm surprised you haven't posited this before since you appear to suffer from a bad case of Anglophobia.
Complain about this comment
After 17 yrs in the RAF it is refreshing to see a SERVING very senior officer speak his mind - albeit a US officer. Too often I recall groveling apologies to politicians from UK officers after giving at best 'unscripted' remarks to reporters or in speeches which often reflected the truth of a position or the mood of the troops. I also recall others who only spoke their mind AFTER elevation to the Lords.....ho hum!
Maybe, as has been suggested, McChrystal is naive but I think this unlikely given his position and rank. Maybe he just has to be honest, straightforward and is not minded to be manipulated by any Washington agenda. In any case he appears to be 'getting his retaliation in first'.
Well done.
Complain about this comment
David Cunard:
#80
"So you want to blame Britain for the problems that have been created by the US presence there? If her actions in the nineteenth century are to be considered then she must be responsible for almost all of the world's ills. I'm surprised you haven't posited this before since you appear to suffer from a bad case of Anglophobia."
--------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't blaming Britain. I was saying the inhabitants of the region are responsible for their own behavior. "They" refers to them, not Britain.
You misread my post.
Complain about this comment
#82. TimothyR444: "I wasn't blaming Britain. "I was saying the inhabitants of the region are responsible for their own behavior. "They" refers to them, not Britain."
The only "they" in that paragraph refers to Britain, not any inhabitants.
"You misread my post."
See above - if that's what you meant, then the post was ill-written. I note that you make no response to Anglophobia, a pity because many of us here would like to know why it is that you feel the way you do. Squirrelist asked if you had ever been to the United Kingdom and received no reply. Have you ever visited the scepter'd isle?
Complain about this comment
"So you want to blame Britain for the problems that have been created by the US presence there? If her actions in the nineteenth century are to be considered then she must be responsible for almost all of the world's ills. I'm surprised you haven't posited this before"
I have. Many times. On this blog and on the European blog site. Not just Britain but imperial Europe collectively. Not all of the world's problems but many of them...even most of them. But Britain in particular earns the lions share of the blame because its imperial policies had the greatest reach, were as exploitive and extended in time as any. For example, nations of Africa were drawn up without any regard to the tribal or ethnic divisions which existed. This in part explains the incessant wars between and within African nations today. And when Britain could no longer sustain its empire, with barely a token gesture pretending to prepare these nations for independence under the auspices of the UN Trusteeship Coucil, it just walked out leaving these nations to their fate. Almost immediately trouble ensued. For example, when Belgium exited the Congo, war started immediately and has hardly let up since. It's been close to 50 years. Wherever you look in Africa, you see the same thing. The map of Arabia was virtually invented by Britain, none more a culprit than Winston Churchill Britain's god himself. He drew the map of Iraq and later admitted it was among the worst mistakes of his life. Millions of Iraqis contiue to pay for that mistake nearly a century later. A piratical exploitive empire upon which as the British bragged the sun never set. One quarter of the entire human race under its thumb and no worse off than say victims of the Evil empire of the USSR.
Complain about this comment
David Cunard:
#83
"See above - if that's what you meant, then the post was ill-written. "
---------------------
And your interpretation was poor as well. There's no need to harp on it. It would have been preferable for you to respond.
---------------------------
"I note that you make no response to Anglophobia, a pity because many of us here would like to know why it is that you feel the way you do. "
The comment about anglophobia did not deserve a reponse.
'Many of us here want to know.....?' Seems odd.
-------------------------------------------
"Have you ever visited the scepter'd isle?"
Yes, several times - but not in recent years. I grew up with an English grandmother - who moved from Kent to New York as an adult and brought England with her. My parents and grandparents were devoted anglophiles (no doubt amusing to you, but quite true and not unusual in that time on the east coast) and my family were extremely vocal about joining Britain during WWII, during the Blitz. I grew up with all of that.
I do not recognize the spiteful, malicious, bitter and unpleasant Britain I see here. That is why I post as I do.
The Britain I encountered would not mock American involvement in WWII or tell Americans they deserved to die on 9/11, as I have just read tonight - and that is only one night's reading.
Anglophilia dies hard. But it does, after a while.
Complain about this comment
73 john
""Tinges"??!!"
Sorry - British understatement. I must be more direct with some of our more obstreperous colleagues.
Complain about this comment
#85. TimothyR444: "And your interpretation was poor as well."
I only respond to what is written. If you had meant inhabitants, then you should have written it so.
"There's no need to harp on it."
Good heavens! You harp on about how Britain and America are drifting apart and judge the British by a few un-named posters here. Since by your own admission you have not visited the United Kingdom "for several years" it might be prudent to do so before branding an entire nation as "spiteful, malicious, bitter and unpleasant."
"It would have been preferable for you to respond."
Which I did, and am happy to do so once more. If the British judged America and her citizens by the claptrap you and Marcus usually write, it would be little wonder that you both were on the sharp end of the stick. Fortunately, thinking people know that you have a minority and myopic view of all that is and was British. Empire-envy is a likely cause. However much America tries, she can never have the same affect on the world as did Britain at the height of her powers. I commend Shelley's poem Ozymandias to you. As went the British Empire, so goes the influence of the United States: in a thousand years, like that king of kings, nothing will be left of either and a new civilisation will have arisen. It could happen far sooner.
Complain about this comment
65. David_Cunard wrote:
"When she was of an age to enter Sandhurst, women were not admitted. However she did serve in the military during World War II."
David, thank you for remnding me. I recall now that Her Maj drove a military ambulance during the Blitz, and so does have military experience of a kind that few world leaders at all have seen.
Also it just came out recently in the Queen Mum's memoirs that the bomb that hit Buck House came rather close to killing the King, and they lied to Churchill about it fearing they would be sent away from London to therelative safety of the countryside.
Bravery like that is also rare in world leaders who are very brave with other people's lives.
Complain about this comment
#61 Squirrellist
I've been told in the past that Clement Attlee served in the International Brigade against Franco's fascists in Espania and reached the rank of Colonel. However, I'm not too sure, as he was in Churchill's 1940 government as Deputy PM. He must have quickly gone up the political ranks like a bubble in water!
Complain about this comment
Somebody here remarked about some other poster, that between postings he watches the grass grow.
Personally, I'd rather watch the grass grow (or even a soccer 0-0 match)
than wait for Mr. Obama to make a decision on anything significant, including our strategy in Afghanistan.
Or our strategy vis-a-vis Iran. Or North Korea.
Although I realize that making a decision (any decision) pertaining to a military strategy must be extremely difficult for a tassel-loafered lawywer who couldn't tell the barrel of a rifle from the butt, even if hit on his head with it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#86:
RomeStu:
"Sorry - British understatement. I must be more direct with some of our more obstreperous colleagues."
------------------------------
I often find that British posters will congratulate themselves with simpering self-regard when it comes to stereotypical British character traits.
There is nothing remotely understated about your posts. So do not kid yourself.
Complain about this comment
92 timothyR444
You seem somehow to have the idea that I am anti-American. You are wrong.
I respond to your own anti-British diatribes and your paranoia that any criticism at all of the USA is evidence of anti-Americanism.
IMO there is little anti-Americanism - just criticism of policy, of the views of certain contributors, and of the habit of some Americans of exaggerating their achievements in victory while ignoring the mistakes their nation has made.
This blog is not remotely representative of either the greater British or American public. There are extremists and ranters on both sides, but most contributors, American and foreign, are here to learn as much as to put forward their ideas.
I relish the frank exchange of views, but you create a self-fulfilling prophesy of anti-Americanism by your own constant harping about British hatred of the USA.
Let's all start afresh and see how we go.
Complain about this comment
It seems hip-hop has become quite popular in Kim family's Gulag.
Bodes well for Obama's intented strategy (more talks) re North Korea.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8291882.stm
Complain about this comment
85. At 07:26am on 06 Oct 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
"I was saying the inhabitants of the region are responsible for their own behavior."
If you apply that philosophy to all populations, you are propounding precisely the doctrine of 'collective responsibility' that you object to when others try to point out its consequences.
Thus: the inhabitants of Bezier were (all 10,000 of them) all responsible for their own massacre; all the Brotish of several generations for every occurrence in the post colonial world; all the Jews of 1930's Germany were responsible for the holocaust; all the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were responsible for the destruction of their cities by the Atomic bomb; all Palestinians for deaths and the destruction of their homes at various times over the last 60 years; all Americans for the deaths in the Twin Towers; all Iraquis for Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq. . .
And all Afghans and Pakistanis for the current turmoil in the region.
I hope you see the dangerous illogicality and speciousness of the argument? And its terrible consequences over the last 1000 years or so of history?
The sack of Beziers took place in 1209 in a campaign against heretics; notoriously, the Bishop accompanying the army applied your precept when asked which people in the city should be killed for heresy: "Kill them all. God will know his own."
Several of us--not only Brits, either--have been trying to point out the dangers and risks of all-embracing fallacies like this for months one way and another, usually in response to the wilder forms expressed by Marcky.
How many times must some of us say that criticism of a country's policies or practices is not a 'malicious and bitter' criticism of all its people? How often must we insist that Islam's adherents are not all fundamentalist, stuck in a medieval timewarp, terrorists, or even all Arab?
If you can't give us Brits credit for anything much, at least please try to credit some of us, through our imperial past--which we can't change or rewrite, however much we might wish to-- and through more than two centuries of experience of nearly every continent (very little of which was actually spent massacring the inhabitants, contrary to what some people who post here seem to think) and those who have immigrated here, some grasp of the cultural and political complexities of the rest of the world.
Did you know that there has only been one year since 1945 in which no member of the British armed forces has been killed abroad? And in all that time, only once have we actually willingly (and wrongly, in fact) gone to war?
It doesn't mean we don't fight them; nor that we are some kind of helpless pacifists. But you won't find many in this country--including those in the military--who do not think wars are best avoided, when they occur should be rigorously contained, and never deliberately escalated for purely political purposes.
That's why we are, generally, anxious--and often critical--about the consequences of American actions, both political and military, not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan but elsewhere, in which we have become involved, but on which we have had little influence.
Complain about this comment
Congrat MI5 on you 100th anniversary. Many happy returns!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8290504.stm
Complain about this comment
95: sorry about the white space, But now I read something in the NYT. Repeating one failed strategy in another country is not a guarantee that it will work any better the second time.
In fact, this is a harbinger of another disaster that will potentially inflame that part of Asia even more.
Do the Pentagon and the State Department never learn anything?
Complain about this comment
I think in a democratic country every thing should be public other than those that might cause harm to the national interests.
I think the United States is wondering how to get out of Afghanistan, as they know due to their unsound failed policies they are somehow stuck in the country.
I think they still have time to rethink their strategies, policies and behaviour. They should drop their arrogance and respect my country's culture, and behave humanely with us at least when we are at the other side of the table with them, as members of the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
#94 Meerkat
It seems hip-hop has become quite popular in Kim family's Gulag. Bodes well for Obama's intented strategy (more talks) re North Korea.
So if we see the headline 'Obama raps N Korea leader on Human Rights' we should read the small print!
Complain about this comment
98. At 09:29am on 06 Oct 2009, afghan wrote:
"I think they still have time to rethink their strategies, policies and behaviour."
The fundamental questions are "Do they have the will and the ability?" to do any of those three things anew? With Congressional elections next year, Gates in the same job, Patraeus apparently sidelined (what is this constant game of musical chairs with generals?) I simply doubt it. My own view is that McChrystal's plan is probably the least disruptive and damaging to the region, and in the medium term probably the only real practical option left, but I just can't see Congress or the American public accepting the consequences and the costs.
There are obviously two entirely opposed sides in this. And however wise a military tactician's plans may be, it is short-term political advantage, the prospect of a second presidential term, and the administration's poll ratings that will decide. It won't be the long-term interests of Afghanistan, Pakistan or India, unless Obama really manages to surprise me.
Complain about this comment
Once again about three US based posters show their rank hypocrisy, feeling that they can throw out their xenophobic views about Europeans and the British in particular, on a British website I might add, but then cry anti-Americanism fouls when any of the British posters question the spin and misinformation they spout!
Just to be clear from the out set, to make crystal clear my bias, I have no particular issue with Americans, I tend to treat people on an individual basis and base my opinion on what they say. I have in the past worked for American companies and with American colleagues, to be honest I have not liked most of these colleagues, then again I work in the financial industry and my general dislike encompasses my fellow Brits and other Europeans. I am not a fan of rightwing small mindedness, which is a shame considering where I choose to work (its all down to the money I get paid, I’m afraid).
Now that’s put of the way, I’ll direct my comments specifically at the three Anglophobes who seem to have missed out on a few lessons on manners. I will refrain from using the standard British self deprecating reserve, instead I shall rely on our other well known attribute the steely determined arrogance that led us to at one time being the most powerful nation on the planet.
First off, when you come to a British website show a little common courtesy and respect, do not bad mouth our Monarch directly or indirectly, it would help if you got a few history lessons as well.
While our government may be happy to be treated like good little lap dogs eagerly trotting into any conflict the US Administration feels is a good idea at the time, large chunks of the British population have become disillusioned with the so called ‘Special Relationship’, yes you speak basically the same language as us and yes most of the last century we were allied, but allied does not mean subservient lap dog. We may not be the most powerful nation in the world now, but we retain elements of our influence and enough power to make our own way in the modern world.
Pathetic references to saving our butts in WWII, which ignore that the war was far more complicated than just the US turning up and everything being ok, or leaving us to our own devises and letting the spectre of Russia gobble up us lazy European, cut as much ice as a broken tooth pick. The past is a different country and the current picture and how it will affect the future is far more important. While Britain is losing men and women fighting a war initiated by the US, we have the right to question American policy, especially on a website that is paid for by the British population. Again you are visitors here, so act like good visitors and treat your patrons with a little more respect.
There are number of posters here that I don’t necessarily agree with, I am an uber liberal with latent socialist leaning, though one with a viewpoint that is tinged with a heavy dose of realism/pessimism. The difference between these posters and those that apparent think that mutilating a person’s username (or real name) is in some way big and/or clever, is that these posters respect others on this board and are willing to discuss their views reasonably, not make stupid asinine comments.
Oh and just in case anyone cares, I am not angry, just slightly irked. I have a thing about manners and the kind of yahoos who don’t realise that respect is a two way street.
Complain about this comment
101. DavidRMurrell:
At least, if you're a Brit, working in the financial industry and only leaning to socialism, I think you can console yourself with being more popular with a certain group than this self-confessed socialist minor member of the despised fourth estate :-D
(Now if only someone would confess to being a French Communist politician working part-time as an estate agent, I could move up the ranks a bit. It gets lonely down here.)
Complain about this comment
Squirrel - In my youth, quickly escaping over the horizon unfortunately, I used to a rather radical socialist, age and experience has blunted the keen blade of my idealism. I have come across too many socialists who have as an unworkably skewed view of the world as radical conservatives (well not when it comes to religion admittedly there the radical cons win hands down on the ignoring the facts). These days I work more on compromising my beliefs in small ways to keep my core ideals going, like working in potentially the most selfish and pointless industry on the planet.
These days it is my belief that people should as much as possible be left to live their life as they wish, which is far more important to me. ‘Do as you wish, as long as it harms no other’ as the Wiccan Reed goes.
That being said I am still one of the most arrogant sobs that you are likely to meet, just a nice fluffy one (though with big, sharp, pointy teeth)!
Complain about this comment
Another long, boring thread that morphs into a debate about (gosh) WW2. Imagine being invited to a party attended solely by the people who frequent these pages. Actually I daren't.
#20 "no one has ever defined the goal"
Allow me:-
Pipeline.
Wasn't that easy? Why exhaust the dictionary when one word will suffice?
BTW, does anyone feel slightly ashamed after they've finished laughing at that marcus fella?
Complain about this comment
Me neither.
Complain about this comment
Squirrel and David
I'm an unrepentant Anarchist-Communist. So that probably puts me in the same league as a French Communist politician working part-time as an estate agent.
At least I'm not a banker!!
Complain about this comment
103. DavidRMurrell
Where we differ from those that irk us, of course, is in how we ensure that 'no harm is done to others'. It's a restriction on nature's tooth and claw I'm happy to accept.
Speaking of which, you're not related to a certain fluffytale by any chance?
Complain about this comment
Re #106
As long as ou're not a certain state's agent - that's fine with me. :-)
P.S. You must be really pround of the French and German Socialists' unprecedented electoral successes. Congratulations!
MORE POWER IN HANDS OF THE WORLD PROLETARIAT!
Complain about this comment
To GH1618 - you won't see much about McChrystal/Obama unless you can view Fox news - all the other 'Obama camp' media outlets are effectively censored. Our military, both US and UK, suffer the same problem. Two 'leaders', Brown and Obama, who seem to have little respect for the institution seeing it as a necessary evil. In particular Obama wants a social 'army' quote "as least as powerful as the military". Jeez George Orwell's 1984 will become the new Bible!
Complain about this comment
Dceliar – Banker, BANKER!!!!! I haven’t been a banker for almost a decade, though in my time I have been both a private and merchant banker (yes I realise the rhyming slang – which I won’t deny)! These days I am the Compliance Officer for a very large Inter Dealer Broker, not that 99% of people know what either of those is. Banker, goodness, compared to us in the infernal rankings they hardly rate above imps. The NWO couldn’t run without us, bwahahahahahaha
Complain about this comment
Squirrel – No relation, I don’t have a tail, though I have been known to chase it, nudge, nudge, wink, wink!
Complain about this comment
canard;
"If the British judged America and her citizens by the claptrap you and Marcus usually write, it would be little wonder that you both were on the sharp end of the stick."
I'll have you know I've done my best to hone my end of the stick to be as sharp as possible so that my jabs can be a piercing as I can make them. Judging from the constant wincing and vitriolic reaction, the stick is plenty sharp. I hope to keep it that way.
"Fortunately, thinking people know that you have a minority and myopic view of all that is and was British."
Do we? Are you sure? Study of American history suggests it should be otherwise. I haven't seen any polling data about conteporary views among the American public regarding Britain or its people. Do you have any concrete evidence to support your assertion?
"Empire-envy is a likely cause."
Why should America envy an empire? Why should it want an empire? It doesn't need an empire. Not in the conventional sense of European empires of the past. America itself is a continent sized nation. It creates its wealth itself, it doesn't obtain it by military conquest and stealing it the way European empires did. All it wants and needs from the outside world is free access to buy raw materials it doesn't have or have in sufficient quantities at home and access to outside markets to sell its products. What outside territory has the US held for more than a short period, Guam and American Samoa? Some empire. The projection of American hard and soft power is to assure that access and is also there on humanitarian grounds to protect people from each other. This is an onerous task many of us loathe but what can you do when some tyrant has invaded half of Europe and threatens to gobble up the other half or another threatens to control 40% of the world's oil?
"However much America tries, she can never have the same affect on the world as did Britain at the height of her powers."
Wrong. The effect of American culture, American inventions, America everything has been profound and it has been fast. In Saudi Arabia an American television program Oprah Winfrey touches Saudi women in their own homes with issues that plague their society they otherwise are not even allowed to think about let alone discuss or try to resolve. America invented miracle strains of grains producing crops that ended the famines all over the world that were the norm since time immemorial. American movies are shown in theaters everywhere in the world. Even isolated North Korea's leader watches them. American influence has been stunning in its penetration which is why angry reactionaries like the Taleban and al Qaeda have taken up arms against us. That is the real reason and they make no secret of it if you just bother to listen to what they have to say.
"As went the British Empire, so goes the influence of the United States"
I don't think so. As Britain's influence on the world has declined, America's has ascended and continues to rise. Not only have American universities eductated countless leaders in every walk of life around the world, they are now setting up remote campuses in other countries to spread the American influence on future leaders.
"in a thousand years, like that king of kings, nothing will be left of either and a new civilisation will have arisen."
I doubt it. If the human race still exists in anything resembling the form we know it, America will be recognized as the birthplace of modern civilization, its critics as reactionaries who wanted human society to remain stultified in the cruel primitive cultures of the past. Its revolution against Britain the first real and effective shot to overthrow the reactionary societies it had sprung from.
Complain about this comment
106. At 1:05pm on 06 Oct 2009, dceilar wrote:
Squirrel and David
I'm an unrepentant Anarchist-Communist. So that probably puts me in the same league as a French Communist politician working part-time as an estate agent.
Good try. But I think you'd really have to be a French anarcho-syndicalist estate agent to be really authentic.
Anyway. there's nothing wrong with bankers, now we the proletariat actually own most of them. (Well, I may be being a little too comradely there, possibly, but I'm sure they can be brought to see the errors of their ways as they walk past the nooses dangling from the lampposts in Threadneedle Street.)
Will somebody tell that Meerkat to look about him a little less cluelessly and that the Socialists won in Greece? Our day will come again! Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your mortgages!
Oh, sorry, they already have, I forgot; we need a different slogan for the coming revolution. I'm sure between us dceilar, DavidR, fluffytale and I can come up with something suitably rousing. Avanti popolo!
Complain about this comment
decellar;
"I'm an unrepentant Anarchist-Communist."
I knew there was a reason I didn't like you from your first posting. Thanks for clearing up any ambiguities as to why.
DRMu;
"Now that’s put of the way, I’ll direct my comments specifically at the three Anglophobes who seem to have missed out on a few lessons on manners."
Oh that one is too rich to pass up. A nation whose reputation is that of drunken brawling soccer hooligans lecturing Americans about manners. Miss Manners says....Brits who live in glass houses...should sober up and take a close hard look in a mirror. Then invest in some window shades. Your exhibitionism is not particularly entertaining. We are not amused.
Complain about this comment
#108 Meerkat
Ha ha.
Though I'm not too concerned about the Socialist's demise in France and Germany (although they are the least worst option by far and they have my solidarity). I believe in the abolition of Government amongst other things.
Complain about this comment
Marcus – So ignoring the fact that I did not state all American’s, but rather three specific posters (of which you are one), and again you fell into the trap of prejudicially lumping all Brits together, I note you failed to address any of the points raised.
For point of reference, I have never been a hooligan football or otherwise, neither have I ever been in trouble in any of the countries I have visited or at home been in trouble for my drunken antics. My sobriety is not a factor in my postings, nor is it a factor for my views, other than regarding government interference in my private affairs an unnecessary irritation. My apartment limits the glass content to the outside windows, the majority of it is actually made of brick, wood and metal, though how this relates to my sobriety, which as I have already stated is of no relevance, remains a mystery. As for window shades, do I take these to be blinds and curtains I have already invested in these thanks for your concern though. And as for my exhibitionism, if you don’t find my toned physical form amusing, don’t look, I understand envy can be upsetting, but you shouldn’t hold yourself up for comparison against my racing snake physique.
So to reiterate your jibe missed both the point and the mark, the rest of your meandering rambles seemed of no consequence, as per normal. Please try again, but put more effort in please!
Complain about this comment
I think that General McChrystal and others are hoping to help with getting support from the public and at heart I think they really feel for the Afghan people, whatever Europeans decide,.Americans are tired of the middle East and don't see any change coming unless you vastly educate and bring employment to Afghanistan,that is something the US really can't afford.Troops are easy to place on the ground but building schools and roads and basically everything because there isn't much there,that would take commitment and help from Europe.President Obama needs to call it like it is,he needs Europe's help to develop Afghanistan.I think he is scared of asking Europe for help and getting it without knowing where Congress is right now.Congress may pull out because of public opinion,(they will do what public wants if it doesn't hurt rich peoples profits)I want whats best for US and Europe and all others like Canada,Australia,etc..By the way what do the Afghans want,because if they don't want a Reconstructed Modern Educated Country than we are all wasting our time arguing or sending money or troops.I never hear of what the public of Afghanistan wants,that to me is whats really important.I don't want to waste money,soldiers,time on people who don't want change because if they don't want help there are others in this world who could use the resources just as much.Everyone involved needs to do what best for there own.I wouldn't be upset with Europeans nations for wanting to pull out because I want us to pull out for the same reasons.I want that money and time spent on Americans instead.I have no obligations to Afghans especially if they have no notions of using what we are offering to them a better future for their children.
Complain about this comment
#35 MagicKirin
I had decided to sit this one out until I read the following:-
"But what do you expect from a man who has never been in the real world like Obama. Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard. What does Obama know?"
All I have ever read on the subject of the loathsome GWB is that he did is best to avoid any service in The National Guard had a reputation for drunkeness and was generally an all round bad player. In addition to which most of his early life seems to have been spent with enterprises that somehow went bankrupt. That the sort of real world you were thinking of Magic?
Complain about this comment
#112 MarcusAureliusII
Marcus
I read this several times, blinked, went out into the garden for some fresh air, came back in read it again. I now have to ask what are you smoking or what are you on? Please can I have some too? I would like to get away from reality every once in a while and that's damn good stuff.
Complain about this comment
#109 ajmblm
Suspend belief we have someone who believes Fox News!!!
Complain about this comment
DRMu;
"My sobriety is not a factor in my postings, nor is it a factor for my views, other than regarding government interference in my private affairs an unnecessary irritation."
You expect me to take that at face value from a self confessed closet socialist? Fat chance. You'd stick your nose into the business of every aspect of every human life if you could. What do you think the EUSSR is all about and why do you think it has such widespread support all across Europe? Why do you suppose it needs a 400 page constitution written in language so arcane, no ordinary human being can begin to comprehend what it says to the point where they must be duped into taking it on blind faith alone from their corrupt self serving politicians?
Complain about this comment
TimothyWeed;
"I now have to ask what are you smoking or what are you on?"
It's the intoxication that comes from being a free human being in a free democratic society. I've been on it all my life. It's my natural state.
"Please can I have some too?"
Sorry, that plant cannot grow, flourish and flower in European soil. You'd have to travel abroad to try it. There's also a ban in Europe on importing it and unlike less dangerous substances such as cocaine, heroin, and other biological and chemical substances, the walls erected against it are 100% effective.
"I would like to get away from reality every once in a while and that's damn good stuff."
Given the reality of where you live, I can hardly blame you. Yes it is damn good stuff. The best there is and once you are addicted to it, you will risk death if you must to keep it part of your world. It is that worth defending.
Complain about this comment
121 MarcusAureliusII wrote "You expect me to take that at face value from a self confessed closet socialist? Fat chance. You'd stick your nose into the business of every aspect of every human life if you could. What do you think the EUSSR is all about and why do you think it has such widespread support all across Europe? Why do you suppose it needs a 400 page constitution written in language so arcane, no ordinary human being can begin to comprehend what it says to the point where they must be duped into taking it on blind faith alone from their corrupt self serving politicians?"
What does "EUSSR" stand for and how is it pronounced? Never mind, I just figured it out. It means "you sir" like in the statement:
You sir need to help deal with the problems facing the United States in general and New Jersey in particular, rather than berating people thousands of miles away about their perceived or real problems. Do you imagine that the laws of our state and federal governments are any more logical, unambiguous or lucid? I know many on here may be offended if I use a Bible analogy, but I can't refrain. Let's clear the plank covering the eyes of our own nation before we search for specks in other nations' eyes. Agreed?
Complain about this comment
Well done Marcus, yet another response that deals with one line, rather the entirety, you really are outdoing yourself today. ‘Closet’ socialist? I have stated quite clearly here and elsewhere on the BBC boards and in real life that I have socialist leanings, there is nothing obfuscated about my political beliefs. If you had bothered to read the posts where I made my socialist sympathies clear you would have noted that they come second to my liberal ones. I believe that the individual has the right to live their life as they see fit, unless it negatively impacts others. At the same time I believe that the individual has responsibilities to those others in society, including those who make a decent living (like myself) helping those who don’t. That is why I support (like most reasonable people in the developed world) a universal health care service, even though I maintain private health insurance.
So no I don’t ‘poke my nose’ into other people’s private lives, just as I would swat anyone who tried to do the same to me. My slightly avante guard lifestyle harms no one and is therefore of no business to those I don’t wish to let into my private affairs.
What is this EUSSR? Oh it’s the slightly amusing merging of EU with the former USSR, how droll. You neo cons really need to make a decision here, either crow about the majority centre right make up of the EU nations or lump us all as socialists, can’t really have it both ways! As for the treaty, which is not a constitution (well not in name anyway), wow it is written in legalese and runs to 400 pages! I take it you have never read a financial prospectus then, rampant legalese normally hundreds of pages long, I would suggest a constitution/treaty is slightly more important than a share listing prospectus. Also I would humbly suggest this has little to do with what we were discussing. Would you like a third attempt?
Complain about this comment
As regards Fox news. It is currently the only free press network left. Right?
Complain about this comment
#112. MarcusAureliusII: "However much America tries, she can never have the same affect on the world as did Britain at the height of her powers."
"Wrong. The effect of American culture, American inventions, America everything has been profound and it has been fast."
You mean to say that Britain's culture and inventions are and were for naught? You cite Oprah Winfrey - she's not going to last forever, any more than Martha Stewart. Remember it was the British who had the first "high definition" (as it was then) television transmissions and developed it well ahead of America. Only WWII stopped its progress in the UK.
"American movies are shown in theaters everywhere in the world."
But who invented motion pictures? Not Edison, that's for sure! Although largely unrecognised, if it were not for William Friese-Greene the Industry might not have come into being. There's a very long list of inventions and discoveries originating in Britain without which further development would have been impossible. America has no pre-eminence on them. Without the British Industrial Revolution, very little could have been achieved.
"As Britain's influence on the world has declined, America's has ascended and continues to rise."
The last three words are very doubtful. At such time as the dollar is no longer recognised as the world's reserve currency, which appears to be in free-fall right now, India and China will replace it. Not in my lifetime of course, but world politics will be very different by the end of this century, just as they were in the past. Nothing last forever, as ancient civilisations would attest if they could.
"America will be recognized as the birthplace of modern civilization"
The birthplace? I doubt it. A strong influence on one century, but hardly the birthplace. To use filmic expressions, there will be no dissolve or fade-out, but rather a a long cross-fade and the baton will be passed to another. Every dog has its day, America has had hers and before long it will the time of another. Whichever nation or group succeeds America will have their turn in the sun and then the process will start again. That's just the way it is and will continue to be as long as there is life on this planet.
Complain about this comment
124, DavidRMurrell:
I believe that the individual has the right to live their life as they see fit, unless it negatively impacts others. At the same time I believe that the individual has responsibilities to those others in society, including those who make a decent living (like myself) helping those who don’t. That is why I support (like most reasonable people in the developed world) a universal health care service, even though I maintain private health insurance.
Hmm. You sound like a socialist libertarian to me!
Complain about this comment
DC – I think it is likely that we are already seeing the beginning of the US decline, history books may well look at the financial crash of 2008 as the beginning of the end. I don’t that it will be a sudden decline, then again British decline wasn’t that sudden and actually started before most people at the time realised. One of the main reasons for the decline was British bankers investing money in countries like the US and Argentina rather than in projects in good old Blighty. I suspect that by the middle of this century few people, other than a few diehards will consider the USA as a superpower.
For reference, I am not gloating, nor really am I hoping. I am just considering opinions raised by those paid to forecast how the future will possibly look, one of those sources being the US government.
Complain about this comment
"What should stay private, what should be public?" Everything should be public if the U.S. is ever to become a functioning democracy. But, of course, that's never going to happen under Obama's watch or any Democrat or Republican. So, of course, the ruling class will go on making their deadly decisions behind closed doors, over the heads of the public. Public opinion simply doesn't matter in Amerika because the ruling elites go ahead and do whatever they want to do in the end, anyway. So such questions about "private" or "public" are irrelevant from the word go. Next question...
Complain about this comment
Science and invention belongs to no nation either European or American.To argue about it is pointless.It is a building block since modern man and everyone has added to it from every continent.America has a big middle-class and when slavery was abolished.Cheap Labor was slowly killed by civil and labor rights that's my biggest problem with Illegal Immigrants they are taking wages and progress backwards.Americans had to use invention to make life better or do manual labor themselves same as Europe.That's why we have advanced,but most of these things are still contributions from the Science World everywhere.That is why China and India don't purchase the same things we do because they still have vast amounts of cheap labor,that are cheaper to pay than machines.So they don't need the same technology until the poor there are willing to demand fair wages and business practices ,which is bringing wages down because of outsourcing for other countries.Greeks and Romans and other civilizations had invention but it never went further than Temples and amusements for the rich because of slavery.
Complain about this comment
Re #115
If you believe in a abolition of any government you are if not my friend than at least an ally.
"The most scary phrase in English language is:
'I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'VE COME TO HELP YOU!"
(Ronald Reagan)
P.S. and now Mark, we are eagerly awating your report from California re predicament of the Golden State.
[As liberal-left LAT opined when Arnie ran for the 1st time:
"Beware of politicians hailing from Austria".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As through this world I ramble
I see many funny men
some kill you with a six-gun
some with a fountain pen"
(Woody Guthrie)
FROM MY COLD HANDS!!!
Complain about this comment
#40 timohio
re. 11. Acolonelartist:
"Increasing troop levels in a country with an incipient army and police force, no air force, and no NAVY..."
Afghanistan is a landlocked country. I certainly hope they aren't squandering our money to build a navy. But perhaps they would anticipate a naval conflict with Austria.
With rising sea levels it may be money well spent ;-)
Complain about this comment
I thought this debate was about Afghanistan but once again the MAII golem and the it's allies have managed to subvert it. I don't like us, that's the Brits, being there. I have a good friend, a mother with a son in No1 para who is there and know only too well her anguish when the BBC announces that another Brit has been killed. There are, no doubt, others who contribute to these blogs who are in the same situation.
That said, however, I can't see how we can just leave as of now. Pakistan is too unstable. In Afghanistan Karzai would last about a week, if that, if we withdrew, and then we would be back to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and maybe if they could subvert Pakistan, armed with nuclear weapons.
I do think, and have said this many times, that we cannot progress our cause throughout the entire Middle and Southeast Asian region without addressing the total imbalance in the way we regard Israel and the Muslim world. Israel has to be reined in, they have to be told to hand back the stolen lands and forced to make a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Until we do this any firebrand Mullah in a 'faith school' in Pakistan or elsewhere can point to our support for Israel and we are fighting a losing battle, we are recruiting for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden said that the Iraq invasion had been his best recruiting campaign and every dead Palestinian recruits another few to the cause. In addition Israel has to be forced to throw open it's Nuclear facilities to the IAEA inspectors, to do less simply hands the propaganda battle to our enemies.
Complain about this comment
#125 kalicokat
"As regards Fox news. It is currently the only free press network left. Right?"
That was irony, wasn't it?
Complain about this comment
Ah... well...
I must confess that I haven't read the threads above as I only have a short lunch break and then a meeting to run to. But I cannot resist the mischief:
Another (perhaps similar) question --
When does 'Democracy' become 'Lip-Service'?
Don't get me wrong. I love my country, I have friends and family in both parties, who are gun collecting veterans and/or sign carrying pacifists, and I love that we have the freedom to argue with ourselves.
But, I have to wonder:
-- If another country freely elects something other than American-Style Conservative Democracy? Should we be concerned? Should we try to FORCE other countries to be "FREE"? err.... *cough*Cuba*cough*
-- If our Judicial and Legislative branches serve primarily domestic legal functions... then who's in charge of our international politic? ummm... the "Commander In Chief?" err.... really?
-- If our White House, being one person, is the one office that can actually change tide with the popular vote (more or less, given the relatively imbalanced collegiate voting structure we have in place)... then, isn't the only consistent international information/action infrastructure we have in the US... The Military? Gosh...
-- And -- Hypothetically, of course -- if we had almost a decade of some dude who would rather just let those Smrt Generals do their stuff... Well... wouldn't we get some rather opinionated Military (+CIA) Folks who are too big for their britches tinkering in the Global Sphere more than they ought? Maybe?
But, what do I know? I'm just a tax-paying member of the unwashed masses. What I don't know, won't hurt me... right? Right??
Neo-Cons scare me. Heavy-Handed Generals Scare me. CIA folks who fudge data scare me. I'm really hoping we can get some humane balance to our heavily military international relations. Fortunately - I think that's the direction we're heading. Thank the maker.
Complain about this comment
131. At 5:25pm on 06 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re #115
If you believe in a abolition of any government you are if not my friend than at least an ally.
"The most scary phrase in English language is:
'I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'VE COME TO HELP YOU!"
(Ronald Reagan)"
This was Ronny the mad who hated government so much he decided to became president for two terms?
Like hearing a drunk tell you how much he despises drug users.
Actually the the most frightening statement in the late 20th century was "I am George W Bush and I am, no really I am, President of the US, (that OK Dick?)"
"P.S. and now Mark, we are eagerly awating your report from California re predicament of the Golden State."
Indeed and we will see if the famous "Condom full of walnuts" is any good as Governor.
Complain about this comment
#131 Meerkat
IMO the govt and the modern State is nothing more than a committee organising the affairs of the bourgeoisie - a Govt of the rich for the rich etc. Anarchism is broad family.
Complain about this comment
Any country with resources and proper management can be a world power,however most Americans really don't want the role of Super Power.Military is advanced however Americans don't want to build a world Empire,Europe itself is still a World Power,richest continent in the World. Why do think Bush Jr. is so disliked,many Citizens actually believed when he said Iraq was a threat to their safety they don't want to invade others.Maybe they should have listened to other voices but few expect their President to lie to them and Congress to go along with the lie.And you can't be angry with them for believing in him,we have political leaders to run our country so we don't have to worry about it.Why do think Americans are angry they don't trust their leaders.Even if I trust President Obama I don't trust Congress or even my own Representative from my district.She brings money to our district however her voting record doesn't reflect the people or business in this district so she must be catering to her Donors.What's the answer vote for the other guy ,well they all have the same donors Dems or GOP.We are stuck with Rich people running our government(Congress).Vote 3rd party,well that's not so easy if you knew about the many laws in each state designed to keep other parties out of politics it you make you angry completely Undemocratic.Why do think Michigan changing it's voting date was a big deal because Michigan is big and mostly Independent and Independents are allowed to vote in the party elections but only for one party.They want to keep moderate level headed people out so they can continue distracting people with stupid issues like abortion,death penalty,Guns,etc..Not fix roads,education,Utilities,Unemployment,health Care (original priorities)etc..So they can regulate businesses to screw over the Middle-class.Like this week it's Net neutrality.Most Americans don't know how slow and over priced their internet service is or the monopoly Companies have on the markets. Universal Health care is wonderful but I don't trust my government to do what's best for our citizens and that's the real fight with Americans right now.We don't trust the Rich people running our government.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
"The UK's Telegraph reports that Obama is "furious" with the general and that White House staff were "shocked" by a speech McChrystal made in London last week. No American newspaper or network has reported any fury and his spokesman has just said that he is "comfortable" with the way the debate is going."
Which only serves to buttress the widely held belief among Telegraph reporters that our media kowtows to our presidents and don't ask them hard questions or seek the truth with any vigor.
"Now McChrystal's boss, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, has suggested: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately." Rebuke or slap-down may be journalistic shorthand, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for McChrystal's decision to speak his mind. What should stay private, what should be public?"
I understand and think it entirely justifyable the White House's irritation at McChrystal's very openly delivered speach in London. After all, it seems that every time the unwritten international law of "never criticise your nation abroad" is broken, confusion and angry disputes tend to result in the criticiser's homeland, often making the response on a national level to both the criticism and the rest of the international comunity look weak and uncoordinated. Just look at what happened to the US-UK relationship when Danyal Hannon expressed his views on the NHS on American TV (all be it much ignored Fox) over the summer. A huge domestic backlash and international dispute ensued over whether his commentary was representative of the NHS, whether the NHS is truely supported and liked by the British public or merely tolerated and secretly disliked, whether Republican opponents of health care reform in this country were accurate in their portrayal of the NHS, and accusations flew over who's health system was worse on the whole and who entangled our alliance worse. And in the midst of all that countless feelings were hurt due to ignorant commentary from both sides. So I do believe McChrystal should have been a little more diplomatic when delivering his speech, no matter how close we are to the UK.
However that being said, I think Robert Gate's "slap-down" of McChrystal was entirely unjustifyed!! Yes everyone should give their best advice to the president; this goes without saying, but so long as it is done on American soil, whether it is done publicly or privately (unless classifyed information is involved) shouldn't matter one iota! It sounds to me like Gates is afraid of a little honest public debate over what to do with our fighting men and women; or worse still, that he only believes the first amendment need apply to those of his mindset. Either way, it is not a very healthy thought process to have at all!!
Complain about this comment
122. At 3:59pm on 06 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
TimothyWeed;
"I now have to ask what are you smoking or what are you on?"
It's the intoxication that comes from being a free human being in a free democratic society. I've been on it all my life. It's my natural state.
"Please can I have some too?"
Sorry, that plant cannot grow, flourish and flower in European soil."
Not even on Roumanian soil. Aww the rels won't be pleased.
"I would like to get away from reality every once in a while and that's damn good stuff."
Given the reality of where you live, I can hardly blame you. Yes it is damn good stuff. The best there is and once you are addicted to it, you will risk death if you must to keep it part of your world. It is that worth defending.
Complain about this comment
114. At 2:04pm on 06 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Oh that one is too rich to pass up. A nation whose reputation is that of drunken brawling soccer hooligans lecturing Americans about manners. Miss Manners says....Brits who live in glass houses...should sober up and take a close hard look in a mirror. Then invest in some window shades. Your exhibitionism is not particularly entertaining. We are not amused. "
But the US does have some unsavoury reputations of its own as many of its black and native American population could testify.
Complain about this comment
130. At 5:23pm on 06 Oct 2009, faeyth wrote:
'Science and invention belongs to no nation either European or American.'
You won't convince Marcky of that, nor some of the American media. Of six of the most recently announced Nobel Science Laureates (all described in US headlines this week as 'American') one was born in Tasmania and did the doctoral research at Cambridge University in England; a second was born in London and grew up in Canada; a third was born in Shanghai, has dual British and US nationality, did his doctorate in London at Imperial College and did the research he got the Nobel for in London as well; and the fourth was bon in Nova Scotia, and also has dual Canadian and US nationality.
Complain about this comment
#113 Squirrellist
Good try. But I think you'd really have to be a French anarcho-syndicalist estate agent to be really authentic.
That's true. There's some depths one cannot go!
Now a slogan for us Red(ish) Squirrels. Mmmm.
Complain about this comment
A number of people appear to be following Senator Jim Webb: ."At a time when people were meeting in the White House discussing Afghanistan, he was giving a speech in London. I thought that was pretty odd.The question is whether he should have been in London, quite frankly." [Quoted in The Guardian]
Now, General McChrystal is the current commander of ISAF, the NATO force in Afghanistan; Britain's is the largest fighting force there after the US. Why should it be odd that he should be explaining his conclusions on the situation in Afghanistan to an academic body of international reputation, in the capital of an ally.
Would those who object, like, perhaps Mr Gates (who not that many months ago made some very scathing and almost offensive remarks about a British commander's suggestions) prefer such an ally to be kept in the dark altogether about what the US may be thinking?
If that is to be the case (and there has been much concern that that was so in Iraq), then frankly, the sooner we abandon the whole thing and leave the US to it, the better.
That, after all, would be the cry if the positions were reversed, would it not?
It seems clear from Mr Gates' remark that he would rather no-one had heard of General McChrystal's ideas outside the White House, and he now smells to me somewhat like an undertaker who wishes to hurriedly bury a body he had rather never have taken into the funeral parlour where the relatives were allowed a brief glimpse of it before it had been prettied up for the service.
Complain about this comment
101. At 11:23am on 06 Oct 2009, DavidRMurrell wrote:
Once again about three US based posters show their rank hypocrisy, feeling that they can throw out their xenophobic views about Europeans and the British in particular, on a British website I might add, but then cry anti-Americanism fouls when any of the British posters question the spin and misinformation they spout!
First, let me say I feel your pain, David (and that of the other Britons who commented on this). American news sites, like The Huffington Post, frequently have a handful of persistent foreign nationals posting their own brand of misinformation and spin. The phenomenon is by no means unique to this site. But what all of these posters have in common, whatever their country of origin, is a passionate belief that what they are saying isn't anti anyone. They honestly believe that they are just "telling it like it is" and are somehow helping to educate the people whom they've just mocked, derided and rudely insulted.
And maybe they are just telling it like it is. Though, personally, I don't think the antagonistic approach ever works to educate anyone, or further any intelligent discussion no matter who is doing it.
That said, despite being entrenched in their views (which we all are to a greater or lesser degree), I do not believe that Marcus and the others are, in fact, xenophobic. From my side of the Atlantic, they make some good points that, as an American, I will agree with. But which you, as a Briton, certainly will not. And vice versa, I'm sure, when the "America needs to learn a lesson, so let's all tell them what we really think" ideologues come calling. No one likes to be told they are bad or wrong, especially when they weren't around to do the bad, wrong thing their ancestors did, or disagreed with the policy in the first place if they were around. It irks us all.
What I think might be important to take away from this discussion is the knowledge that Marcus, et. al are actually espousing a more extremist view of ones commonly held in the United States. Not by everybody, to be sure, but by many people and with varying degrees of antipathy.
Obama was not lying in his Strasbourg speech when he implied that anti-European sentiment in America was as casual and insidious as anti-American sentiment in Europe. I won't speak to the common sense of holding such views on either side of the Atlantic, but what I will say is this: Knowing they exist and trying to understand the reasons for them is important. Why? Because what informs these views may also inform the views of those holding real political power.
Complain about this comment
To the subject at hand, rather than the infantile stuff that clogs this (and some other) BBC blogs like a nasty bit of waste down a plug hole, even allowing for the deeply offensive nature of some of the bile given the UK casualties-(I'd love to these these keyboard jockeys come out with their nonsense to the face of a British Afghan veteran), is the media, again, reading far too much into this General's speech at the IISS?
No doubt a real debate in Washington over Afghanistan, rightly so.
But, I've mentioned it before however, the average of some 70 counterinsurgency based conflicts since WW2, shows they last, for some 14 years when you do average them out.
And don't expect the obvious military victory.
This is the problem, we live in a society based on ease and convienance, we want stuff, we want it now!
This does not apply in places like Afghanistan.
Neither did it in places like Malaya, Borneo, Radafan, Oman, Cyprus, Northern Ireland to name some major British post war counterinsurgency efforts.
Bluntly, the US led operation smashed up, in 2001, an already broken place, with the declared aim of not only going after Al Queda, their Taliban allies, but also to ensure the place never became a base to launch attacks like the US African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, the attempt to blow up the Strasbourg Christmas markets, the attempt to blow up Los Angeles airport and ultimately, Sept 11th.
So it is incumbent to the US and it's allies not to cut and run now the going has got tough.
And Bin Laden IS alive, however that many offend the national sensibilities of some, he is though holed up, almost certainly very restricted in movement and no longer the sponsor of terror he was.
But his existence is still important for their morale, maybe a drone strike will get him, he must be very fearful of this if it's any consolation.
Since after the US cut and run in Lebanon in 1984, arguably in Somalia in 1993, the message sent to hostile terrorist groups was clear.
To this 'bring our people home'. Fair comment, but not just to cut and run.
The armies in Afghanistan, US, British, Canadian, Danes, Australians,Dutch, to name just some (who have been heavily involved in fighting with NONE of the major restrictions we hear about, are not made of conscripts.
This is not Vietnam in that respect alone.
Or as they say in the British and Commonwealth forces, 'if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!'
Not being glib, not being heartless, that is merely a reflection of the reality of, for those forces at least, if you choose to sign up, you may well have to fight.
As someone above noted, only 1968 since WW2, has NOT seen UK forces on active operations.
A good friend is a senior NCO in the British Army.
His objection to Afghanistan so far, is that he has not yet been deployed there, (inevitably he will).
Having done pre ceasefire Northern Ireland tours, Iraq in 2003 and 2007, the prospect of facing enemy action is not new.
Plus from his career point of view, it's valuable.
More troops are needed, someone mentioned winter, well winter restricts the Taliban.
Of course the whole operation should be under constant review, I find it more reassuring that the US government is taking time to think things through, what a contrast to the hubris fuelled rush to Iraq with NO post war planning, drawn up by the 'idealogically sound' often not long out of education, how Rumsfeld again and again rode roughshod over the military sacking any one who had serious concerns.
That is a large reason why we are in the situation in Afghanistan now.
War is nasty, it's tough, it can be protracted, this seems to have been forgotten by many.
Easy to blast some almost defenceless 3rd world country from 30,000 feet, but that is the exception not the rule.
Mind you, given how Rush and other right wing extremists celebrated Chicago not getting the 2016 games, perhaps, in their twisted by hate world, they'd rather see the US fail in Afghanistan too.
Never mind the implications, never mind the body bags, you don't see them or their brats in uniform do you?
Complain about this comment
145# Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
Oh wow! I wish I could have written your post! Absolutely terrific. Thank you.
I have seen a great deal of rudeness/insults coming from both sides of the Atlantic on these boards, that's why I don't post, but like to "visit" only. But your post inspired me to at least acknowledge your great sense of fairness.
Complain about this comment
Considering that Obama is 'furious' with McChrystal for undermiming him; should he be 'furious' with the PM of a country that receives the most in aid for doing the same?
In an interview last week with Israel's Channel 2 media company, Netanyahu spoke of his confidence that Obama's recent remarks on a world free of nuclear weapons would not apply to Israel.
“It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran,” the Israeli leader said.
So a world free of nuclear weapons only applies to N Korea and Iran! What crazy semantics is this?
Complain about this comment
146, SONICBOOMER -
I don't really disagree with anything you say, except about the make-up of the military. True, they are not technically "conscripts" in the U.S. military, but right now most kids coming out of high school have the choice of: No job; low-paying (not even living wage) job; going into deep, deep debt (that they may not be able to pay down) for a college education; or the military. A lot of them are really too emotionally immature to understand what they'll be getting into in the military.
Perhaps this is why Obama doesn't seem to be all that concerned about job creation right now. It might interfere with military recruitment.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it was nice to read gavriele's post. Very reasonable and articulate.
With regard to the question about Afghanistan, I suppose the debate is not quite the same thing for us in the blogosphere as it is for the troops on the ground who face winter coming on.
Listening to the general's justifications for needing more troops to "get the job done", I am reminded of the first world war song.
(To the tune of "Auld Lang Syne")
"We're here because we're here,
Because we're here, because we're here!
We're here because we're here,
Because we're here, because we're here."
repeat as necessary.
The main thing is that the people making money from all the government spending are satisfied that they are doing the right thing. In general terms, you know.
As far as Jesus has any say in the matter, is what I am indicating.
Nobody wants to bend over for a soldiers cheque, but kneeling down is another matter entirely.
Complain about this comment
(#149) "A lot of them are really too emotionally immature to understand what they'll be getting into in the military."
That's a condescending remark which I expect many recruits in the US armed forces would find offensive.
As the size of military has been reduced, and as the weapons of war have become more technological, the armed forces are no longer bottom feeders looking for "cannon fodder." They need smart, talented people -- people who might well have other options. I don't believe they would be those least emotionally mature; probably the opposite.
Complain about this comment
150. At 9:41pm on 06 Oct 2009, democracythreat wrote:
Yes, it was nice to read gavriele's post. Very reasonable and articulate.
With regard to the question about Afghanistan, I suppose the debate is not quite the same thing for us in the blogosphere as it is for the troops on the ground who face winter coming on."
I don't think there is any real debate. I think the situation has been about written off and its in face saving territory.
The election was supposed to settle things now that's proven a farce and the taliban (if it is them) have started bombing Kabul and other centres.
No one is going to commit troops to a losing cause
Complain about this comment
Here's an interesting story on US Army recruiting standards: http://www.slate.com/id/2182752/
The army has lowered recruiting standards, but not because they want less educated soldiers. It was forced by personnel demands of the Iraq war. Perhaps the winding down of that conflict will allow the bar to be raised.
Complain about this comment
The Real Winner of Afghanistan's Election by Hillary Mann Leverett, writing for Foreigh Policy.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 79, Timothy:
"I take it you are from the US. I have not seen almost any coverage of this story. Have you?"
Yes, I'm an American.
CNN gave it the once over lightly. I didn't see any mention of it on the local (Denver) news. I figure that if it were a big issue, it would make the 10 o'clock news.
I read the interview. Nothing in it seemed terribly controversial. Indeed some of his points about us pulling out after promising we'd be there for the duration had an effect on me personally. It's not the only consideration in deciding whether to stick it out, mind you, but it gave me pause. These colors aren't supposed to run after all.
My take on the story is that the White House is trying to get out in front of the issue, so that McChrystal doesn't take the opportunity to frame the debate (which is not part of his job in my opinion).
All this seems like business as usual to me. For the British it may very well be unusual. As much as I know about British military history, I don't know what expectations the British people have with regard to communication from their generals. Anybody care to help me out?
Complain about this comment
#153 -
The lowered standards have been well publicized for quite some time. The Army is taking just about anything that breathes and hasn't actually committed murder. This is not to suggest all, or even most, new recruits fall into that category. And my comment above was not at all condescending; it was merely a statement of fact. I've seen the desperate young people in my area joining up, some of them thinking it will be "fun." I find it rather sad.
Complain about this comment
For a unique take on Americas military recruitment and logistic problems (or possibly a glimpse into it's future) i suggest spending some time looking at the problems the Romans created for themselves by spreading themselves too thin over their ever-expanding empire. To make just one comparison - Contractors and Barbarians, with not enough citizens to make up the numbers the Romans outsourced to Barbaraians which brought along a whole slew of problems. Blackwater and Halliburton anybody?
Complain about this comment
We decided this morning to have a simple "straw poll" in the office (12 mixed people) and this is the result. The first question, "what do we do in Afghanistan?" 90% untie the Military's hands and let them finish the job or 10% pull out. The second part was if the military's hands remain tied by the Politicians in Washington then what? 100% PULL OUT NOW YOU CAN'T WIN. I think that says it all.
Complain about this comment
147. At 8:51pm on 06 Oct 2009, CamberwellBeauty wrote:
145# Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
Oh wow! I wish I could have written your post! Absolutely terrific. Thank you.
I have seen a great deal of rudeness/insults coming from both sides of the Atlantic on these boards, that's why I don't post, but like to "visit" only. But your post inspired me to at least acknowledge your great sense of fairness.
and
150. At 9:41pm on 06 Oct 2009, democracythreat wrote:
Yes, it was nice to read gavriele's post. Very reasonable and articulate.
Thank you both and, you're welcome. Though I admit I too avoid a lot of arguments even when I might have something to say. It's just easier to lurk in the background sometimes and pick your battles.
Complain about this comment
To TimothyR444 #77
When you use the term "anti-Americanism" in your posts you might mean lots of legitimate criticism, over-generalization and exaggeration that you can't defend with any convincing arguments, rather than the agreed definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism
"the nature and applicability of the term is often disputed"!
It's quite primitive to discourage people from thinking and say that any criticism is anti-American. I'm sure America is better off encouraging all its citizens to make informed decisions, making them support policies that are good, and reject those that are bad. Just encouraging meaningful support for everything America does is irrational. Were the Vietnam protesters pro or anti-American?
"concerns and standards"
One symptom of this polarised outlook is that you can't have generally agreed and universal descriptions of acceptable behaviour. Whenever there is a definition of behaviour it has to be diluted, undefined or automatically exclude the team that you happen belong to. If you have to ignore these principles has it ever occured to you that an American or allied action might be wrong? Is any action against the US automatically defined as irrational or invalid?
You "agree with the absolute necessity of determining and understanding the nuances" with "both the regional and the specific religious differences must be grasped as well as the complexities" but are then happy to make crass generalisations yourself about representing nations. Presumably you're happy to accept someone condemning a whole religion with sweeping hyperbole in a thread if it's unfamiliar or not American.
It's easier to label this post anti-TimothyR444ism rather than actually respond to it.
Complain about this comment
Ref #145 Gavrielle_LaPoste
Your words have iron in them.......(that's a good thing)
Ref #146 SONICBOOMER....You didn't do too bad either.
Complain about this comment
re. 151.GH1618:
Nobody at 18 or 19 is emotionally mature. That's no slur on the US armed forces. At 18 or 19 a person is unduly influenced by peer pressure. Armies and terrorist groups count on that.
Complain about this comment
If I was Obama I'd think that McCrystal had overstepped the mark - but not by much. On the basis of "Be careful what you wish for" I'd then give McCrystal 20% MORE troops than the number that he's requested.That puts the ball firmly in McCrystal's court. If McCrystal can't achieve significant results within six months after receiving those troops, pull out most troops and go with the Biden option.
Complain about this comment
We need a person of integrity, high moral principles add of a proven staying power as out Commander-in-Chief.
David Letterman, anybody?
Complain about this comment
#158: i_amBritinUSA wrote:
We decided this morning to have a simple "straw poll" in the office (12 mixed people) and this is the result. The first question, "what do we do in Afghanistan?" 90% untie the Military's hands and let them finish the job or 10% pull out.
How did you count 1.2 people voting pull-out?
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell, I'm so glad that you are now in charge of the America blog.
Justin Webb had become so ridiculously Americanised and blindly in awe of the US that he had become unable to provide a British or outsider's view of the United States.
Complain about this comment
Ref# 155 AndyPost
I'm not English so I can't say for sure but I noticed recently the Commander of British forces in Afghanistan, General Sir Richard Danatt recently "stood down" as they say across the pond. Because, according to him, Brown refused his request for additional troops. He stated ""If you're going to conduct an operation, you're doing it for a reason - to succeed." If I were the General in charge of these young men and women who were getting killed on a regular basis without adequate support or worse yet, an achievable goal then I'd be ticked too. To heck with that stiff upper lip stuff. As they say at NASA, "Houston we've got a problem". Same goes for Gen McChrystal I'm thinking.
Complain about this comment
The best thing the US can do is bring the Us out of Afghanistan. The newer war will most likely break out over in Somalia.
A good look by Gen. Mcchrystal and a good informed opinion was already handed over to the president of the US. If anyone still had doubts, they were made aware when the general spoke out out of confidentiality. Now the cat is out. Being that more people support a pull out anyway, it would be in the best interest of the US to start the retreat. It is either kill the insurgents(which are the people fighting back) or kill the Jihadists. One is just and the other is not. Just think how many people here in the US would be fighting back if someone decided to invade us. That is still one more reason to defend the right to bear arms.(imo) Otherwise than that be prepared to shell out more billions and trillions of dollars in taxes. Some of that money will go for senators and congress people to go golfing and on vacations. Still some more for funding the national defense and which has loopholes for appropriating money for sweet deals. It is amazing what things get done while invoking patriotism. McChrystal will most likely resign anyway.
He would not have spoken out of ranks unless he was ready to leave. With about 33 million people living in Afghanistan, If even half of them decide to fight it is about 16 million and a few million may be children so it is still a big amount of people to try and control,kill or imprison or convert their hearts and minds.
Complain about this comment
160. At 01:51am on 07 Oct 2009, _marko wrote:
" If you have to ignore these principles has it ever occured to you that an American or allied action might be wrong? Is any action against the US automatically defined as irrational or invalid?"
In past wars, citizens generally thought that their own interests were tied to the nation's interests, at least to the extent that 'if we loose, I will be hurt.' These days more and more of us, correctly or incorrectly, suspect that the interests that take us to war are not the same as our personal interests, and that we can survive or might well be better off should the nation loose. this thought pattern was widespread during the Viet Nam war, largely because the daily carnage was broadcast to the whole nation every day, and there was little confidence that we were winning. Once again, numbers of Americans find the actions of our leaders might be wrong, again in similar circumstances. short wars are best for a modern democracy, longer wars become victims of our impatience with doubt.
"Presumably you're happy to accept someone condemning a whole religion with sweeping hyperbole in a thread if it's unfamiliar or not American."
Presumably, many are happy to accept someone condemning a whole religion with sweeping hyperbole, because it is familiar (Christian) and American. The god they don't know well is preferable to the one who knows them well.
KScurmudgeon,
argumentative
Complain about this comment
146. At 8:47pm on 06 Oct 2009, SONICBOOMER wrote:
"No doubt a real debate in Washington over Afghanistan, rightly so.
But, I've mentioned it before however, the average of some 70 counterinsurgency based conflicts since WW2, shows they last, for some 14 years when you do average them out.
And don't expect the obvious military victory. This does not apply in places like Afghanistan. Neither did it in places like Malaya, Borneo, Radafan, Oman, Cyprus, Northern Ireland to name some major British post war counterinsurgency efforts."
Reading through your list, aren't insurgencies the response to the unwanted imposition of overwhelming force? This 'asymmetrical warfare' happens when people cannot tolerate how they are being treated but do not have the ability to face their enemy on a traditional battlefield. It seems to be the result of using great wealth and power to impose you will on someone else - it is the consequence of one culture's enormous success, and either the other culture's exclusion or resentment of it, or oppression by it.
Clearly, we in the West do not know how to fight such a war. Bombing the **** out of them is what we do best, but it doesn't work well when our enemy isn't another government.
How have we offended middle eastern Muslims so badly that so many of their people give up peaceful aspirations in order to commit unspeakable atrocities against civilian populations? Is it really about the imposition of Israel in their midst? Are they like the Chinese - utterly committed to hegemonic growth at any cost?
I know, I know - there is the American empire to consider - but we are mercantile invaders - we quit taking land (more or less) and running others' affairs when we achieved our geographic 'manifest destiny'. Maybe that is it - trying to run others' affairs.....
KScurmudgeon
sorting sand
Complain about this comment
To KScurmudgeon #169
I mentioned religion because I think Illinoisian in another thread moaned about Muslims not condemning extremists, but would not be surprised if all Christian leaders didn't condemn murderers of abortion doctors for example.
So you might be guilty if you fail to condemn bad people, fail to apologize, are very silent, seem not to care, try not to interfere, allow criticism, are actually related to or look like bad people, etc.
I never know the criteria for being guilty by association!
MagicKirin seems to use this alot, but of course none of this applies to the team! The general rules of acceptable behaviour just don't apply. If there is no apparent rationale for being guilty by association then perhaps this indicates that someone's behaviour might just be partisan.
Complain about this comment
Marko -
Guilt by association does seem to be one of the elements of partisanship. I doubt it is used against one's own sort, but others are suspect and easily tarred. At the moment I can't think of any kind of human interaction that doesn't risk the imputation of bad association. Relationships, like most constructs, require continuous maintenance. Is it naive to be constant?
but I ramble
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
I find the comments about the Army scraping the barrel and taking everybody, silly. If that is true, then they certainly do a wonderful job of preparing young men and women for life. We have hired quite a few returning vets of Afganistan and Iraq, where I work (DOJ)and they are attentive, neat, hard working and proud of their work. They require little supervision and are very mature.
We also hire a lot of the products of our University system. THEY CAN'T WRITE A SIMPLE REPORT. They are often argumentive, lazy, uninterested in their work and do not know how to dress appropriatly for a proffesional enviroment. Twice I had to send young females home to get other clothing, because they had worn shower thongs to work.
I don't know what the Universitys are training them in, but the only talent we have seen is getting themselves fired for violation of the no drug policy, no sexual harrasment policy or sick leave abuse.
We continue to prefer the Vets and honestly we fight over them for assignment to out teams. They are truely America's best kids.
Complain about this comment
Re #168
"He [McChrystal] would not have spoken out of ranks unless he was ready to leave."
Well, serving at the pleasure of Commander-i-Chief Obama is not exactly any military man's (and woman's) dream.
They're used to following orders.
What exactly are those orders?
Are there any orders at all, Field Marshal Obama?
Complain about this comment
170. At 05:17am on 07 Oct 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"Reading through your list, aren't insurgencies the response to the unwanted imposition of overwhelming force? This 'asymmetrical warfare' happens when people cannot tolerate how they are being treated but do not have the ability to face their enemy on a traditional battlefield."
No. What you are referring to may be the response to an invasion or an occupation, i.e. resistance. The only battlefields in modern warfare occur in the immediate reaction of the armed forces of one country to the invasion of it by another. You do not succeed in an insurgency by fighting battles.
An insurgency is usually an attempt to gain and keep power through the overthrow of an existing form of government by arms. One way of achieving that is not only to attack the current armed support of that government (it doesn't have to be a formal army even) and, most especially, to gain the civilians' acceptance or acquiescence through threat and fear by killing them at random.
This is by no means exclusive to Afghanistan or the Middle East; you have seen it in South America many times over the last century, and often in the last fifty years when the tactics have been applied by the supposedly 'official' armed forces supporting the group or individual that has come to power.
The media often speaks of 'battles' in Afghanistan, but they are very seldom what military textbooks would define as a battle. They are more properly described as 'firefights' being mostly transient and short lived incursions.
Now the point is that I think the US army is well aware of this, and the tactics for combatting it. I've heard a Colonel interviewed on radio who lectures on this at West Point, and what he had to say was pretty much what you would expect from a British expert at Sandhurst lecturing on our experience over the last 60 years or so.
I am not so sure that politicians in the US (of either party) have understood it; and I'm convinced that many of the very vocal think tank pundits and retired (now armchair) Generals and Colonels who have had little if any experience of counter-insurgency or low intensity operations do not.
If people want to know why what seems to be becoming known as 'the Biden Plan' will inevitably fail, General McChrystal's IISS paper tells you.
Complain about this comment
174. At 07:42am on 07 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"They're used to following orders.
What exactly are those orders?
Are there any orders at all, Field Marshal Obama?"
What a ridiculous notion. Civilian heads of government in most countries in the modern world (even if their title is "Commander-in-Chief", which is not a military rank, by the way, which you and one or two others appear determined to pretend) do not give orders about military tactics and strategy. Or at least should not.
They decide the politicalgoals to be achieved by military force, and then ask the generals to work out how (or if) that can be done. There would not now be some of the looming disasters around the world if Messrs Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had not decided they were more expert generals than the generals. And that appears to be a lesson the left-over-from-the-previous-regime Mr Gates has still to learn.
Complain about this comment
Right since Marcus has gone a tad quiet, the Afghan situation is the product of decades of various powerful nations sticking their noses and stirring up a hornets nest. If the USSR hadn’t decided to flex their muscles and invade then Mujahadeen would not have gained such a level of power and influence. If the US hadn’t decided to use Afghanistan to bloody the USSR’s nose and help fund and train the Islamic insurgents then the later Taliban and Al’Qaeda would not have been so prepared to takeover the ruins of Afghanistan and attack the West respectively.
Basically Afghanistan has been wrecked by other countries foreign policies and the fact that it was never a unified country in the first place. Okay so what to do next, well there are really only three options and none of them have good outcomes.
1 – Crank up the troop numbers, loosen the leash and let them take the fight to the Taliban. Two big problems, firstly how much of this could the allies afford both financially and manpower wise. We are just about clawing our collective backsides out of the worst economic slump since before the two world wars (not three), the military is expensive the current wars have already cost billions, at the current level of troop deployment will continue to cost billions, more troops means more equipment (unless possibly you are current British MoD) which means more money. Also more direct action means more fatalities, these days there is a limit of how many teenagers coming home in body bags the general public can take.
Secondly, anyone who thinks that this surge would gain a quick resolution is smoking the same kind of freedom that Marcus seems to enjoy. The Taliban will disappear, only to reappear wherever the majority of the soldiers aren’t. This will be a long and painful fight, leaving the allies mired in Afghanistan for decades.
2 – Keep the troop numbers as they are and try and win over the non-Taliban aligned tribes. Again this is a long haul endeavour, but slow burning with casualties piling up while little seems to actually be achieved. Public opinion is already pretty negative towards this and would only worsen over time. Also we would have to do deals with tribal leaders who are pretty corrupt and those deals would probably be very unpopular with the general public, it’s not just the Taliban who believe women are second class citizens.
3 – Pull out, and watch the country implode, followed by decades of fighting. While the allied fatalities would fall, it would not stop the deaths, deaths which could justifiably be blamed on the initial NATO invasion.
The best option, never to have invaded at all, it was a terrible, terrible mistake, one which not a few people pointed out at the time. But unless someone has a usable time machine that’s not an option, if they do I would suggest a jaunt to late August 2001, so the whole bloody mess could be avoided. Bin Laden, the Taliban leadership and the NATO leaders, especially Bush, have condemned that region and those who go there to decades of pain and death.
As for the US general, sorry but no one gets to his position without being as much a politician as he is a soldier. He knows how to play the game, there used to be a time when officers were also gentlemen and followed the rules. Any lower ranking soldier showed insubordination would have been punished, so should he, a public slap on the wrist would be enough. He might feel frustrated, people may agree with his opinions, but he should have followed protocol, or do what the British generals do resign then made his unhappiness known.
Socialist Libertarian – Yes I a probably am, though more likely to be a Libertarian Socialist, sometimes I feel more like a Libertine Socialist!
Complain about this comment
ref #148
dceilar wrote:
Considering that Obama is 'furious' with McChrystal for undermiming him; should he be 'furious' with the PM of a country that receives the most in aid for doing the same?
In an interview last week with Israel's Channel 2 media company, Netanyahu spoke of his confidence that Obama's recent remarks on a world free of nuclear weapons would not apply to Israel.
“It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran,” the Israeli leader said.
So a world free of nuclear weapons only applies to N Korea and Iran! What crazy semantics is this?
(I did not hear the interview, but of the countries which have nuclear weapons or in the process of developing weapons 3 are a threat: Iran, NK and Pakistan due to the instability of the nations)
Complain about this comment
177. At 09:27am on 07 Oct 2009, DavidRMurrell wrote:
"But unless someone has a usable time machine that’s not an option, if they do I would suggest a jaunt to late August 2001, so the whole bloody mess could be avoided."
I'm sure Marcus will tell us soon that American inventiveness and technological expertise is such that that is an option the Pentagon is already exploring. If not already practising, only they turned the dial back to the 70's by mistake.
As to whether McChrystal should be uttering so publicly, actually I tend to agree he shouldn't, but this seems to be how Washington works: in military affairs, the real military seem, in terms of expert influence, to have been relegated to the bottom of the heap over the last eight years.
And that's apart from a seemingly general desire on the part of many army officers (viz, Wesley Clark, though I don't think McCrystal is one) to emulate Eisenhower and get elected President one day that tempts them far too often into the open exposed ground that politicians fight over.
Complain about this comment
#174 powermeerkat
Order? Yes 'Hurry up and wait'. Good enough?
This war so far has been characterised by too much action and not enough thought. Let's try thinking for a change and who knows maybe we might decide that if us (that's the Brits) couldn't do it and the Russians couldn't do it then force isn't going to work.
So giving Obama and his team a few weeks for thought sounds good to me after all it's not as if the problem is going to go away is it?
Complain about this comment
#178 MagicKirin
Magic or Magics. When will you ever answer a straight question? In #148 deiclar asked the question "Why is it that Israel escapes criticism when it's Premier criticises the policies of the President of the US?
You impart your usual degree of spin and ignore the question.
Try dodging these questions Magics one and all.
1. Are you a Jew first, a supporter of Israel second and a US citizen third?
Or
2. Are you a US citizen first a Jew second and a supporter of Israel third?
I think your behaviour shows option 1. to be the case and that you are happy to make subservient the needs of your own country, the US, to that of your adopted country Israel.
Oh and by the way, you still haven't answered the following
1. Did 6 million Jews really die? Yes they did.
2. Did the Palestinians kill them? No they didn't
3. Why do the Palestinians have to pay the price?
Answers already supplied to 1 & 2. Answer question three please.
Complain about this comment
#177 David
If the USSR hadn’t decided to flex their muscles and invade then Mujahadeen would not have gained such a level of power and influence. If the US hadn’t decided to use Afghanistan to bloody the USSR’s nose and help fund and train the Islamic insurgents then the later Taliban and Al’Qaeda would not have been so prepared to takeover the ruins of Afghanistan and attack the West respectively.
If my memory serves me right the US (under Carter) were training the Mujahadeen (with Pakistan) before the USSR invaded. Then the Mujahadeen attacked USSR positions with the support of US and Pakistan with the aim of enticing the USSR into the 'Afghan Trap' - an impossible war to win. A rare US foreign policy success! Now NATO are in the 'Afghan Trap'!! How did they put themselves there one wonders.
Complain about this comment
ref #181
Try dodging these questions Magics one and all.
1. Are you a Jew first, a supporter of Israel second and a US citizen third?
Or
2. Are you a US citizen first a Jew second and a supporter of Israel third?
I think your behaviour shows option 1. to be the case and that you are happy to make subservient the needs of your own country, the US, to that of your adopted country Israel.
Oh and by the way, you still haven't answered the following
1. Did 6 million Jews really die? Yes they did.
2. Did the Palestinians kill them? No they didn't
3. Why do the Palestinians have to pay the price?
Answers already supplied to 1 & 2. Answer question three please.
Your questions would do political operatives proud. First I have answered all of your questions in the past. First I am an American first and most americans including our President look beyonds ethnic and religions I am a Jew(which is one of the world great religions and has never oppresed people the way Islam and Christian followers have. Being pro Israel is a majority oppinion in this country.
The Palestinains are paying because they claim lands that are not theirs and never was. They also suffer because they choose to be ruled by terrorists. Jeruslem united under Israel forever! Because all the holy sights will be protected something the Arab custodians never did.
Complain about this comment
157 moon
"with not enough citizens to make up the numbers the Romans outsourced to Barbaraians which brought along a whole slew of problems. Blackwater and Halliburton anybody?"
You're absolutely right about the Romans outsourcing the legions, but the comparison with Blackwater et al is not close enough.
Blackwater cost waaaaay more than regular soldiers with less accountability.
The Romans held out promises of citizenship to those who fought for them.
A better comparison would be if the US recruited an Afghan Brigade loyal to the US with a promise of Green Card after 5 years.
Complain about this comment
I am sure those who make stupid policies in usa are quite aware or have atleast read about the years after ussr left and before taliban took over..No matter how well you train afghans to kill other afghans, which are pathans, those non pathan minority can never ever bring security to the country once the invaders leave...So the invaders can leave today or they can leave in 10 yrs time, without taliban on their side, afghanistan will be what afghanistan was before the invasion..If they left 10 yrs from now, things would be worse, because those afghans the invading force is training will bring even more havoc to the afghan people.America will end up doing whats its doing now in pakistan, killing those whom it trained 20 years ago.
Complain about this comment
A better comparison would be if the US recruited an Afghan Brigade loyal to the US with a promise of Green Card after 5 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought us had this policy to the illegal latin americans living in usa, and the criminals out on parole,
And you want the afghans to kill other afghans? They did that for years, before the taliban came..your friends, northern alliance before they were given uniform and army boots so that they could look like "proper soldiers", were killing afghans..
Complain about this comment
First I am an American first and most americans including our President look beyonds ethnic and religions I am a Jew(which is one of the world great religions and has never oppresed people the way Islam and Christian followers have. Being pro Israel is a majority oppinion in this country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the jews have never oppressed people, they just have occupied palestinians since 48. The first time, jews actually got the chance to rule after all those BC of years later, and what do they do? Occupy from the day one.
Complain about this comment
If my memory serves me right the US (under Carter) were training the Mujahadeen (with Pakistan) before the USSR invaded. Then the Mujahadeen attacked USSR positions with the support of US and Pakistan with the aim of enticing the USSR into the 'Afghan Trap' - an impossible war to win. A rare US foreign policy success! Now NATO are in the 'Afghan Trap'!! How did they put themselves there one wonders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between ussr invasion and american led occupation is, that ussr was invited by the government of afghanistan, they just didnt invade and start bombing from the day one..they were invited by the government who got tired of american backed islamists who wouldnt stop burning the girls schools and killng teachers..That was very fashionable in those days..Litmus test for those ilsamist backed by americans and other islamists, was the burning of girl's schools, if one did that, then he was pro american islamist.
Complain about this comment
ref187. At 3:59pm on 07 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
First I am an American first and most americans including our President look beyonds ethnic and religions I am a Jew(which is one of the world great religions and has never oppresed people the way Islam and Christian followers have. Being pro Israel is a majority oppinion in this country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the jews have never oppressed people, they just have occupied palestinians since 48. The first time, jews actually got the chance to rule after all those BC of years later, and what do they do? Occupy from the day one.
I suggest you read the Balfour declarition. It was never the Palestinians land. It could have been considered the Ottomans if anyone.
Now why should Israel give back East Jerusulem with the Arab's history of descrating jewish religous sights and since Egypt and Jordan are the only arab nations to honor their treaties how can the Palestinians or the Lebanese be trusted?
Complain about this comment
186 colonelartist
Why don't you actually read the posts properly before reacting. It is plain that I was writing hyperthetically to illustrate a previous argument.
I did not suggest that Afghans should fight Afghans. They seem to have worked that out for themselves.
187 colonelartist (again)
Please don't antagonise Magic with references to Israel. They just serve to derail yet another discussion.
Complain about this comment
I suggest you read the Balfour declarition. It was never the Palestinians land. It could have been considered the Ottomans if anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I suggest you read the name of Sir Balfour, he was a brit, who agreed to give someone else's land to a third party, as if he inherited the land from his maternal grand mother, or in this case, inherited from G-d himself..The same guy refused to give northern irland to the catholics and all this happen at the same time..Read more about ottomons, and the way they honored not only the places but the jewish religon...You must be aware of the famous jewish rabi claiming to be the messiah? when the ottomon king told him to convert to islam or be ready to die, and the false messiah converted to islam, ending the whole controversy among the jews..You have also forgotten sallahudin ayubi who freed the whole area from the crussaders, and you have also forgotten how ottomons gave refuge to jews when spanish were persicuting them..Dont get carried away by the so called judoe christian new found alliance..Jews and muslims have more common history and religon than the new friends of convience jews rely on..In the end, the fact is jews in israel are living among the muslims, and its them they have to look towards, not to europe or america..the jews from europe ruling israel, have their own goals, in the long term such people will lead the jews to the scenarios they present now.
Complain about this comment
I did not suggest that Afghans should fight Afghans. They seem to have worked that out for themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that what americans used to say about vietnamise as well? especially when their plan to train locals to fight, failed?
Any country which is used as a battlefield will do what afghans did..First you ask yourself what the world, and by world i only mean UN, did to help develop an infrastucture after ussr left, and then blame them for killing each other..For years UN didnt do anything. and then it put sanctions on the country and was allowed to be forgotten..only to bomb it after 2001 september..If afghans are angry at the world, their anger is justified..
Complain about this comment
Re #176
PHHHHLLLEASEEEESE!
POTUS is not a supervisor of the U.S. military forces.
He is their Supreme Commander.
The only one allowed to authorise use of WMDs.
The one with "football" [no, not a soccer ball].
Our problem is that our Commander-in-Chief went AWOL.
[Not unlike like Billy "Cigar" Clinton in the National Guard]
Complain about this comment
193. At 4:51pm on 07 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
[Not unlike like Billy "Cigar" Clinton in the National Guard]
Bill Clinton never joined the National Guard and, therefore, could never go AWOL. I believe you mean George W. Bush.
Complain about this comment
170.
That list was mostly insurgencies that happened due to the end of British Imperial power colliding with the cold war.
In other words, 'we are leaving but don't want the communists to take over'.
In Malaya, this was helped by them being mostly ethnic Chinese rather than Malayans.
This is where, after some false starts, the concepts around counter insurgency were evolved, still today with modification used by the US, in Iraq after 2006 and trying to be in Afghanistan.
When these lessons have been ignored, as in the Rumsfeld era, well we've seen the results.
It would be nice to say the wise British thought this up, but there was also another factor, post war the UK did not have the resources to engage in Vietnam style adventures even if they wanted to.
Borneo was almost, in the mid 60's, a 'mini Vietnam'. You had a major conventionally armed state (indonesia then packed with the latest from the USSR's arms industry), trying through proxy insurgents impose on a neighbour-Borneo.
The British and Commonwealth did have substantial forces in the area, the Royal Air Force's Far East Command, a carrier battle group, however it was not needed since they managed to keep the conflict up close and personal.
The British Defence Secretary, Dennis Healey, refused ANY requests to bomb from the air.
Since it was feared a mistake killing civilians would destroy the hard won support of the locals.
It worked. Indonesia backed off.
It seems the US commanders in Afghanistan have taken some of this to heart, they are smart guys after all.
In fact, the US forces have been transformed from one with little or no appreciation of smart counter insurgency, so dismissed under Rumsfeld, to the open minded, capable operators now.
Has this happened in time? That's the question.
To the issue of who joins up, we are aware that many do sign up in the US to help get themselves through higher education, to escape places with poor prospects.
That is a social/educational issue, not a military one.
Here, it is certainly true that many join the UK forces from areas of higher unemployment.
But that's not the whole story.
My NCO friend gets very annoyed when the press bang on about the 'kids of today' (as they always have), how soft, how stupid, how useless etc.
He reckons the men he was to be brother, father, mother, uncle to, are in many ways better than when he joined up.
Quicker studies, more tech savvy and as we see, brave as lions.
(When there was mass conscription in WW1 and WW2, many recruits were of poor health due to poverty of the pre NHS/Welfare State kind, slum kids, malnourished. It was both times, a real problem that took time to resolve).
Today, some do come with low reading ages, which is fixed, sometimes low self esteem, difficult backgrounds, but it is a minority and the system brings them up.
However, relatively speaking, even with the last UK conscription ending 50 years ago, the British do maintain realatively small numbers in the forces for the population.
This has usually been the case, before WW1, between the wars.
Interesting to note that polls suggest the recent surge in applications to join do show avoiding unemployment, as you'd expect, but also amongst an equal number, as desire to 'do their bit for the country'.
Complain about this comment
ref #191
During the period between WW1 and 1948
Arabs in Jersulem descrated Jewsih sights and cemetaries. Under Israeli stewardship, Moslems have free access to their sights. In fact when Sharon visited the Temple Mounts the Palestinians protested.
An example of Paalestinian's unreasonablness and intolerance.
Complain about this comment
Under Israeli stewardship, Moslems have free access to their sights. In fact when Sharon visited the Temple Mounts the Palestinians protested.
An example of Paalestinian's unreasonablness and intolerance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the time being, we will leave sharon van vinkle out of this..so tell me then, you are not aware of whats going on with the holy place of muslims in jersusalam these days? Or will you just say that its just some unreasonable and intolerant palestinians who are cause of this present situation in alqasa mosque?
Complain about this comment
#196 MagicKirin.
Too late to answer your response tonight but please please it's sites not sights.
Complain about this comment
#166 maxbrewster:
"Mark Mardell, I'm so glad that you are now in charge of the America blog....Justin Webb had become so ridiculously Americanised and blindly in awe of the US that he had become unable to provide a British or outsider's view of the United States"
----------------------------------------------
Agreed mate. I only read the last dozen or so of Mr.Webbs so cannot comment on his earlier ones but he did seem "in awe of th US" as you put it.
I am enjoying Mark Mardells' a lot more
Complain about this comment
3 – Pull out, and watch the country implode, followed by decades of fighting. While the allied fatalities would fall, it would not stop the deaths, deaths which could justifiably be blamed on the initial NATO invasion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Brezinski plan, as quoted by one Dilip Hiro,was " to export a composite ideology of nationalism and Islam to the Muslim-majority Central Asian states and Soviet Republics with a view to destroying the Soviet order...."What was more important in the world view of history?... A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War". this is the context which you should discuss.Discussing contextless just leads to simple things, like should or should we not increase military, or what are we doing in afghanistan and all the nonsense being discussed in the name of afghan debate.
Complain about this comment
Rebuke or slap-down may be journalistic shorthand, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for McChrystal's decision to speak his mind. What should stay private, what should be public?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets not forget Sir Richard Dannatt for speaking his mind a couple of years ago..its not a new thing McChrystal speaking his mind at selected audiance at that institute.Its better to say things when they are needed to be said, then to get retired and then say them, like one particular british commander whose name I have completely forgotten.
Complain about this comment
#re 194
Nope. By the way. Top anti-Bush disinformation campaign leader, Dan Rather, has lost his job at CBS(and the nation's respect) after repetatedly promulgating similar lies. [A matter of well documented public record] And CBS News has never quite recovered from this fiasco.
"LIE, LIE AND EVENTUALLY SOME OF IT WILL BE ACCEPTED AS A TRUTH.
(dr Goebbels' advice to his fellow National Socialists)
Complain about this comment
Re# 201
I believe Richard Dannat is already looking to a NEXT UK fovernment.
I suspect that Stan McChrystal is looking to a NEXT US Administration.
[we'll remember in November]
Complain about this comment
#183 MagicKirin
"Being pro Israel is a majority opinion in this country."
Have you any actual proof of that statement? I know a large number of US citizens and don't know one who approves of Israel. The Jews have a very effective lobby in APIAC whether that constitutes majority support I very much doubt.
"The Palestinains are paying because they claim lands that are not theirs and never was. They also suffer because they choose to be ruled by terrorists. Jeruslem united under Israel forever! Because all the holy sights will be protected something the Arab custodians never did."
They claim lands that are not theirs? You have some sort of proof of title for the Jewish occupiers? Other than that taken from ancient religious texts which also include references to tribal leaders having conversations with 'burning bushes' and the like. I would suggest that the fact the Palestinians are there in large numbers tends to prove they live there.
"They also suffer because they choose to be ruled by terrorists."
That's rich. Menachem Begin was a terrorist, Israel was founded by terrorists the Irgun led by Begin murdered British soldiers. Moshe Yaalon recently cancelled a visit to the UK because he feared that he would be arrested on war crimes charges. Ariel Sharon was accused of war crimes when he told Israeli soldiers to stand back and allow their Phalangist allies in the Lebanon to murder nearly 2000 Palestinians and Lebanese.
The behaviour of Israeli settlers towards Palestinians in East Jerusalem over the past few years would tend to disprove your comments about Jewish lack of bias when dealing with Muslim rights and Muslim places of worship. As previously mentioned the Al-Aqsa Mosque situation also gives the lie to your statements. Importation of 500,000 Jews from Russia into the West Bank hardly shows a commitment to observing Muslim/Arab sensibilites. The list is endless and encompasses more than 60 UN resolutions.
Let's now go back to the issue in this blog. Why are we in Afghanistan? The original intention was to remove the safe haven for Al Qaida. It resulted in us (NATO) having to remove the Taliban. The leaders of Al Qaida and several of the Taliban clerics have clearly linked US and UK support for Israel as one of the main reasons for hostility to the West. In addition end of trial statements of young men (Bristish born but mainly of Pakaistani origin) convicted of carrying out or commissioning terrorist atrocities in the UK have stated that their primary reason was a deep seated hatred of our lack of even handedness in dealing with Israel and Muslims.
How much more evidence do you want? It is time Israel was told very clearly that support will be withdrawn unless and until they arrive at a settlement with the Palestinians that can be seen to be just and lasting. I for one do not want to see any more young Brits killed fighting wars for a cause that I regard as immoral and unjust. You have to face facts the Palestinians are not going away, Muslim/Arab anger is growing year by year and traditional support for Israel is fading fast. The Israelis have managed to go from being the object of huge sympathy and remorse in the years immediately after WWII to where they are now. Which is, to be regarded by many, as the source of the problem.
Complain about this comment
Re #204 "Menachem Begin was a terrorist, Israel was founded by terrorists the Irgun led by Begin murdered British soldiers."
I'm not an Israeli, not even a Jew.
But I seem to recall that an ample and timely warning was given to evacuate certain hotel some Britons are so fond of remembering?
And it was not, for reasons not fully explained to the British subjects till this very day?
[Not that Menachem Begin is my hero or a role model.]
Complain about this comment
BTW.
Would you recognize as a state a 'nation' which doesn't want to recognize YOU as a state?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Complain about this comment
#202 powermeerkat
"LIE, LIE AND EVENTUALLY SOME OF IT WILL BE ACCEPTED AS A TRUTH.
Yup also the day to day motto of Karl Rove
Complain about this comment
#206 powermeerkat.
You seem to fail to understand. I am not interested in anyone recognising anyone. I'm interested to the involvement of Britain and Europe in a war where our opposition are constantly strengthened by the actions of a third party whose interests are not our interests. Just look at a map and consider what will happen if The Israelis attack Iran as, given their attack dog tendencies, they clearly might.
The whole of the Shia muslim world would unite behind Iran, Iran would be able to supply the Taliban directly and would probably begin to subvert Pakaistan. It's a nightmare and a very real scenario, we can't afford to go on supporting a group of people who clearly have no interest in peace only grabbing as much land as they can.
I can see why we want to get rid of Al Qaida and the Taliban, they are a real threat and the thought of Pakistan's nuclear armoury in their hands is frightening to the extreme. Support of Israel and it's unstated, but but by now very obvious, target of territorial aggrandisement is not in our interests.
Complain about this comment
#205 Meerkat
But I seem to recall that an ample and timely warning was given to evacuate certain hotel some Britons are so fond of remembering?
And it was not, for reasons not fully explained to the British subjects till this very day?
The IRA did the same thing - giving warnings about bombs going off (and some hoax ones too). It doesn't, and didn't, make a blind bit of difference. People still died. Also it wasn't only British solders that died - some Jews were also killed in the bomb attacks too (what did we expect from the Nazi sympathising Stern Gang). Would it had mattered if the 9/11 terrorists gave some coded warning before their attack? Nope! Don't be an apologist for political violence and terrorism.
#206 Meerkat
Would you recognize as a state a 'nation' which doesn't want to recognize YOU as a state?
Not only does Israel not recognize Palestine, it also denies its right to exist. Ancient villages and peoples homes were destroyed by the Israeli government and that erasure forgotten.
Are you condoning State terror here?
Complain about this comment
Would it had mattered if the 9/11 terrorists gave some coded warning before their attack? Nope! Don't be an apologist for political violence and terrorism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any person with 0.5% common sense would have raised some questions, or refused to train the trainee pilots who were only interested in taking off..The saudis and some say even UAE had given information and pictures of some of the persons invloved in 9/11 when they arrived in usa.Your FBI, CIA and those who own those pilot training clubs are more to blame than those kungfu,type camps in afghanistan and taliban.
Complain about this comment
The whole of the Shia muslim world would unite behind Iran, Iran would be able to supply the Taliban directly and would probably begin to subvert Pakaistan. It's a nightmare and a very real scenario, we can't afford to go on supporting a group of people who clearly have no interest in peace only grabbing as much land as they can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now, its america via india that is supplying taliban like groups in pakistan side of baluchistan to create mischeif in iranian baluchistan, which is sunni, in hope of creating sunni killing shia or shia killing sunni, iraqi style. the guy waiting to be hanged in iranian jail for bomb blasts in iranian baluchistan claims that he was funded by america and that americans had told him to do whatever he wanted to do, but never to contact americans at any time.
Complain about this comment
ref# 211
If the Iranians say he said it then it must be true?
Complain about this comment
If the Iranians say he said it then it must be true?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
and if the americans say that mastermind of 9/11 said that it was ben laden who finaced him, then it must be true?
Complain about this comment
RE:174 Powermeerkat:
Res: 168
All complaints, grievances or comments etc..
Have to be channeled by the chain of command
Like corporal to sgt, lieutenant to captain, captain to major and succeeding so all the way to commander in chief. Therefore when a general speaks to the public at large or news team, the president has already been briefed on the affair and has had time to caution the general on what not to disclose. Speaking out of ranks during a war movement is a serious matter. If done during ‘declared war‘ it could be considered reason for a court marshal.
175:
Success is less important to so called insurgents.
Winning is a condition which is gauged by all out success and is not the response
Insurgents are taking for the moment. When there are overwhelming forces attacking and trying to subdue all possible opposition, the people know that winning is not likely.
The object second to that is to impose themselves in such a way that victory would never be a reality for the invaders. They will fight fragmented battles and fight by all means and they will resist as long as invaders decide to remain. Vietnam was a war in which there were few direct confrontation in large numbers against the USA. That was one of the good reasons why the war was lost and abandoned and I think we are about to do the same thing in Afghanistan. McChrystal sort of reminds me of general McArthur, He also had issues with the president at the time. Mr. George W. Bush may have spoken about seeking terrorists “no matter where they may be” however that may prove to be an empty threat. Just imagine trying to go to every country where there may be terrorists and then think, how much money do we want to spend? Also think, do we have an endless amount of money to do that. Unless all the other countries turn the terrorists over to the US, they will not come here voluntarily. That is why we are in Afghanistan now, because no one would arrest the terrorists and hand them over to us.
#185
I have agreed with post 185 and then I saw post 186.
That is bad; First, I will say that there have been Latin Americans, of almost all Latin American countries fighting within the US. Citizens before and citizens after that. Black Americans have also fought bravely within the US forces. During the 1700’s and up until 1776 A Black person was considered less than a man by percentage. This so that no status could be gained by Blacks. All very good for the majority in charge. However liberty is never given, that is ever liberty. Liberty is earned, and when it is earned it is complete. So you say, Latin Americans and parolees are given the promise to gain citizenship! All of the above examples are pure proof of the level of excellence and sacrifice for this country. Certainly the many years of leadership in the past were not just by the great Anglo Saxons. The written law meant to exemplify the virtues of American Valor belong to all of its contributors and no less. Afghanistan divided equals United States disunited, unless we accept a compeer within our boundaries. We have earned and necessitate respect. This morning the president of the united states woke up, looked in the mirror and saw a man, tomorrow when he does the same he will still see a man, if not a president.
Complain about this comment
199. At 9:09pm on 07 Oct 2009, when you are the moon... wrote:
#166 maxbrewster:
"Mark Mardell, I'm so glad that you are now in charge of the America blog....Justin Webb had become so ridiculously Americanised and blindly in awe of the US that he had become unable to provide a British or outsider's view of the United States"
----------------------------------------------
Agreed mate. I only read the last dozen or so of Mr.Webbs so cannot comment on his earlier ones but he did seem "in awe of th US" as you put it.
I am enjoying Mark Mardells' a lot more
--------------------------------
Agreed with you both ( much to any one's surprise;)
JW was pathetic .
Complain about this comment
"Inquiring minds want to know."
How come most of the time I hear this comment it comes from some one who gives the distinct impression of having no mind.
Even admits to the multiple personality issues.
Complain about this comment
So you say, Latin Americans and parolees are given the promise to gain citizenship! All of the above examples are pure proof of the level of excellence and sacrifice for this country. Certainly the many years of leadership in the past were not just by the great Anglo Saxons. The written law meant to exemplify the virtues of American Valor belong to all of its contributors and no less. Afghanistan divided equals United States disunited, unless we accept a compeer within our boundaries. We have earned and necessitate respect. This morning the president of the united states woke up, looked in the mirror and saw a man, tomorrow when he does the same he will still see a man, if not a president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To you it may seem to be the excellence and sacrifice for your country, to me they are just taking advantage of disadvantaged people. Giving such incentives in exchange for war, no wonder your soldiers dont want to fight..they are there to get green cards, not to die for the country.
Complain about this comment
That is one of our greatest achievements in the US, one I fare to say is the cause and dissent among so many jealous and disgruntled trumpeters of equality. If incentives can get you to work better and provide me with excellent results then I incentivize you. Or would you rather remain in ashes of the destructor? Tell me were you there to cancel the green cards for the native Americans and do you still seek their demise! I refuse to believe that there still exist such a dense belief.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS