A blunt view of Afghan deadline
The man in charge of the United States Marines, who has just returned from a tour of Afghanistan, has said President Obama's plan to start withdrawing troops next summer has given sustenance to the enemy.
General James Conway said that it will be a few years before the time is right to hand over to Afghan forces in some key areas.
The assessment by the Commandant of the Marines, who are fighting in the most critical areas of Afghanistan, is the most blunt so far from a senior military figure.
He says America is growing tired of war, but his troops sense conditions are turning their way. He said their only concern was expressed by a person to told him to not let the country go wobbly on us.
General Conway said that he did not believe that conditions would be right in Helmand and Kandahar to hand over to Afghan forces for a few years. And he suggested the president's date for the beginning of the withdrawal gave the wrong signal. It's worth quoting at length:
"In terms of the July '11 issue, you know, I think if you - if you follow it closely, and of course we all do, we know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011. In some ways, we think right now it's probably giving our enemy sustenance. We think that he may be saying to himself - in fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.'"
"But let me give you a different thought, okay? If you accept what I offered earlier as true, that Marines will be there after 2011 - after the middle of 2011, what's the enemy going to say then? You know what he is going to say to his foot troops - when you've got the leadership outside the country trying to direct operations within because it's too dangerous for them to be there?
And the foot troops have been believing what he's saying - that they're all going to leave in the summer of next year. And come the fall, we're still there hammering them like we have been.
I think it could be very good for us in that context, in terms of the enemy psyche and what he has been, you know, posturing now for really the better part of a year."
So the general suggests that if the Taliban listen to the president, their morale will improve.
If, however, they listen to him, and he is right they will lose face.
James Conway is due to retire in the autumn, and the Obama administration will regard him as something of a maverick. Or at least that is what they would like us to believe.
Despite his belief that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq and his very fierce opposition to gays in the military, I can't see much that suggests he's a real wild card.
Certainly the administration won't take any action.
After the sacking of General McChrystal, they aren't looking for another dust up.
The president can't afford to lose another senior figure, particularly one who is headed for the exit anyway.
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 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~50~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The withdrawal deadline should neither encourage nor discourage the Taaleban as it is their country and they should be left alone to decide their own future.
What right does the foreign occupying and invading troops have to do that for them? Their only task and duty ( assigned to them by terrorists Bush and Blair) is to kill innocent civilians and plunder the entire country.
Complain about this comment
Mustafa, the country belongs to all the Afghan people, not only to the Taliban. To say it only belongs to them is discounting the rest of the Afghans, especially the women who are routinely treated badly by the Taliban, including being raped, stoned, facial features cut off or acid thrown on them, burned alive, buried alive or held as slaves.
BYW, our soldiers' main task and duty is to dismantle terrorism.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I think its great that Gen. Conway is saying exactly what he feels. We need more people like him...quality people who are honest.
Complain about this comment
The idea that Afghanistan belongs to the Taliban is nonsense. It belongs to all Afghani's - even those the Taliban would kill for opposing them.
The Taliban had foreign help to achieve their position - why should it be denied to non-Taliban Afghani's?
As for "invading" - IIRC there was a small thing with a couple of towers in New York - you attack someone they are entitled to fight back - even in Islam! Unlike Iraq teh threat from Afghanistan was real and demonstrated adn that was where Al Qqeda was getting support and sanctuary.
Plunder Afghanistan? Of what? The Taliban has killed more Afghani's than "the west" ever did!
Complain about this comment
Has our community activist stuck his foot in his mouth again,Obama is starting to remind me of Ford and the SNL skits that got the peanut farmer in office.Their ability to deal with the real world are about the same.
Complain about this comment
The reaction from many military soldiers about repealing DADT...not surprised...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_military_gays
Complain about this comment
Let us examine this logically. First, if - as the US has claimed - the Wikileaks release has compromised informers, the general will doubtless be getting a lot of disinformation right now. If, on the other hand, it has not compromised them then the US is practicing disinformation right now. Either way, the general's views are useless to us.
Second, I do not recall Sun Tzu or Miyamoto Musashi putting optimism high on the To Do list, and Napoleon refers to it only indirectly in his reference to an army marching on its stomach. Should we conclude from this that General Conway regards himself as superior to all of them? If not, why would I want to listen to him and not them as to why the war is going the way it is? I'm willing to accept what he says, given his experience, but only in exchange for some reason - any reason will do - for not thinking this is just sour grapes.
And on the available evidence, it's hard to reach any other conclusion at this time.
Complain about this comment
Mark, At times I wonder if your opinion is based on your dislike of the man that is currently the president. This statement is based on previous comments from you on similar topics.
"Certainly the administration won't take any action." "After the sacking of General McChrystal, they aren't looking for another dust up." are part of your conclusion.
What you should be questioning or writing about is if this turn of events is a new strategy to confuse the taliban and others that are working against the future of the country. So let them wait and don't worry about if President Obama will sack this member of armed forces vs. a disgraced loud mouth general that deserved to be fired from the job.
Marc.
Complain about this comment
I do not like the war but what "the general population" dont seem to realise its that deals are made through out the years "in defence of the realm" in order to prevent further attacks on our land yes the govt make deals with the devil but seriously given the choice of savining 100s of lives by expending a few is more than worth it! how lucky are you to have such luxuries in being able to have the freedom to egg your fellow country men who are fighting for your right to heckle them for a war your govt put them into how dare you just you wait til you have to stare down a barrel of a gun maby just maby you might understand what the real men and women have to put up with to kep your pampered existance to be honest troops should be increased to flush them out and to you biggots out there its not a religeous war against islam its against terrorism islam if people take time to actually reserch it is a peaceful religeon not intent on killing scores of people unlike certain brainwashed indaviduals creating cells but shock horror its not the leaders that are blowing themselves up is it? have a think how can they preach when they do not and wont lead by example? just think all you would be terrorists whos really in control you or your puppet masters?
Complain about this comment
6 Johnathan Day,
"Second, I do not recall Sun Tzu or Miyamoto Musashi putting optimism high on the To Do list, and Napoleon refers to it only indirectly in his reference to an army marching on its stomach."
I think you will find Sun Tzu believed warfare is based on deception. IMO, this is what Gen. Conway is saying. By convincing the enemy we are leaving he will be conditioned to accept that reality, especially if this is what their leadership believes. Staying past the supposed deadline while continuing to fight the Taliban undermines the leadership of the Taliban in the eye's of it's "foot troops" (soldiers).
Complain about this comment
The USA military better get used to the idea that their role has been downgraded somewhat to just distracting their enemies from disrupting the USA economy proper. From 911 till the peak of the stock market in 2008, the US military did just that though much was expected from them; the unexceptional produced by the special few.
The 2008-2009 financial crisis only to testify to this, as the USA administration preferred in directing resources to save banksters and the USA economy. While the US military was assigned to just police actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which proved adequate as the USA recovered economically.
I have to dispel the Commandant of the US Marines delusion. The US government and public have given up on their Military winning anything. In fact the endgame scenario determined by the Obama administration reminds me of my boxing days in my youth. After three 3 three-minute rounds, we will have a winner and a loser or a draw. Match over, and we move-on.
Complain about this comment
Found #1 comment so weird, that I just could not resist my self registering to the site and make this following request -
Mr Mustafa K, try being rational! Living in caves with an internet connection is of no use. Instead try making positive remarks such that people in his world (West) are encouraged to help the people who live(d) at mercy of Taliban.
If you say people helping folks in Afghanistan have their own agenda, I would agree, but keep in mind, while they may be meeting their own goals they surely are helping those Afghanistani families who live in terror each day. Think of those kids, those girls who cannot go to school even if they wish to. Kids don't have a future even if they are bright enough. Think for a moment in case you have kids what their future will be - I am sure you can realize the dire state Afghanistan is in because of extremism!
Let me predict - You don't live in Afghanistan else you would not have an internet connection.(Chuckle). Request you to make a better use if the power of internet, that you have at your disposal today. Btw don't forget to thank people who got it to your door.
Complain about this comment
President Obama does not use the term "deadline." In fact, in an interview which can be found on youtube, he said "I don't have a deadline for withdrawal ...." Yet journalists use the word over and over, because they like concise expression for their soundbites, even when inaccurate.
"Deadline" means that something should happen by a date certain, but all that is expected to happen in July 2011 is that withdrawal of US combat forces in Afghanistan should begin. There is no commitment to a withdrawal of any particular size, or of particular units, or as to how long a complete withdrawal should take. That's not much of a commitment at all, and not an event which merits use of the word "deadline."
Complain about this comment
I'm still wondering how Obama managed to gag McCrystal. Did they treaten his retirement pay? Is he protecting his former aids & subordinates from having their military careers destroy by the administration? I'd really would like to hear what he has to say.
Complain about this comment
When Hillary Clinto said in the early spring of 2008 during the Presidential campaign that Barack Obama was not fit to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States she hit the nail right on the head. President Obama keeps proving it and this is just one more piece of evidence for it. He could hardly have done worse than making that decision except by announcing it to America's enemies. All they have to do to win is wait him out.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Fifty-seven percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, with 42 percent supporting the military mission. The percentage of those in opposition to the war is up 11 points since April, and is the highest ever in CNN polling since the launch of the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. - CNN
The President is doing what the People want.
The General is talking to the People, not the President. The General is saying that the conflict can be won, and that walking away now would be a strategic mistake.
I don't remember a time in U.S. history when the Military asked for more time to complete a mission and was denied. They do need to start making their feelings known.
And it's the Marines. We don't deny much to the Marines. Frankly, they don't ask for much.
Complain about this comment
"Fifty-seven percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan"
Of course they do. How can you support a war being waged without a winning strategy? If you aren't going to fight to win, you're better off not fighting at all. War is hell. That is what we should be making it for those people who attacked us and anyone who gets in our way while we're doing it. We have the means, what we lack is politicians with any spine. At the rate things are going downhill, before long we'll be just like Britain.
Complain about this comment
I'm confident that General Conway will have ample opportunity to make his views on the future conduct of the Afghan war known at the December assessment, and that his position will be carefully considered in the effort to establish a reasonable approach going forward.
Meanwhile though, I don't think the General should be too concerned over the "message" that might be being received by the insurgents as a result of current 2011 policy goal. In the first place, that policy is certainly subject to change following the December assessment. In the second place, a month or so of B52 missions over southern Afghanistan -- or a military action of similar seriousness and scope -- would surely send the insurgents an effective and clearly understood "counter message." If the U.S. can find the stomach for such a thing.
I think the General -should- be concerned about being told to fight a war without offending anyone or killing any of the village elder's favorite goats. Being ordered to "fight nice" in pursuit of the myth of "winning hearts and minds" at the end of a gun is criminal in my view.
What's more, pretending "nice" war is possible encourages too many politicians (who will sit at home with their own kids for the duration) to take -going- to war far too casually -- as we've witnessed twice in the last decade.
IMHO.
Complain about this comment
to Andy Post...the general may be talking to the people but he neglects to say anything about Afghanistan's history. No foreign military has ever succeeded for long,and I don't see any reason to think this will last for long either...peace.
Complain about this comment
Any American knows the Marines are the best fighters in the history of the world - and also that by and large they paranoid right-wing fanatics who believe the US lives in amidst a sea of enemies; militaristic nationalism is their bread and water - without it, they cannot live.
Conway is a typical product of the USMC. He almost certainly disdains Obama both as a liberal, and also probably chafes at his diplomatic, discreet manner. He may also dislike him at a more personal level - his humanist views, his belief in soft power, and perhaps even his race.
Nothing is more profoundly offensive to a man like Conway to be told that the battle his men are fighting was never worth fighting at all, or that the ultimate solution may not be force. A world view that is not black-and-white is hateful to him. Worst of all is the implication that his men are not to be the saviors of the country, coming back to roses and ticker-tape, but to be humbly withdrawn in favor of "advisors" and civilian workers.
And in the final analysis, he's wrong, just as he was wrong about Iraq and gays and his peers were wrong about Vietnam and Cuba and Korea and many other things before.
Complain about this comment
"Being ordered to "fight nice" in pursuit of the myth of "winning hearts and minds" at the end of a gun is criminal in my view."
Vietnam proved it's not nearly a myth. We treated it as a purely military struggle, enraged the Vietnamese people, and wound up fighting the entire country and being forced out. Go look at Israel. They're treating their conflict with the Palestinians as a "purely military" problem and are rapidly painting themselves into a corner.
Complain about this comment
MUSTAFA IS RIGHT- THE people in pakistan or any country who has disaster of 20million people which need food shelter health, who are suffering the world wide army should be deployed for humanity rather fighting and killing some one no religion in the world shall allow this, so wake up people change your way of approach to teach people what is life rather killing innocent people, has killing so many since centuries have showed you the path it is a big NOOOOOOOOOO, so change your attitude, and way to approach people , all human are from the same father, and all women are from the same mother, well.. Hope the sick minds shall wake up some day,
Complain about this comment
General Conway's statement should be prefaced with the statement: "If we want a military victory". He is a soldier after all. We also need an blunt political scientist to answer if it is at all realistic that Afghanistan will have a government that can raise sufficient taxes to pay the salaries of the Afghan soldiers and policemen who will be charged with maintaining stability after a military victory by the US. If not, there will be another Mujaheddin decade as when the Soviets left. While we're being blunt, we also need a sociologist or anthropologist to advise us if the vast majority of people in Afghanistan, who are rural dwellers, want democracy, which puts their well being in the market place, or a solid local strongman who knows them and can be approached with grievances and needs. Or we can just be emotional.
Complain about this comment
I am from the Vietnam war era - I was against the war. I was against it not based on ideology, but because I felt it was being run as a money making scheme for greedy corporations, while the best of America's young men were literally sacrificed. Years later we as nation hung our heads, as the media announced to the world and our enemies how we lost.
The military hung it's head because it lost faith in our leaders, they felt betrayed by them, and were shocked to discover the American public deserted them. You see we were fighting against communism, for world freedom. But for foreign and domestic special interest reasons it was a war meant to be continuous.
Does anyone really believe for a moment we could not win that war???? I mean really? Get serious.
America grew tired of the corrupt politics, constant media bashing, the senseless maiming of its children. We vowed never again would we allow ourselves to be used, nor humiliated.
Now fast forward to the year 2010.
Here we are again, this time in the middleast, why because we were attacked.
We find the country bankrupt because of a greedy wall street. We have to foot the bill and bail out the rest of the world. Politicians promise anything to any group to get elected, and once in will cater to any special interest group to stay in.
Our own laws are used against us by lawyers for bankers, corporations, and even immigrants looking for a way to exploit us. They attack us with the letter of our laws (often times poorly written), and our judges forgetting the intent or spirit of the law, constantly favor minority interest over American national interest.
Immigration is out of control, when we have the same number of legal immigrants allowed to come into this country as the number of unemployed each year. Our social services emergency net is overwhelmed by illegals and is in danger of total collapse. Our schools are failing because of poor teachers and a bloated administrative staff held in place by powerful unions. Our hope for the future, the brightest children are held back from a "No child left behind program" The university's are filled with foreign students with free rides, while Americans of all ethnic backgrounds can't even afford to go to a small community college.
If we complain we are told we are a nation of immigrants, we are raciest, unpatriotic, and turned against one another with name calling. There are five billion people who want to come to America, where do you draw the line, when do you say no more? Americans are fed up.
Our military is fed up, and justifiably so.
It's leaders are beginning to speak out, right down to the foot soldier.
Now I want to ask a question, to Islam, to the oil sheiks, to Israel, to the professors living off your government grants, to the liberal news media, to the corporations getting rich while moving our factories and jobs overseas, to the wall street profiteers, to the greedy unions, and most of all to corrupt politicians who wont even secure our own home borders, who play politics with our lives. Do you want to mess with the most powerful military force mankind has ever known on this earth.
Listen people... do you think for a moment they can't wipe the face of this planet of some desert rats? Let's hope they stay convinced that they are fighting for a higher cause, and it's worth the sacrifice. Because history has taught us when those who sacrifice for their country are betrayed, they come home and clean house. They will have the support of the American people this time. Think about it. Does the world really want an Angry America?
Complain about this comment
“But General Conway said Taliban foot soldiers would likely suffer a blow to morale after July 2011 passes with no dramatic departure of American forces, "and come the fall we're still there hammering them like we have been"
Since there are no plans for a “dramatic departure” of all, a majority, or even a quarter of current U.S. forces to be gone by July 2011, and the general believes we need to win the war of Taliban morale. I believe the general would benefit from a return trip to Afghanistan, to sift the sands for the marbles he apparently lost.
Ok, so let’s talk about morale. Does not the presence of a foreign army in their country provide the biggest morale boost to the Taliban? Isn’t the morale, and spirit of the non Taliban Afghanis far more important? Would not a legitimate, able to defend itself Afghan government be the biggest blow of all to Taliban morale? Isn’t this what we should have been concentrating on all along?
By the way, where was the general’s willingness to publicly share his views, during years of quagmire strategy?
Taking an unhelpful political? potshot before retiring is doing what good, and for whom?
A lot of questions, and no answers from General Conway.
Complain about this comment
The escalation of Taliban involvment has not started with an annoucement of any timline. It's been escalating for years. What started, at least for public, as the Alcaida clean up and Osama Bin Laden residence in Afghanistan caused war, turned into no sign of Osama, no sign or a work on the origianl Taliban and Afghan leader (no even a proper photo of him), 10 years of war and more and more spread of Taliban and their simphatisers in Pakistan. It's a nonsense relating the current situation to any timeline by the current US administration.
Complain about this comment
The escalation of Taliban involvment has not started with an annoucement of any timline. It's been escalating for years. What started, at least for public, as the Alkaida clean up and Osama Bin Laden residence in Afghanistan caused war, turned into no sign of Osama, no sign or a word on the origianl Taliban and Afghan leader (no even a proper photo of him), 10 years of war and more and more spread of Taliban and their simphatisers in Pakistan. It's a nonsense relating the current situation to any timeline by the current US administration. The direct human cost of war deos not sound heavy when counting soldiers or insrugents. It's the civilian deaths, distruction of property and Afghanistan continuing to be a country with no hope.
Complain about this comment
The escalation of Taliban involvment has not started with an annoucement of any timline. It's been escalating for years. What started, at least for public, as the Alkaida clean up and Osama Bin Laden residence in Afghanistan caused war, turned into no sign of Osama, no sign or a word on the origianl Taliban and Afghan leader (no even a proper photo of him), 10 years of war and more and more spread of Taliban and their simphatisers in Pakistan. It's a nonsense relating the current situation to any timeline by the current US administration. The direct human cost of war deos not sound heavy when counting soldiers or insrugents. It's the civilian deaths, distruction of property and Afghanistan continuing to be a country with no hope.
Complain about this comment
#6 Jonathan Day
Well that one went totally over my head. Can anyone else explain it?
Complain about this comment
First, if the commander in chief of the US armed Forces(aka Mr Obama), makes a decision, then the decision is made. Otherwise, what happens to the principle of civilian control of the military?
Second, burning money and lives in an attempt to impose on Afghanistan a strong centralised set of governmental institutions, something which has never existed in the country's history, is an exercise in futility.
Third, the people of Afghanistan have been, historically, quite happy to stagnate and fight small wars within their own borders, while posing no real threat to other states.
Fourth, if you invade Afghanistan, then you awake the xenophobia which is effectively hard-wired into the Afghan mindset. They have been fighting sucessfullly against foreign invaders since Alexander the Great. They are still doing so.
The best option is to leave, and let them alone. It will take more than fifty years for Afghanistan to get over the trauma of the last set of wars. Ultimately, the only people who can make peace there are the Afghan people themselves.
The sooner the current crop of foreign troops leaves, the sooner the Afghans will be obliged to make peace. They will have to work it out themselves, and neither "The West", nor any other country or group of countries, can do it for them. Neither can "The West", nor any other country or group of countries, change the culture of that country, especially in the limited time allowed by the Commander in Chief.
Leave. As quickly as possible. Save lives and money, and stop wasting time.
Complain about this comment
General Conway is obviously correct. It never did make any sense at all to say to the enemy that 'Ok guys just stand around and be shot for this year, but don't worry we're all going home next year'. Fairly obvious I would have thought,take a year off fighting go back to your village,Pakistan or wherever have a break and come back next year. These people are in it for the long haul and being told that the enemy is going away in a year's time must have had them laughing their heads off.
That leaves the question of morality. Is the US, once again, going to wash it's hands of the people of Afghanistan as it did after the Russian war? IMHO the US created Al Qeada by arming the Mujadeen to fight a proxy war against the Russians and then leaving the poor Afghanis to their fate once it was over. The Taleban, who were initially welcomed by the Afhghan people, took over filling the power vacuum that had been created when the Soviets left. They were initially welcomed by the Afghan people as being a welcome relief to the Warlords who they replaced. The Taleban were funded by radical Saudi groups and supported by the Pakistani intelligence services. They welcomed their old friends of Al Qaeda and that's where we are now. The only thing that has now changed is the flooding in Pakistan and the consequences of that. Pakistan is going to have too much on it's hands to fight wars against militants and could even be taken over by those militants. There's a thought, Al Qaeda and it's friends with nukes!
I wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes for anything.
Complain about this comment
At 09:02am on 25 Aug 2010, MacTurk wrote:
"First, if the commander in chief of the US armed Forces (aka Mr Obama), makes a decision, then the decision is made. Otherwise, what happens to the principle of civilian control of the military?"
Or is this part of a campaign by the Pentagon to take over "Civilian Control" ?
General Petraeus would be a far more electable Republican candidate than Sarah Palin.
Think about it.
Complain about this comment
ref #19
Conway is a typical product of the USMC. He almost certainly disdains Obama both as a liberal, and also probably chafes at his diplomatic, discreet manner. He may also dislike him at a more personal level - his humanist views, his belief in soft power, and perhaps even his race.
______________
Its more likely that Conway see a man with no merit having a position he is totally unqualfied for.
Although elctorial politics is different than the military, he has contempt for Obama incomptence unwilligness to listen to far more experience and wiser people.
He also thinks the way he treated General McChrystal was shameful.
In that he reflects the majority of this country
Complain about this comment
All big and powerful militaristic nations have to have a little and affordable war on the go.
The USA needs these wars to keep the weapons companies in business, to trial new weapons and to determine just how much mass of destruction each new weapon can create.
The militaristic young citizen of the USA needs to have these small wars so that the practice he has had on squirrels and deer can be perfected on humans. There will always be the need to give these men killing opportunities because the Constitution gives the citizens gun rights that condition the killing mentality.
Remove the right to have private armouries and perhaps, just perhaps, the desire to mix-it-to-the-death with gun-bearing peasants in Mexico, Korea, Viet Nam, Granada, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afganistan, Iran etc., can be removed from their psyche.
If it were only the peasants it would be bad enough, but these tend to become surrogate wars fought by the big boys using these smaller nations as cannon fodder.
Yes, I am against war. I am also against the manipulation of young American (etc) minds to believe it is OK to think and act this way. Tom Paxton gets my final words:
...............
What did you learn in school today,
Dear little boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody's free
And thats what the teacher said to me
. . . . . .
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great once we had had
We fought in Germany and in France
And some day I might get my chance.
And thats what I learned in school today,
. . . . . . . .
I learned our Goverment must be strong
It's always right and never wrong!
Our leaders are the finest men
And we elect them again and again
And thats what I learned in school today,
Thats what I learned in school
Complain about this comment
31. At 11:51am on 25 Aug 2010, John wrote:"Or is this part of a campaign by the Pentagon to take over "Civilian Control" ?
General Petraeus would be a far more electable Republican candidate than Sarah Palin.
Think about it"
There has been a long and honourable tradition in the USA of of retired military men running for, and being elected to office. This started with George Washington. Later examples include General Grant and Gemeral Eisenhower.
None of these men ever attempted to use their military backround to usurp civilian control, and the idea that General Petraeus would connive with the Pentagon to do so is both offensive to the man, and smacks of silly conspiracy theories.
The chances of such a scenario ever being realised are tiny, due to the built-in checks and balances in the US Constitution. It seems you have little in said constitution.
Complain about this comment
20. At 05:26am on 25 Aug 2010, Ethan Farber wrote:
"Being ordered to "fight nice" in pursuit of the myth of "winning hearts and minds" at the end of a gun is criminal in my view."
Vietnam proved it's not nearly a myth. We treated it as a purely military struggle, enraged the Vietnamese people, and wound up fighting the entire country and being forced out."
--------------
I respectfully disagree. We could never decide HOW to treat the Vietnamese problem so we ended up doing mad things like burning the village to make it safe for the villagers. The parallels to Afghanistan are remarkable.
And the corruption of the South Vietnamese government did more to "enrage the people" (and demoralize the South Vietnamese Army) than we ever did, IMHO (yet another striking parallel to Afghanistan).
If we had wanted to win Vietnamese hearts and minds -- as we claimed over and over as the war dragged on -- we would have changed course and -supported- the people's anticolonial and nationalist aspirations, even at the expense of working with Ho Chi Minh to build a "beacon of (albeit communist) democracy" in the Far East.
-----
"Go look at Israel. They're treating their conflict with the Palestinians as a "purely military" problem and are rapidly painting themselves into a corner."
-----
I'm not sure what your point is here. American survival is not at stake in Afghanistan, and the US can leave next year if it wishes and let the Afghans sort their own affairs. I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have this option. Also, I don't believe I've ever heard either the Palestinians or the Israelis claim to be trying to win the others "hearts and minds."
My view is unchanged: war isn't going to win hearts and minds, and trying to conduct it in a way that WILL win hearts and minds is crazy.
War needs to be terrible for all concerned: otherwise, it won't be the "politics by other means" of last, horrible resort.
Meanwhile, "Dulce et decorum est..." is still a great lie, whatever side your on.
Complain about this comment
The jist of what the General is saying is that if the US government *says* it's going to be sticking around until after mid 2011, then of course the Taliban leadership and soldiers will, ergo, believe them.
So will his advice to Obama be to accompany any policy announcements with 'cross my heart and hope to die' - you know, to make it really believable.
The Afghans are wily, experienced campaigners and have shown repeatedly that they are the ones with the stamina - politically and militarily - to bide their time for as long as it takes. The idea that they can be bluffed into walking away is patronising nonsense.
But what should be done? Haven't got a clue. This piece I think nicely shows us Westerners how little we understand the environment we're operating in over there:
http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2010/08/india-pakistan-afghanistan
Complain about this comment
A general forms strategies based upon subordinates’ observations and accordingly commands their appropriate military responses. Any other interaction is political…and counterproductive. Correct or not, this general’s observation will be construed as political dissension and thus also is supportive to the Taliban. His duty and obligation was to communicate with his immediate superior and no one else. The general should study the etymology of the word “infantry” and put his learning into action.
g
Complain about this comment
That setting a timetable gives the Taliban an advantage in planning their strategy has been known all along so if there's a problem it isn't with what General Conway said but how he said it. I don't see any overt criticism of the president in his words and I doubt he said anything in public that he hadn't already said to the president in private. As long as he's respectful and doesn't deliberately contradict the boss he's not going to get in trouble. Besides, as you noted, to sack another senior military commander so soon after Gen. McCrystal would make the administration appear weak and disrespected by the military--that's not something they want, especially this close to the fall elections.
The general's remarks are a tempest in a teapot. Right wing talk show hosts will try to make something of them but I don't think they'll get much mileage out of them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sorry for the double post, getting anunusual error message when I hit the submit button.
Complain about this comment
Military officers want to preserve their budgets and there is no better way to achieve that than an indefinite state of warfare. What we should be asking ourselves is (1) what are our objectives in Afghanistan, (2) can we afford to spend billions of dollars pursuing nebulous geo-political goals while our infrastructure is crumbling, our education system is falling behind, and we can not afford to invest in R&D and modernization to creatge new jobs and become more competitive?
Does anyone honestly believe that things will change if we stay in Afghanistan another 5, 10 or 50 years? The anti-Western sentiment that exists in that country - and in other Islamic countries - is more intense than ever because of our presence and actions the last 9 years. If we decide to stay indefinitely it will not be because we want to preserve "gains", such as they are, but to preserve the status quo and our geopolitical and economic goals.
Complain about this comment
Of course they do. How can you support a war being waged without a winning strategy? If you aren't going to fight to win, you're better off not fighting at all. War is hell. That is what we should be making it for those people who attacked us and anyone who gets in our way while we're doing it. We have the means, what we lack is politicians with any spine. At the rate things are going downhill, before long we'll be just like Britain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no winning startegy, just the emotional outbursts...A few days of chest thumbing, providing uniform, boots and belts to dostum and the rest of your northern allies, miltiasn, forcing pakistan to provide logistic route and its airbases, and calling people in north and west of pakistan a small minority who oppose war, usa started bombing afghanistan, and within a few days their defence sec. saying that he has run out of targets..putting karzai as the ruler, which was done to cover their own tracks...Arranging a fantastic meeting of the leaders in Germany who pledged billions, which still is in a pledging state, Hiring people from all over the world to come to work in afghanistan, from cook who make food for the soldiers ,to the private policement from south africa to protect the private companies and soldiers, Half of the money for various projects end up back in the western countries...
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to read the comments of Mr Conway
- he is at the end of his term in the military , therefore he can speak sort of freely and not worry about his pension too much
- one might want to remember that the taliban were ( like Saddam) once the vanguard of the war on the soviets in the sequel to the great game
in fact the usa even paid moneys to the taliban for eradication of the poppy crop once they had taken over
if the usa had let Osama stay in Sudan( where he was actually offered up to the Clinton administration )he might have never gone to Afpak
cleverly he married the daughter of the leader of the taliban and so got a lifetime visa
- he is seeking to undermine the presidents orders to get out
the president is smart and is used to listening to to man in the middle
he has probably figured out that at 3400 usd per head of usa population the war is not really a great piece of economics ( of course not all usa people pay taxes , only about 30 pct do, so that means each taxpayer has to cough up ( one day) ca 10000 usd of tax to pay for this malarky
- the usa has been in afpak longer than even in the vietnam war
as i recollect the generals then were promising victory right up to the last day before the vietmnaisation and subsequent collapse of the war after the internal protests in the usa became too strong to brush under the carpet
- it is in the generals interests to support the war , to supplement his pension he will obviously soon become a consultant or board memeber of a contractor so he is in effect a spokesman for his future career prospects
- lets imagine that the war will be prolonged for one more or 2 or 5 year( s) after 2011, what will happen?
the taliban ,as is written in sun tzu will wait it out, avoiding frontal conflict and stinging fron the sides in unrelated variable improbable incidents , after all its their homeland and it costs nothing to stay in your own home - forever
it costs ca 1 m usd / year to keep one us soldier in front line duty
- from what i ve read no single or cooperative power has ever been able to rule afpak, even the Kahn gave it up as a bad job , and he was really ruthless, making the CIA waterboarding specialists look like nuns
bbc house rulers : you might not like this bit :
even the brits ( of which I am one ) were kicked out of afpak not once but twice ( the first time only an Irishman managed to get out alive from a group of ca 40000 people !)
you want to win the war ?
do it like they did to the Boers in SA
lock em all up in camps until the warriors ( insurgents ) have no where to return home to ,then they will loose heart and their food supply
problem is that s a lot of people to lock up ( I believe ca 7 million)an that will not win you a lot of hearts and minds , and possible even the compliant UN might murmur its discontent
I am afraid to say it but in 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 years the locals will have the their day and it will be just another wreath to put on the cenotaph
I pity all the dead lads rotting in their graves
I pity even more those with injuries with lives like the living dead
armchair warriors you are a truly a reproachable bunch of persons
Now Pakistan is disintegrating again due to the totally poor arrangements for repairing the results of the flooding one wonders when it too will be overrun by " insurgents " as the ruined locals look for any kind of leadership
Im sure our dear gereral will live comfortably till the end of his days!
HD
Complain about this comment
20. At 05:26am on 25 Aug 2010, Ethan Farber wrote:
"Being ordered to "fight nice" in pursuit of the myth of "winning hearts and minds" at the end of a gun is criminal in my view."
"Vietnam proved it's not nearly a myth. We treated it as a purely military struggle, enraged the Vietnamese people, and wound up fighting the entire country and being forced out. Go look at Israel. They're treating their conflict with the Palestinians as a "purely military" problem and are rapidly painting themselves into a corner."
--------
Interesting.
Complain about this comment
re. #44. At 8:51pm on 25 Aug 2010, d_m wrote:
"Go look at Israel. They're treating their conflict with the Palestinians as a "purely military" problem and are rapidly painting themselves into a corner."
What do you call it when guerrilla organizations backed by foreign money and weapons continue to launch attacks and make it known their goal is to literally drive you into the sea, a public relations problem?
Israelis and Palestinians could learn to live in peace but too many outside powers have an interest in keeping the fighting going for their own purposes.
As for painting themselves into a corner, Israel is so small they never had much wiggle room to begin with.
Complain about this comment
re. #43. At 8:25pm on 25 Aug 2010, henrydumor wrote:
"you want to win the war ?
do it like they did to the Boers in SA
lock em all up in camps until the warriors ( insurgents ) have no where to return home to ,then they will loose heart and their food supply"
I don't think anyone in the U.S. wants to win the war bad enough to herd the civilian population into concentration camps and let half of them die of starvation and disease as happened to the Boers. Even the Brits aren't that ruthless anymore.
Complain about this comment
The only ones we are interested in locking up are the terrorists...
Complain about this comment
45. At 00:57am on 26 Aug 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
re. #44. At 8:51pm on 25 Aug 2010, d_m wrote:
"Go look at Israel. They're treating their conflict with the Palestinians as a "purely military" problem and are rapidly painting themselves into a corner."
Scott, I didn't say that. I was quoting from Post #20 written by Eathan Farber.
My only comment was: Interesting. I thought it was an interesting way to view what happened in Viet Nam, and also an interesting way to view what is happening in Israel. It also has implications for how we conduct operations in Afghanistan. I think his comment has merit.
I think if you read his post #20, you may come to the same conclusion.
Complain about this comment
This post is for the moderators. When posting comments I get a dialog box that says something to the effect that I all ready said that in post #1. Then, it doesn post the comment. I sign out and then it posts the comment. Then I select 'go back to the page you were on', and I end up at the bbc home page. Any thought about this?
Complain about this comment
I suppose the general is "fierce" in his opposition to gays in the military because of concerns over troop morale; suggesting the commander-in-chief is giving sustenance to enemy, however,..... great
Complain about this comment
Refugee from the baby boom acid dropping flower power spoiled brat generation of the 1960's;
I prefer the lyrics of Randy Newman's song; "Let's Drop the Big One Now, Let's Drop the Big One Now."
BTW, how's your 401K doing? If you're not on it now, you soon will be.
Complain about this comment
The Pragmatist part of my brain might talk like a librarian, but the Pacifist in me is much more blunt:
War kills people.
Killing People is Bad.
Killing People frightens the survivors.
The survivors can be easily controlled if they are Afraid.
This kind of Warfare is a form of Terrorism.
(I know we don't like to think of it that way, but... have you read an Machiavelli lately?)
But, Fear is merely a Quick Fix. It does not last.
The long term result of War is HATE.
Hatred is VERY dangerous.
Institutionalized Hatred can take GENERATIONS of hard work to overcome.
Hatred is even more dangerous than War, because Hatred can allow an individual to justify continued random acts of senseless violence ('Hate Crimes', 'Terrorism', or 'Guerrilla Warfare' depending upon your socio-political perspective).
Still - I Hope.
I consider the Berlin Air Lifts and remember that the power of Chocolate and Chewing Gum is stronger than Hate. One generation, and The Wall will fall.
In time, Random Acts of Kindness are even more powerful than Hatred.
Because of this, I still have Hope for the children of Afghanistan, of Pakistan, of Haiti, of Columbia, of Ethiopia and Somalia, of Zimbabwe and The Congo...
Now back to the matter at hand:
Will a longer stay in Afghanistan by our Military help those kids? I have no frackin' clue. But I can guarantee that Ye Olde Slash & Burn ('Shock & Awe') military theory has more holes in it than a mayan hammock.
So - Good luck with that, boys.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fine. I can be less blunt.
@MAII #51: I'm only 37 and my 403(b) is doing just fine, thank you.
As for the 'Big One' I'm sure you are being facetious. Right? Riiight????
After all, those kangaroos won't last long in the heat of radioactive fall-out.
(I googled the lyrics.)
See, I'm not a member of the Spoiled Brat 'Me-Generation'. I'm a member of the 'Really-Pissed-Off-That-My-Kids-May-Never-Have-The-Financial-Security-My-Parents-Once-Achieved Generation.'
'Cheers'
Complain about this comment
I understand the 'draw down' date as having two main purposes. It shows Karzai's gov't that it can't rely on large scale US troop deployments forever. Secondly, it was a gesture towards battle weary public opinion in the US, an indication that in spite of the surge, the war wouldn't last indefinitely.
Its success in achieving these objectives has been pretty much a flop in the first case, and at best mixed in the second. But to say it gives sustenance to the enemy? For the same reason it doesn't really rattle Karzai, I would suggest that nobody else takes it very seriously, either. Least of all the Taliban. Even the General, as roadidog points out in #9, speaks out of both sides of his mouth: "if (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) we stay beyond the date, the Talibs shore nuff will be some sore upset."
Which is to note that the General's 'blunt view' is really not so blunt. So that while he can't actually come out and say "this deadline thing is a bluff," all that nudging and winking and rolling of eyes kind of gives the game away. Not helpful in a game of liar's poker.
One last thing: in spite of the apparent weakness of his hand, Obama does have a wild card in the hole (I'm sorry -- this card game metaphor is getting out of, er, hand!!!): the vagueness of what the non-deadline deadline actually means allows him a vast range of options. So if he is clever, he should be able to tailor the actions that come out of it to best suit the political and military requirements of the day.
Complain about this comment
Pull out now, or pull out later. It's does not matter much. After we leave the country will resume its natural character, much like Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
I understand the 'draw down' date as having two main purposes. It shows Karzai's gov't that it can't rely on large scale US troop deployments forever.Secondly, it was a gesture towards battle weary public opinion in the US, an indication that in spite of the surge, the war wouldn't last indefinitely.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the thing is, when karzai was made interim ruler of afghanistan, in all hurry and scurry in 2001, he was given ensurance that usa troops would not leave until afghanistan has been made into a almost "model country". When he won last yr by generously frauding the elections, and usa overlooked it all because it only wanted some kind of government in afghanistan with which it could deal with ( a hamas, PLA, or the intermin iraqi ruler, model) he was ensured that america would withdraw before afghanistan is peaceful and on its way to become a moderen state...What gaurantee does the CIA, on whose pay roll karzai has been all his adult life, or american government has, that karzai if left alone, wont turn against usa, as the digrunted ex payrollies of usa usually do, including your very own ben laden? Karzai can ally with taliban after troops depature if he decides to continue to the ruler of afghanistan, what will the americans do?
Complain about this comment
56. At 6:58pm on 26 Aug 2010, professor123 wrote:
Pull out now, or pull out later. It's does not matter much. After we leave the country will resume its natural character, much like Pakistan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post is highly insentive to the people and military of pakistan...Before usa came to afghanistan and forced pakistan through the favourite dictator general president of pakistan, who now resides in usa, to take up extreme measures which went against the country's stability, pakistan was doing ok..There were no disgrunted "taliban" fighting against military or the state..usa is responsible for the chaos that has been created in pakistan..
Complain about this comment
The Brothers Karzai and the CIA
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/28/the_brothers_karzai_and_the_cia
Complain about this comment
How can you mention the 60's without the man of the hour, Bob Dylan?
Course' you guys may not be a Bob Dylan lover like myself. He is my favorite singer songwriter and one of my heroes.
Lyrics from one of Bob's most famous songs of all time...
"Yes n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind."
Complain about this comment
K, Just one more...
part of one verse from Bob Dylan's song, With God on Our Side,
"Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side."
Complain about this comment
re: 57 What gaurantee does the CIA, on whose pay roll karzai has been all his adult life, or american government has, that karzai if left alone, wont turn against usa
That is Karzai's strong hand for sure. And making nice with the Taliban is not his only card -- why do you think Ahmadinejad was in Kabul? I would argue it was Karzai's way of telling Washington off -- saying in effect, OK, so if you go, I have options.
Still, the options are not quite so comfortable as a steady supply of billions of US dollars. And I really wonder, how long would the Karzais last in power without US muscle? The Karzais wonder too, I bet.
Complain about this comment
re: 58 There were no disgrunted "taliban" fighting against military or the state..usa is responsible for the chaos that has been created in pakistan..
Well, let's say largely responsible for the chaos. But I take your point. In fact, I would argue that the potential of Pakistan falling further into chaos is the biggest single factor keeping the US interested in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
Its not like Pakistan has nuclear weapons or anything dangerous that could fall into the wrong hands if not watched and secured properly, eh?
Complain about this comment
"Its more likely that Conway see a man with no merit having a position he is totally unqualfied for.
Although elctorial politics is different than the military, he has contempt for Obama incomptence unwilligness to listen to far more experience and wiser people.
He also thinks the way he treated General McChrystal was shameful.
In that he reflects the majority of this country."
Irrelevant. Obama is the lawfully elected President, therefore he is his commander in chief and it's his duty to follow orders. He can go take Obama's portrait and stuff it in the latrine, or lampoon him in his memoirs all he likes, but in the here and now, it's a soldier's duty to follow orders, not to second-guess his commander, least of all the electorate that put him there.
Soldiers and generals are creatures of imperfect judgment just like everyone else. The political system is imperfect, but as it's been observed, "Soldiers following their own conscience is a slippery slope indeed. At the bottom of that slope lays military dictatorship". Civilian control of the military and their duty to follow the orders of the political leadership is NOT a matter of discretion.
MacArthur and McClellan second-guessed their commanders and were removed. They were removed not because they were in fact wrong but because they second-guessed them. Whether Obama was right or wrong in removing McChrystal or redeploying the troops is neither here nor there. He's the commander-in-chief.
A lot of people disdained Bush, but if that "disdain" were to turn into refusal to follow orders - or the law - whenever someone didn't like the President, we couldn't get by.
Complain about this comment
63. At 02:30am on 27 Aug 2010, chronophobe wrote:
re: 58 There were no disgrunted "taliban" fighting against military or the state..usa is responsible for the chaos that has been created in pakistan..
Well, let's say largely responsible for the chaos. But I take your point. In fact, I would argue that the potential of Pakistan falling further into chaos is the biggest single factor keeping the US interested in Afghanistan.
64. At 04:56am on 27 Aug 2010, LucyJ wrote:
Its not like Pakistan has nuclear weapons or anything dangerous that could fall into the wrong hands if not watched and secured properly, eh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was and is not potential of pakistan falling further into chaos and further chaos is not part of usa plan, infact pakistan was not even mentioned when usa attacked afghanistan..The longer usa stays in afghanistan, the longer the chaos is going to go on...The 9 yrs have changed nothing in afghanistan, not one single thing, except contractor culture, and criminals corrupt parasites in the west and in afghanistan. Its not like pakistan nuclear bombs can be strapped to the bodies or to the IEDs, Even the drones are going to go away when the nobel peace prize winner who talked of war at peace center, will withdraw his brave soldiers from afghanistan..
Complain about this comment
A lot of people disdained Bush, but if that "disdain" were to turn into refusal to follow orders - or the law - whenever someone didn't like the President, we couldn't get by.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that usa gets hyper and even stage coups with its own military in other country,should a few disdain groups express their disdain against the ruler of their country..Its not as if obama won the president seat by a grand majority, the difference was just 7% percent, and since then, his popularity has dcreased, that makes a lot of disdain people, much more than the iraqis who were against saddam, more than afghans against taliban...why not apply the same rule at home now...Peaple whose countries americans occupy and ruined, expect that americans do the same in their own country.
Complain about this comment
"How is it that usa gets hyper and even stage coups with its own military in other country,should a few disdain groups express their disdain against the ruler of their country..Its not as if obama won the president seat by a grand majority, the difference was just 7% percent, and since then, his popularity has dcreased, that makes a lot of disdain people, much more than the iraqis who were against saddam, more than afghans against taliban...why not apply the same rule at home now...Peaple whose countries americans occupy and ruined, expect that americans do the same in their own country."
7% is a larger majority than MOST presidents. Bush had a nationwide margin of 0.5% in 2000.
President is the leader of this country and CinC until the next election - whether we happen to like it or not.
If you think the military should act against the president, what you're really saying is that you don't really want democracy, you want military dictatorship. Doesn't the US Constitution say that the president is the commander in chief? So are you really for democracy or do you believe in military dictatorship?
Complain about this comment
re: 66
There was and is not potential of pakistan falling further into chaos and further chaos is not part of usa plan, infact pakistan was not even mentioned when usa attacked afghanistan.
There is always potential for the situation to get out of control. Not just the risk of a war head or radioactive material being used in a random attack, but of Pakistan and India being driven into conflict, for example.
And causing trouble in Pakistan was certainly no part of the plan for Afghanistan, but it was a foreseeable probability of botching the job.
The longer usa stays in afghanistan, the longer the chaos is going to go on
You may be right. But no US President will be willing to admit failure. The exit will be protracted and painful.
Complain about this comment
There is always potential for the situation to get out of control. Not just the risk of a war head or radioactive material being used in a random attack, but of Pakistan and India being driven into conflict, for example.
And causing trouble in Pakistan was certainly no part of the plan for Afghanistan, but it was a foreseeable probability of botching the job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
India and pakistan have had one war after the nuclear weapons, and no one in the world came to know about it..otherwise, you and the rest of the scared from atom bomb of pakistan, would atleast not use this excuse...Causing trouble in pakistan was certainly part of the plan...Otherwise, the planers would have planned something else...as they were warned not once but billions of times, before and after the war...Even the vendors in pakistan back then predicted correctly what america was going to do with pakistan...And if vendors could forsee it, then the educated and proffessionals in usa could see it too, but they went on ergo, their intentions and plan was exactly what pakistan's situation is right now..the only other explain is that your proffessional leaders and military leaders are incompetent....
Complain about this comment
If you think the military should act against the president, what you're really saying is that you don't really want democracy, you want military dictatorship. Doesn't the US Constitution say that the president is the commander in chief? So are you really for democracy or do you believe in military dictatorship?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I was saying is that if your military can stage coups in other countries, because 45% of iraqis didnt support saddam, or 48% of afghans didnt support taliban, why not apply the same rule in your country....
Complain about this comment
"What I was saying is that if your military can stage coups in other countries, because 45% of iraqis didnt support saddam, or 48% of afghans didnt support taliban, why not apply the same rule in your country...."
Because it's against democracy. It's against the Constitution. Is that a good enough reason for you or no?
Complain about this comment
re: 70 the only other explain is that your proffessional leaders and military leaders are incompetent....
Bingo. Though I would focus on the political leaders of G.W. Bush's Administration. Naifs (in the French sense), ideologues, and thieves in the main. Though they did have acolytes in the military, and some in the State Department and CIA.
India and pakistan have had one war after the nuclear weapons, and no one in the world came to know about it..otherwise, you and the rest of the scared from atom bomb of pakistan, would atleast not use this excuse.
If you are referring to the Kargil business -- please. The world certainly did notice. Perhaps you are offended because nobody bought Pakistan's 'what, me? It wasn't me?' baloney.
Complain about this comment
68. At 9:52pm on 27 Aug 2010, Ethan Farber wrote:
"7% is a larger majority than MOST presidents. Bush had a nationwide margin of 0.5% in 2000."
____________
Famously, if not notoriously, Junior Bush did not have "a nationwide margin of 0.5%" in 2000. On the contrary, Al Gore beat Junior Bush in the popular vote by 0.5%.
Complain about this comment
If you are referring to the Kargil business -- please. The world certainly did notice. Perhaps you are offended because nobody bought Pakistan's 'what, me? It wasn't me?' baloney
------------------------------------------------------------------------
what you should have been offended at is....your country, usa and all those who decided to make a terrorist attack in usa, theirs, is that general who started the war, and gave you "what, me, it wasnt me,"baloney became your favourite general dictator president of pakistan for 10 yrs...and you were prepared to have him as your favourite general for many more yrs, if it hadnt been for ordinary people and lawyers, who forced him out from pakistan and into england and now usa...And you should have been offended by the fact that the leaders you elect and support have no forsight, cannot predict the consequences of their actions...and are simply liars...what that makes you and your fellow countrymen and women....
Complain about this comment
re: 75 what that makes you and your fellow countrymen and women....
Chuckle. It makes 'us' pretty much human beings, just like 'you.' Sometimes, you can fool enough of the people enough of the time ... .
But seriously, why so down on Musharraf? Sharif, the would be Amir al Mu'minin, was and is no saint.
Complain about this comment
But seriously, why so down on Musharraf? Sharif, the would be Amir al Mu'minin, was and is no saint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sentence makes you a strange human being, who doesnt remember or will not remember what they support in iraq and afghanistan...allow me to remind you why you should have been extremely down on your favourite dictator general president...and that is, because he was a dictator...people who fight two wars to stage coups against two dictators, look hypocrites when they start supporting a third dictator at exactly the same time...I go down against him, because, he was incompetent commander in chief of military,and once an incompetent, always an incompetent, as proved... And I know all the perks that comes with martial law... but when the commander in chief is incompetent than he is... perks or no perks...nothing more, nothing else.
Complain about this comment
Well, as far as his personal competency, perhaps you are correct. As far as dictators v. democracy, aren't you being a little idealistic, as far as Pakistan is concerned? It seems to be the Pakistani way of things -- elected leader falls into deep corruption, seeks to maintain power at all costs, is replaced by military coup, military leader replaced by new civilian administration, and so the cycle goes. Sharif was no Allende, and Musharraf no Pinochet.
As for my support for the democratization of Iraq and Afghanistan -- I think the former is a public relations exercise to justify a terribly stupid war, and the latter a pipe dream that no one knows what to do with at this point.
Complain about this comment
Well, as far as his personal competency, perhaps you are correct. As far as dictators v. democracy, aren't you being a little idealistic, as far as Pakistan is concerned? It seems to be the Pakistani way of things -- elected leader falls into deep corruption, seeks to maintain power at all costs, is replaced by military coup, military leader replaced by new civilian administration, and so the cycle goes. Sharif was no Allende, and Musharraf no Pinochet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As if democratic leaders else where are corruption proofed. The favourite western dictator general president of pakistan would not have survived a few yrs, had not the west suddenly befriended him because it wanted to get rid of two other dicators..A dictator to you should be a dictator and not even compared to the most corrupt political leader, because no matter how corrupt the political leader might be, he will always have to do something so that he be not voted out, dictators have no such worries..He was incompetent military chief who got soldiers and officers killed in kargil war because of his adventure, and he destroyed the country as a president..But ofcourse the west loves him...because he presented the country to them as if it was created by his maternal grand mother..
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS