Monday, September 17, 2012

Another wordy post



Soap Opera Over Kabul


Unplugged

(abstract)


First off this is what I believe.

  • That Bush going into Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and their Taliban host was a correct, honorable, and necessary thing.
  • That going into Iraq because it was an outlaw regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction (that they never had after moving them to Syria) was also a correct, honorable, and necessary thing.
  • That by occupying Afghanistan and Iraq we  effectively isolated Iran, which was and still is the real world threat, and sponsor of Islamic terrorism. A brilliant strategic move.
  • That by January, 2009, even though  congressional Democrats had aligned themselves with every leftist group trying to undermine Bush's policy, the Taliban were deemed effectively destroyed;  al-Qaeda was scarce heard from.
  • That I was spot-on when I said back in 2002 that the United States can never  again prevail  as long as post Watergate brand Democrats have ANY influence whatever in government  I see that sentiment expressed a lot lately.
Now, skoonj sent me this Fred on Everything treatment, and expressed "hope someone learns from it."   Call me a curmudgeon, but I see very little chance of that.
.
[snip]
OK. In the Guardian, I learn that actual Pentagonal military psycho-wonks have done a study on what Afghans and gringos think of each other. (report) Saith the Guardian:

Please don’t send me growly mail about Our Boys and their courage, training, sacrifice, honor, and the rest of that string of beads. ...  A hit man for the Mafia is exactly as honorable. For another thing, an army’s job is not to be brave, selfless, yada yada, but to win wars.
  "One group sees the other as a bunch of violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane, infidel bullies hiding behind high technology; and the other group [the US soldiers] generally view the former as a bunch of cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous, and murderous radicals. Such is the state of progress in the current partnering programme. Over a decade of fighting shoulder-to-shoulder had created mutual loathing that was impossible to camouflage.”

Who would have thought it?

Anybody with the slighytest acquaintance with reality. Tell you what, brothels and cisterns, I could have written every word of it, and I’ve never been to Afghanistan. It’s Viet Nam all over again. Which means that it’s all over, again. GIs and Afghans hate each other.

What do you expect when you put combative, not too bright, half-educated, unsophisticated lower-middle-class guys into an illiterate thirteenth-century culture with a history of detesting invaders? I know, I know: you figured it would spark a love-in, koom-bah-yah, Oprah as featured speaker.

This comedy occurs because the military inhabits a parallel reality. In its experience, you tell a thing to happen, and it does. [Full]


13 comments:

Jess said...

If our armed forces were draftees, I think you'd find the same reluctance - including stainless steel mirrors, the lack of glass in barracks and careful observation during live fire exercises - as found during the Viet Nam war. Our troops are milling around, taking casualties from supposed friendlies and their only reward is to be sent back for some more, while the current administration plays with it's genitals.

There's no respect because there's no common goal. It's now a waiting game and we're running out of money.

Anonymous said...

Rodger surely that was Fred's quote RE Army: Mafia hitman??? Whom ever said that can kiss my Ass.
RAK

Skoonj said...

Bush was fine in Afghanistan until we had the enemy cornered at Tora Bora. At that point he had an oppotunity to end it with victory, kill Bin Laden and most of his fighters, and the majority of the worst of the Taliban IF he used a tactical nuclear weapon on them.

I know, he would never think of it. Like every liberal before or after him since World War Two, far better to spill the blood of a few thousand GIs than use the best, most appropriate weapon we have. When PC has taken the place of victory, we might as well not bother going in at all. Anywhere.

Had Bush used a nuke we could have left Afghanistan shortly afterward, with very few casualties, and with very high credibility when we get pissed at someone down the road. Think we would have had to go into Iraq? I don't.

Oh, and Rodger, when we occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, we COULD have isolated Iran, but this is Bush we are talking about, and later Obama. Iran wasn't isolated because our leadership didn't think to do that. Instead, Iran runs Iraq, bribes Afghans, and is the main support for the Assad regime in Syria. The Saudis see things clear, and know how much danger they are in (as does Israel), and they are the ones providing the main support for the Syrian opposition.

Anonymous said...

Poor Fred. Somebody send him a smiley face.

Bobby Ahr

Isadore "Chilidog" Pike said...

Just wonderin' over hear boss, what's the point of havin' nukes if you ain't gots no balls?

Anonymous said...

I don't know much about what our GIs and the Afghans think of each other, but that description could easily describe the relationship between our GIs and our own politicians.
GrinfilledCelt

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Scoonj - only you could trump me with a "he should have used nukes on Bora Bora" argument! clsp calp clap

Anonymous said...

Scoonj, I agree with practically everything you say. The biggest tragedy is letting the current amateurs micro-manage the situation in Afghanistan. These idiots can't manage their own pocketbooks and now they believe they can "honorably" withdraw from the war.

I don't like body counts... But, under whose watch have we had the most troop deaths? 7 years of war and policing under Bush? Or 3 1/2 years of policing and withdrawing under the Obamateur?

2 to 1 ratio - Obama to Bush...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/over-twice-as-many-u-s-soldiers-have-died-in-afghanistan-under-obama-in-3-12-years-than-did-under-bush-in-8-years-yet-no-media-outrage/

Bryan

MCPO Airdale said...

"not too bright, half-educated, unsophisticated lower-middle-class guys. . ."

Really? Do you think it is still 1970? Oh, and kiss my enlisted ass.

toadold said...

"That afternoon, another Saudi military officer, a very congenial man who also spoke near-native English but looked like an Arab Yosemite Sam, told the American teacher, "Sir, you are a very nice man."
"Thank you," said the American.
"This is not a compliment" said the Arab. "In America, it is good to be a very nice man, but here, with these young men, when you are very nice, you are not a man. They want to respect their teacher, but if their teacher is not strong, they will push him out of the way and find someone who is.
"What you call the Old Testament says that the people 'loved and feared' their God, yes? This is not a misinterpretation.
"If your students think you are not a man, your reputation will spread through the Academy, and soon no students will respect you or listen to you, and your time here in Arabia will be wasted."
"What should I do?" asked the American.
The Saudi officer stuck out his right foot and said, "You must find the biggest troublemaker in your class and squash him," twisting his foot back and forth on the floor, "like a bug.""

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/a_personal_account_of_arab_violence.html#ixzz26mXdgWPi

Anonymous said...

I think Clint E said it best, to paraphrase:

"If all we are doing is hanging around getting shot at until the timer goes off, why in hell don't we just come home tomorrow?"

You think those guys want to stay there knowing that they will all, those that survive that is, come home by some set date? Talk about taking the objective and throwing it away.
They just want to survive until the a**holes that sent them there foolishly, or rather kept them there in the "Right War" until the clock goes 'ding', allow them to escape.
What was the 'exit plan' for Germany? For Japan? ANY military that comes up with an exit plan that does not include victory is sacrificing lives in a 'political statement'. ALL of our service personnel deserve better than that, and the superior officers that go along with that sort of planning deserve court martial. UCMJ does not have a spot in there where you can send your troops to die for purely political objectives.
They should be ashamed. The citizenry should be alarmed and enraged at the wasting of one life. I know I am, but don't have a clue as to how to influence those in the DC swamp.
tomw

Chuck Martel said...

toadold:

Jesse Stuart wrote "The Thread That Runs So True". It was about his days as a young school teacher in the hills of Eastern Kentucky. His experience was exactly the same thing. He and the biggest boy in the class met after school. They had an extremely violent, no Marquess of Queensberry Rules, fight. Jesse won, they shook hands, and Jesse remained as the boss of the school.

Anonymous said...

Bush blew it first, like Johnson and Nixon in Nam, and obams double blew it.

We should never, ever go to war without a declaration of war. We should never, ever, go to war unless our intention is to win via total destruction of our enemy. Which, if it isn't, SHOULD be the definition of war.

jd

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.