Even following his World Tour, Barack Obama is sticking by his opposition to the “surge” of roops to quell violence in Iraq. He has consistently argued that the addition of troops would take the pressure off of the Iraqis to reach the political accomodation necessary to stability in the long term.
At the same time, Obama is advocating a surge of troops into Afghanistan. He is doing so despite his own opinion that President Hamid Karzai has not done enough to build confidence in his government, which remains weak after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
Ann Marlowe, a writer who has been to Afghanistan ten times and just completed her third embed with US forces there, argues that “Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense”:
Afghanistan’s problems are not the same as Iraq’s. Its people aren’t recovering from a brutal, all-controlling tyranny, but from decades of chaos and centuries of bad government. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is largely illiterate and has a relatively undeveloped civil society. Afghan society still centers around the family and, for men, the mosque. Its society and traditions are still largely intact, in contrast to Iraq’s fractured, urbanized and half-modernized population.
The Afghan insurgency has no broad popular base and doesn’t mirror an obvious religious or ethnic fault line. It is also far more linked with Pakistani support than the Iraqi insurgency or militias were with Iran. Afghanistan needs a better president, judiciary and police force — and a Pakistani government that is not playing footsie with the Taliban.
The ubiquitous “some” experts and US officials told the left-leaning McClatchy newspapers much the same:
More foreign troops, however, would do little than turn more war-weary Afghans against U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai if they aren’t part of a broader and more effective counter-insurgency strategy, some experts and U.S. officials warned.
***
In addition, Karzai’s government requires more help  and more pressure  to deliver basic services to its impoverished people, build competent police and reform the dysfunctional legal system. It must also do much more to root out corruption, especially among senior officials profiting from the world’s largest opium crop, the experts said.
Unsurprisingly, Obama lunch buddy Zbigniew Brzezinski is in the same school of thought:
“I think we’re literally running the risk of unintentionally doing what the Russians did. And that, if it happens, would be a tragedy,” Brzezinski told the Huffington Post on Friday. “When we first went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, we were actually welcomed by an overwhelming majority of Afghans. They did not see us as invaders, as they saw the Soviets.”
However, Brzezinski noted that just as the Soviets were able to delude themselves that they had a loyal army of communist-sympathizers who would transform the country, the U.S.-led forces may now be making similar mistakes. He said that the conduct of military operations “with little regard for civilian casualties” may accelerate the negative trend in local public opinion regarding the West’s role. “It’s just beginning, but it’s significant,” Brzezinski said.
None of which is to say that this is the correct side of the argument, as the McCaltchy piece presents the other side of the argument that additional troops are a necessary, but insufficient piece of a successful Afghanistan policy.
However, for as much as Obama has been questioned by the media about his continuing opposition to the surge in Iraq, he has not (afaik) been asked to explain why he thinks a surge of troops in Afghanistan will help pressure that government to get its act together, when still the thinks the opposite is true in Iraq.
Part of what I see in both Iraq and Afghanistan is that the enemy gets stronger wherever there are European forces involved. British forces in Basra and NATO running the Afghan campaign. It’s not the quality of their forces so much as the limits of the political leadership back on the continent. Bad ROE.
Obama would provide the same kind of “leadership” for our forces with the same result I believe.
::shrug::
Obama and the netroots cannot credit the surge, because it would validate Bush.
The original “light footprint” policy following the deposition of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath was intended from the beginning as temporizing, waiting for the Iraqis to realize what was going on and take up their own affairs. That’s exactly what happened. It took longer than expected, and I don’t think anybody expected the first significant movement(s) to come from the relatively bucolic sheiks of Anbar rather than the relatively cosmopolitan Baghdadeen — but, then, I don’t think anybody in the Administration expected the world Left to come down solidly on the side of rapists, torturers, murderers, and genocidists, to the point of vicious denunciation of anybody who might harm a hair of their heads, either.
The NYT and the Mooreonic Convergence killed more people in Iraq than US troops ever did, but did it through cutouts and proxies so as to maintain plausible deniability. If the surge ever became generally approved, the next question would be why it took so long — and any honest analysis would lay that directly at the door of the self-congratulatory pseudopacifists whose efforts handed the killers and obstructionists the propaganda they needed to drag it out. They will resist that analysis as long as possible, for obvious reasons.
Regards,
Ric
Obama does not have a strategy to win either war, only a strategy to try to win the election.
When Baracky said that his trip validated all of his positions, and proved that he had been right all along, we all pretty much knew that at best, he is vapid.
Likewise, Obama has not been asked to explain his incoherent view that Afghanistan is “more important” than Iraq because “they” attacked us on 9/11 (or something like that). As I recall, his crowd even oppose going after the Taliban at the time (remember the “brutal Afghan winter”).
He said that the conduct of military operations “with little regard for civilian casualties†may accelerate the negative trend in local public opinion regarding the West’s role.
Excuse me? We have little regard for civilian casualties? What dimension is Brzezinski from?
The “surge” and the encompassing COIN strategy is beginning to look alot like the guy manipulating the controls in The Great Hall of Oz.
“Pay no attention to that successfull strategy behind the curtain!”
What else can he and his advisors do than to continue to harp at Afghanistan as Teh Holy Campaign Against the Brutal Other! He was a co-sponsor of the bill to remove troops fer cryin’ out loud and a frequent and early opposer to the “Surge.” Even though the narrative is incoherent and false he has little choice in an election where his greatest vulnerability is his lack of experiance in general and his foreign policy chops in particular.
Never has a guy running for president had so many advisors and yet continues to demonstrate little grasp of the war on terror.
Instead? “He is the Great and Powerfull !O!”
The only thing missing is a big assed hot air balloon and some ruby slippers.
“Now close your eyes and repeat after me: ‘There’s no one like !O! … There’s no one like !O!…'”
Well the Boooosh admin has little regard for civilian casualties I think is what he ment. I do not think these idiots realize when they throw out fake studies saying we killed 600 thousand civilians or that we kick down doors and terrorize people they are insulting everyone of us in uniform.
>>Afghanistan needs a better president, judiciary and police force  and a Pakistani government that is not playing footsie with the Taliban.
Interesting. She’s saying that O!’s original prescriptions for Iraq are what’s needed in Afghanistan.
So he’s totally backasswards.
Does any of that matter urthshu when He gives such great speeches?
Well, Mr. Pink, the men and women in uniform are really little more than poor dupes who lacked real opportunities. They know not what they do.
Zbigniew you magnificent bastard!
Basically, O!’s strategy is to simply say the opposite of whatever Booooosh has said. It’s a winning formula for him.
The thing nobody ever asks the “more troops in Afghanistan!” types is “what will their mission be?” The surge in Iraq wasn’t just “send more troops”, it was also “change what the troops are doing”.
Baracky wants his Afghan surge mostly so he can claim US troops are tied down and forestall any possible pressure for military action elsewhere. Also, he needs the Afghan theater as a filter through which to pass weapons development. Cut anything not apropos to that theater, is what he wants to do.
“explain why he thinks a surge of troops in Afghanistan will help pressure that government to get its act together, when still the thinks the opposite is true in Iraq.”
“”We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we’re on the wrong battlefield,” Obama said. “America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy’s home by destroying al-Qaida’s leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding.”
The “Surge” should have been Afghanistan in 2003. What’s this about
Iraq? Oh, it is more centrally located for airstrikes, and then there’s that perennial cheap oil……democracy could break out by accident, btw.
petulance.
Ah, Semantics-Clueless! Bringing you the “shoulda, coulda, woulda,” while ignoring the here and now since, well, for too long.
I suppose you would have invaded Pakistan in 2003 with those extra troops? Or did you have a super secret plan for bringing unicorns to Afghanistan?
Was Baracky right about the “Surge” in January of 2007? If so, what would Iraq look like now, genius?
Semi-Conscious snark about what a bunch of illiterate warmongers we are in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Semanticleo you magnificent bastard! Lets invade Pakistan, that’s where Osama bin Laden is! Do you think Congress will approve a declaration of war against Pakistan?
Zbigniew you magnificent bastard!
Not to be tedious, SevenEleventy, but don’t you mean “bustard?”
“They were renowned by the ancient Arabs for being unnaturally stupid.[1]”
“They were renowned by the ancient Arabs for being unnaturally stupid.“
That’s redundant for anyone serving in the Carter Administration!
The “Surge†should have been Afghanistan in 2003.
Actually, it probably should have been Afghanistan about 1998, but blowjobs got in the way.
Why does Obama seem seam set on making Afghanistan is own personal “VietNam” ?
SemenKKKleo had it’s morning accident, I see. Sad.
Actually, it probably should have been Afghanistan about 1998, but blowjobs got in the way.
How about Sudan in 1996? Oh yeah, no American police officers in Sudan then!
What does it matter anyway? If the Taliban was decimated in Afghanistan by our military the press wouldn’t report it anyway so who cares. Let us just take more huge gulps of HOPE and CHANGE and go about our happy lives.
Oh by the way did you hear we might have won in Iraq? That might have happened magically on a saturday night. It might just have, by total accident, with no help from anyone. No forshadowing at all either, noone saw this coming. I mean one day, CHAOS, the next day, nothing….
Those are goals, not means. How are more troops going to help accomplish that?
Oh by the way did you hear we might have won in Iraq? That might have happened magically on a saturday night. It might just have, by total accident, with no help from anyone. No forshadowing at all either, noone saw this coming. I mean one day, CHAOS, the next day, nothing….
Wasn’t there some carnival in Anbar or something? Some sheik got three softballs in a basket, and then there was calm!
“â€ÂWe cannot win a war against the terrorists if we’re on the wrong battlefield,†Obama said.
There are at least10 to 12 thousand dead terrorists (a low estimate IMO) in Iraq who sure wish Barak Hussein Obama had been running things the last few years. But as luck would have it they are dead now never to support islamic fascism ever again. I’ll bet they would be surprized they were on the “wrong battlefield”.
The mere presence of the Lightbringer cause Hope and Change to break out.
No one can resist The Lightbringer. You will be assimilated.
Yes SeventyEleven there was also a pony. Oh yeah it also happened right around the time Obama visited too, he might have had something to do with it. His HOPE and CHANGE magic were able to visit Iraq and take pictures with generals the same day we actually got good news out of there. Amazing coincidence I think or just his Messianic Aura.
But, royf, you just don’t understand. Those weren’t the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
#Comment by Semanticleo on 7/28 @ 8:46 am #
Do you speak English?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 7/28 @ 9:13 am #
But, royf, you just don’t understand. Those weren’t the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
So those were the good terrorists? Damn thanks for letting me know.
But, royf, you just don’t understand. Those weren’t the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
Aren’t all the terrorists that attacked us on 911 dead already? Maybe we could prosecute them in absentia!
Only if we can prop their charred, rotting remains up in the courtroom. Whatever little is left. Do you think that would piss off the jihandis?
Again, we can only hope.
I would prefer to bury them upside down with strips of bacon in their mouth but that is just me.
“There are at least10 to 12 thousand dead terrorists (a low estimate IMO)”
That sounds like a McCain soundbyte.
Seen the Disney animation ‘Sorcerer’s Apprentice’?
How many brooms did Mickey destroy when he lost control of the power he usurped from his Master? You know, in your own opinion.
Seen the Disney animation ‘Sorcerer’s Apprentice’?
Yes, we all know how there have been zillions of terrorist attacks in the US since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, wait: there haven’t been.
Too bad for your cartoon theory, eh, Semen?
Open up boobie trapped pig farms near the Afghani-Pakistan border. Have an all-the-porkchops-you-can-eat bar special every Friday(after mosque services)!
Semanticleo, like a lot of the leftoids, is so progressive that she cannot conceive the situation in any terms other than red, bloody, primitive revenge, which she will euphemize as “punishment”. At root it is a sophisticated and nuanced way of saying what most of my redneck neighbors have ultimately abandoned: “We ain’t won ’cause we ain’t killed enuf sand n*rs yit.”
Regards,
Ric
Mickey Mouse should have used smart bombs, predator drones, and C-130’s. Then he would have taken care of all those pesky brooms.
I would say Mickey did not kill enough brooms but that is just my opinion.
Has your son been sent to Afghanistan or Iraq, Seman? You haven’t given us many updates about his service.
Did Mickey Mouse waterboard any of the brooms? That would have done the trick.
Oh, how, cute! Semiconscious is now using Disney analogies. Isn’t that precious. Of course, lost in her “terrorists as broomsticks” diorama is the idea that al qaeda had to expend their own resources to fight that battle. Therefore, the relative lack of sophisticated attacks world wide over the last 3 years. I wonder why?
How do you think Obama would respond if you asked him, “Senator, what would you do with those extra troops for Afghnistan?”
The over/under the “Uh’s” would be 8-10. Lightbringer? Liteweight.
Shesh, Cleo got us with that “Socerer’s Apprentice” argument. How do you counter that? I mean, there were fucking brooms everywhere.
We’re DOOMED.
“I would say Mickey did not kill enough brooms but that is just my opinion.”
There you guys go again. You deliberately skirt the point because it is inconvenient to your mindset.
Every broom Mickey destroyed raised several in it’s place. (That’s
just for N’OB who has trouble with syllables greater than one.)
Addendum, without reading any responses: Semanticleo will of course protest that this is not the case, that the problem is that we ain’t been killin’ the right sand n*rs. You know, nuance. But it’s all about killin’ sand n*rs, whatever the justification.
Regards,
Ric
Maybe Mickey could engage the Pink Elephants with some “aggressive diplomacy” in order to enlist their help in the War on Brooms?
PS. Cleo do you a broom stick somewhere that is making you uncomfortable?
I know, Cleo. I TOTALLY saw your point. That cartoon was so prescient.
MayBee;
Thanks for inquiring. More than likely it will be Afghanistan. Can’t say more than that.
Every broom Mickey destroyed raised several in it’s place.
But when The Tramp shared a piece of spaghetti with The Lady, only when they both slurped their end of the noodle did they come together in a kiss of peace. Kinda makes ya think, doesn’t it?
But, I think “Tom and Jerry” really offers us more what is wrong with American foreign policy. See, that cat never gives up chasing that mouse (who is much smarter), but he doesn’t realize if he’d JUST living in harmony, and stop trying to kill the mouse, there would be peace.
OR perhaps the situation is more akin to the Road Runner stuff … I’ll have to get back to you after I’ve thought about it a bit more.
“Semiconscious is now using Disney analogies. Isn’t that precious.”
Sorry. The simplistic analogy wasn’t meant for everyone, just folks like N’OB.
Every broom Mickey destroyed raised several in it’s place.
We’ve all seen the movie, Semen.
Now, how about some, oh, I don’t know, evidence that this is happening?
Hint: It isn’t.
Semanticleo as per your last comment if that was the case where everyone we killed raised several more in response wouldn’t we be losing in Iraq and have experienced several more attacks here at home? These new terrorist that supposedly are created by our responses to terrorism are in your head I think.
By the way so it is our fault that terrorist choose to blow themselves just for a chance to kill us? Your world view is that of a 10 year old girl raised on CareBear cartoons.
Neither of those are Disney Carin. Duh. Nice try.
What, you think only DISNEY was smart enough (smarter than BUSH at least) to encode foreign policy messages into it’s cartoons? No, I think if we explored the politics of cartoons, we’d really know how to deal with the Middle EAst.
Now, where do we search for enlightenment on how to handle Iran?
alppuccino – email me at johndallen at sbcglobal dot net
“But it’s all about killin’ sand n*rs, whatever the justification.”
Ric;
Look through the comments yerself. Those reasonable enough to reject such statements would do well to express themselves according to their convictions.
“Mickey Mouse should have used smart bombs, predator drones, and C-130’s. Then he would have taken care of all those pesky brooms.
I would say Mickey did not kill enough brooms but that is just my opinion.”
Tongue in cheek? You be the judge.
I would say Mickey did not kill enough brooms but that is just my opinion.â€Â
Tongue in cheek? You be the judge.
Ok, I’ll be the judge:
Cleo is utterly humorless.
I struggle to comprehend the worldview of people that think we are to blame for maniacs that want to kill us. That to me is like getting punched in the face and then asking why instead of hitting back. Cleo has just given me a leap of insight into understanding that concept by referencing a cartoon. I will watch 20 hours of CareBears, MyLittlePony, and DragonTails and I am sure I will discover where that point of view comes from. Thank you again Cleo you have just given me so much understanding of the leftist viewpoint that years of college classes failed to impart.
Carin;
That’s your idea of humor. Glad I don’t subscribe.
I’m a Warner Brothers man, myself, and prefer to use analogies such as the one where we’re Bugs and the terrorists are Elmer, or the where we’re the baby kangaroo/”giant mouse” and the terrorists are Sylvester.
However, for true political insight, you need to examine the works of those masters of political allegory, Hanna and Barbera. We’re strong, intelligent, and competent (Velma — although, like her, we occasionally lose our glasses for a short time, such as when we elected Jimmy Carter), people like Semen are cowardly pants-pissers(Shaggy), the terrorists are the venal old man with the rubber mask, and “the world” is mostly made up of supernumerary and ultimately useless characters such as Daphne and Freddie.
Works for me.
I think for real troop level and surge related strategy, we really must turn to Little House on the Prairie:
One Christmas Laura wanted to buy her mom a new stove so she sold her horse to Nellie Oelson. Charles wanted to buy Ma the stove too, so he took on a wheelwright project. Mary sewed a shirt for Pa out of the same material that Ma bought to sew a shirt. Little Carrie found a penny and bought a tin foil star for the top of the Christmas tree as a gift for Baby Jesus. Clearly Carrie represents the terrorists.
Cleo I think you took the book “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarden” way too literaly.
Done JD. Now only you and my eldest son know my real name.
Semen @ 47 – Were that the case, there would be tens or hundreds of millions of new terrorists out there, teeming hordes of jihadis that simply do not exist.
Is your PRE traumatic stress disorder acting up again?
Uh, following your argument, cleo, the world should be awash in Nazis.
Fortunately, that segment of Fantasia was make-believe. It was fake. Never happened. Mickey and his teacher Yensid are fictional. So is Chernobog, the fairies, and the dancing hippos.
In the real world, dead people don’t split into smaller pieces and re-animate. They just rot. There’s also no evidence of dead jihadis inspiring others to take their place — just the opposite, in fact. Anyone else remember the AQI letter bemoaning the lack of recruits?
I figure after reading this thread all we have to do is get Osama Bin Ladin to say his name backwards and he will be blasted back to the 5th Dimension where he belongs.
Who wonder off to “investigate” while the real work’s being done.
Mr Pink, I’m reminded of Jack Nicelson’s line from “As Good as it Gets” – when asked how he was able to write about women, and he says he imagines a man, and takes away reason and accountability.
Applied to (today’s) liberals, this may help you comprehend their worldview.
Ya know, one of the little things I’ve seen lefties do for, oh, the last twenty or so years that I find amusing is they’ll attack conservatives for thinking war is just a movie. Then they’ll chime in with something like, “I know how horrible war can be! I saw Platoon!”
I’m stuck in the Cold War analogies of Rocky and Bullwinkle. I need things spelled out like “Boris Badenov”, who wore a black hat to emphasize teh evil. And I was extremely concerned Boris was going to get the
yellow cake, er, I mean, upsidaisium.Uh, following your argument, cleo, the world should be awash in Nazis.
Fortunately, that segment of Fantasia was make-believe. It was fake. Never happened. Mickey and his teacher Yensid are fictional. So is Chernobog, the fairies, and the dancing hippos.
Yea sure. Except I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES. You can say it was fake all you want, but I saw those little brooms, and they had hate in their eyes. They were determined to avenge the death of their little mom and dad brooms.
shudder
Honestly, it was a quaigmire.
::shrug::
Semanticleo, their being wrong doesn’t make you right — especially when you’re calling for the same thing using euphemism.
As for the other — that’s a combination of taking counsel of your fears and the reason we sometimes accuse you of Marxism. By the specific and repeated declaration of those involved, the act that most efficiently “created terrorists” was the retreat from Somalia, after years of pusillanimous responses to Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and similar events. Since you persist in insisting that the situation be interpreted in economic and class-based terms even when the protagonists, viva voce, tell you otherwise, we cannot take you seriously.
Regards,
Ric
HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAAAAAY!
Commander McBragg for Secretary of Defense!
Well who would George Bush be Cobra Commander or Claw from Inspector Gadget?
Sergeant Hatred: “Hate to live, don’t live to hate.”
Hatin’ is what I do, not who I am!
“the act that most efficiently “created terrorists†was the retreat from Somalia, after years of pusillanimous responses to Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and similar events.”
I have no idea what protagonists you’re referring to, but the parsing of History does little for your credibility.
I believe the US Marine Barracks bombing in 1982 resulted in a retreat by the erstwhile champion of the Right, RWR.
The runup to 9/11 was referenced by a commenter above, citing ‘blowjobs’ which distracted from the events you culled from history.
I believe a more correct version of that ‘distraction’ was the Republican’s lascivious fascination with all things sexual and the subsequent obsession with punishing a politically successful President
which mimics envy, rather than a love for purity.
BTW, what ‘euphemism’ did you extract to conclude I favor carpet bombing brown people?
Semen, do you speak English? That last comment makes no fucking sense.
And it’s interesting that not only do you favor the return of slavery, but perjury and the suborning of perjury by elected officials. I’ll keep that in mind.
“I’ll keep that in mind.”
>Chuckle> Yeah, you do that Corny
I believe a more correct version of that ‘distraction’ was the Republican’s lascivious fascination with all things sexual and the subsequent obsession with punishing a politically successful President
which mimics envy, rather than a love for purity.
You are forgetting the fact he commited 3 felonies. I think this forgetfulness is done on purpose. By the way I do agree with you on Reagan’s response to terrorism in 1982. He did have something else on his plate at the time though, namely defeating the Soviet Union. The inaction to terrorist attacks prior to 911 was done on both sides of the political spectrum, since they always happened overseas. That is why 911 was a game changing moment signaling to us we should begin to take these jokers seriously. Well it changed most people’s worldview but obviously not your own.
Wait aminute, cleo says terrorists are like broomsyicks. Karl told me they were like Doritos.
I’m so confused…
The Federal crimes of Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Witness Tampering are all distractions. Much like Obama’s church, associations with domestic terrorists, and ever changing policy positions.
Obama does not have a
strategygoal to win either war, only astrategy</strikegoal to try to win the election.He’s making everything else up as he goes along.
And incapable of spelling or editing.
I denounce miselfe.
Cleo I guess this means were against the charges brought against Scooter Libby? I mean if Perjury is such a distraction one would think you would have opinions that would not contradict eachother depending on which political party is in question.
In keeping with Cleo’s use of cartoons in making arguments I will now refer to the Supreme Court as the Justice League.
KKKleo’s PRE traumatic stress disorder is working overtime today.
FTR eyecandy is never useless.
Who is Winning the War on Terror? US/Allies 51% Terrorists 16%
I believe the US Marine Barracks bombing in 1982 resulted in a retreat by the erstwhile champion of the Right, RWR.
Reagan was wrong there.
We’ll be on the edge of our seats waiting for you to admit that the ObamaMessiah has ever been wrong about anything.
FTR eyecandy is never useless.
Well, you can make the same argument for Freddie, I suppose, depending on which way your gate swings. Plus, Freddie was apparently the one who owned the van (or perhaps was the only one with a valid driver’s license).
Still, they were spear-carriers compared to Velma.
I will now refer to the Supreme Court as the Justice League.
Bush should rename the White House the Fortress of Solitude.
I guess the good ship ‘Tic Toc’ has left the dock.
I believe a more correct version of that ‘distraction’ was the Republican’s lascivious fascination with all things sexual…
Cleo — The President, not Congress, can order cruise missle and Predator strikes, which Clinton did on the very day Monica Lewinsky was scheduled to appear before the grand jury. OTOH, Clinton chose to let the evil in Afghanistan grow for politically expedience reasons.
Well, let us know when you board the good ship “Make Fucking Sense”.
Let’s not forget the stunning and definitive attack on the fraggin’ Sudan aspirin factory which was based on a small soil sample plucked by an operative that showed a trace of one of the chemical “precursors” to Sarin.
Remember that the next time someone bleats about the “evidence” of WMD’s and terrorist ties in Iraq.
And that Clinton cited cooperation between Iraq and al’Qaeda as part of the motivation for that attack.
Semanticleo, it’s always fun to watch you get pushed into desperate, shrieking, handwaving mode.
Bill Clinton lied through his teeth to the American people, and to the US Congress while under oath, and when you start throwing up the “lascivious fascination with all things sexual” smoke screen you simply prove our point.
Whenever you post on the subject of Iraq you always fall back on the “creating more terrorists” meme. The problem with it is, it’s false. It’s not true. It’s a damnable, palpable, bald-faced, stinking lie. What has created terrorists is the ambition of their masters combined with the pusillanimity of the American Government prior to September 2001. Like anybody else, when a tactic accomplishes what they want and the cost isn’t prohibitive the terrorists will repeat it, and since what they want is to kill and intimidate Americans and they were able to do so at essentially zero cost they naturally did it again. The fact that Ronald Reagan is guilty of contributing to that mindset has nothing to do with whether or not it was wise to repeat the offense, and if you want to go back in history you will eventually have to deal with Saint Jimmah, who sat and whined about “malaise” during an actual, physical invasion of American territory and subsequent insolence.
The handwaving is no longer enough, Semanticleo. Time to break out the silk handkerchiefs and flashbangs.
Regards,
Ric
>blockquote …>Not to be tedious, SevenEleventy, but don’t you mean “bustard?â€Â
Or maybe just “tard”?
There’s those HTML skills again!
Oh yeah.
And (c)leo?
You are not well enough equipped to be jousting at PW.
Seriously.
The most recent debunking of the “making more terrorists” meme is here, though the underlying links show that the numbers have been that way for years.
Ric: It’s as though no one saw the captured video that features Osama talking to his peeps about the success of the 911 bombings and how that success had pushed recruitment across Europe and the Middle East.
Nothing succeeds like success, cleo. Lately being a thug jihadist has much less of a risk/reward value, what with the killing and tha capturing and the fleeing and the hiding. More and more young Islamic men are finding other outlets that scratch their itch for adventure.
Cell phone salesmen, for instance.
Gotta go, but one more thing.
Thanks, Mr. Pink, for what you do.
“The fact that Ronald Reagan is guilty of contributing to that mindset has nothing to do with whether or not it was wise to repeat the offense’
It has everything to do with it’s exclusion from your Pantheon of unrequited accountability. Terrorist unaccountability was the problem;
with Left and Right holding the Bag. You continue your orgy of parse.
It becomes you. Please continue to flail with your Patriot’s Pantomime.
(I just love letting the Story tell itself)
It has everything to do with it’s exclusion from your Pantheon of unrequited accountability
Umm..Semen?
I count no less than three people in this thread alone stating that Reagan made a mistake there.
Moron.
“I count no less than three people in this thread alone stating that Reagan made a mistake there.”
That’s why I’m here, SpieHole.
why does it matter in regards to Afghanistan?
“why does it matter in regards to Afghanistan?’
I think it’s called ‘context’.
That’s why I’m here, SpieHole.
I’m sure that made sense in your head when you wrote it, Semen.
Now, how about addressing the point?
Your welcome TLD, for what I do not know but you are welcome.
Coming into this late, but I thought the Mickey-broomstick analogy was friggin’ genius!
I mean, you guys saw it, right? It ended when the real sorcerer showed up.
Which makes it the damned finest analogy: Mickey = Clintoon, sorcerer = Bush.
Yey! We win again! w00t!
um, how? I think the reason Somalia was mentioned was because UBL used it at some point. I don’t remember him ever mentioning the Marine Barracks bombing.
No. It’s called “desperately trying to change the subject.” So far it isn’t working.
Granting without a struggle that Reagan made a mistake, that doesn’t change the fact that Bill Clinton made the same mistake repeatedly and with enthusiasm, and that the terrorists themselves cite those mistakes as drivers of their actions. There are people around who will argue that Ronnie could do no wrong. They don’t come here much, they don’t last long when they do, and we don’t go there — and we accept neither the Myth of St. Bill the Immaculate nor the excuse that “somebody else did it too!” (Your insistence of the contrary could be pawned off to ignorance if it were not so often repeated, but as it is you come across as what you are, a bitter bigot anxious to lie louder to divert attention.) The “lascivious fascination with all things sexual” comes from the fact that, if Reagan had an excuse, it was that he was busy worrying about tanks coming through the Fulda Gap, whereas Bill’s distraction was that he was breathing hard and had his pants around his ankles, making it hard for him to get to the Red Phone.
The question is what to do now; the past is relevant insofar as it offers us suggestions. Very well, let us consider only Reagan’s mistake. He yielded to the terrorists, thereby giving them permission to repeat their activities, which they accepted with alacrity. Taking that alone, it establishes that the best and most effective way of creating more terrorists would be a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Your very argument disproves your own assertion, and when you add later repeats of the same mistake (whoever made them) with the same result, it reinforces that.
Which doesn’t even count the amusing spectacle of Zbigniev Brzezhinsky cautioning against a repeat of Soviet errors while the candidate he supports loudly demands just that.
Regards,
Ric
And ‘cleo still didn’t say how adding troops to Afghanistan would help.
Now, rob, it would be a change, which would give them hope. That would make them stop clinging to their guns and religion, for sure. And once the community organizers arrive on the scene, Afghanistan will become as non-violent and law-abiding as the South Side of Chicago!
However, for as much as Obama has been questioned by the media about his continuing opposition to the surge in Iraq, he has not (afaik) been asked to explain why he thinks a surge of troops in Afghanistan will help pressure that government to get its act together, when still the thinks the opposite is true in Iraq.
Obama said it, they believe it, that settles it.
As far as the Kartoon Kerfuffle, is their a cartoon version of Pavlov’s dog somewhere I can recommend to ‘cleo?
“whereas Bill’s distraction”
There you go, again.
Although I’m am somewhat pleased that you admit the Right has some culpability in their response to terrorism, you seem to conclude (wrongly, as is your compulsion) that I can be counted as one who
thinks caving to terrorism is a good idea. The rubber hammer seems perpetually poised over your kneecap when it comes to the idea some who support the WOT might find Iraq a ‘distraction.’
You might even say the incursion into Iraq is a metaphor for BUSHblowjob with a little premature ejaculation thrown in for good measure.
You think you have the high ground on ‘strategy’, but you have mistaken tactical for the bigger picture. Try a wide angle lens.
The telephoto has it’s uses, but it’s not an all purpose lens.
So English is your seventeenth language?
How very amusing, Semanticleo. Once again, you introduce a metaphor without thinking it through.
Concentrating on “punishing” “the terrorist organizers” by focusing on Afghanistan to the exclusion of all else is not a “wide angle view”, unless you count looking into the wrong end of the lens. Your primary focus remains, as it always has been, on painting George W. Bush as some existentially deep-dyed villain, a heretic and apostate from the Holy Church of Northeastern Liberalism, and concentrating on that has let a lot of stuff slip by you.
George Orwell pointed out that anybody dissing the Republicans was objectively pro-Fascist, and despite the howls his point was valid and remains so. If you are going to argue that Saddam Hussein should not have been deposed, you are objectively pro-Ba’ath and get to share in the credit for all the wonderful things they did, from gassing Kurds to Uday and Qusay’s rape campaign, and that’s just the way it is.
Regards,
Ric
Just so it’s on the record:
“…Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that “the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists”.
We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours! …”
Osama bin Laden, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” 1996
Followed immediately by:
“…But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the “heart” of every Muslim and a remedy to the “chests” of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu. …”
Osama bin Laden, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.†1996
“Your primary focus remains, as it always has been, on painting George W. Bush as some existentially deep-dyed villain, a heretic and apostate from the Holy Church of Northeastern Liberalism,”
Hey, he’s your hero, not mine. You should spend some time extolling his virtues, rather than being so concerned about how he’s viewed personally. He’s not the issue. Your betrothal to his rock-headedness
is the crux. Your identification with his ‘persona’ means you see his
legacy tied to your own. To defend his stupidity, is to salvage your
self-image. Separate yourself. Save yourself. His ignominy will be the yin to the yang of genuine heroes.
Genuine heroes? Who would they be, pray tell?
He’s not the issue.
…
To defend his stupidity, is to salvage your
self-image. Separate yourself. Save yourself. His ignominy will be the yin to the yang of genuine heroes.
Only two sentences apart.
Nice BMoe
Uh huh. Suggesting that the guy’s not Sauron means “betrothal to his rock-headedness”? Hey, ship that strawman my way. I can feed the horses for a week on that.
I have plenty of disagreements with George Bush; it simply happens that Iraq isn’t one of them, and others aren’t on topic at present. But hey, who has most need to “separate”: the one who somewhat agrees with the guy, or the one whose every thought revolves around G. W. Bush as the origin and author of every misfortune on the planet, down to the least hangnail in the Middle East? Careful. Your obsession is showing.
As Reynolds points out, the newest Trend® is to excoriate George Bush in the most uncompromising terms, then restate his policies in toto as the obvious only way to proceed, being careful to use new and different words to express them. That’ll be Semanticleo in another year or so.
Regards,
Ric
“it simply happens that Iraq isn’t one of them”
Uh, the subject was the stupidity of Iraq, and the ‘reckless disregard’
for the consequences. That’s his single trick. It follows that you
would be desperate for that clusterfuck to be seen as geopolitical genius. You have your reputation to consider (not to mention your conscience).
Semen, Iraq wasn’t a mistake. That you think so doesn’t make it so.
We’re really the ones seeing the wider view; the kaleidoscope you’re looking through is misleading you.
He said that the conduct of military operations “with little regard for civilian casualties†may accelerate the negative trend in local public opinion regarding the West’s role.
Yeah, because Zbignew is such a genius of world politics and foreign policy. He of the Carter administration, one of the worst in American history and certainly the worst in terms of foreign policy in the latter half of the 20th century. This is like Michael Dukakis giving advice on how to run a presidential campaign
It’s the people who think if we can just arrest Bin Laden and read him his Miranda rights are the ones with the tunnel vision. It is the exactly the type of policy that spurs the islamists to form multiple groups, it gives both them and their State supporters deny ability.
Royf, it’s also the people that believe eliminating Bin Laden would be sufficient to lead to a significant reduction in hostile acts against the US and its allies (a group that overlaps a lot with your group). Unless we do something about the state supporters, both leaders and cultures, terrorism will continue to be the primary means of waging war for third-world despots.
#133
History is passing you by even as we speak. Maybe not genius , but certainly brilliant. Your racism is blinding you to events.