Obama Brainwashes the Public on Afghanistan

The administration is lying about the war in Afghanistan.

In 1967, Michigan Governor George W. Romney, a potential contender for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination, abandoned his earlier support for the war in Vietnam, which he had called “morally right and necessary.” Asked why he changed his position, Romney said, “When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I’d just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.” That remark indicating the U.S. military had lied to him was widely interpreted as a fatal gaffe, and Romney pulled out of the race two weeks before the New Hampshire primary.

Of course, the U.S. government was lying about Vietnam. This was the infamous “credibility gap.”

Would a politician suffer the same fate today if he were to claim that the Obama administration is lying about the war in Afghanistan? Perhaps, but George Romney’s son, Mitt, isn’t likely to find out. Yet he and the entire country are being lied to about that war.

From President Obama on down, we hear nothing from government officials but glowing public reports about how things are going in Afghanistan. In June, when Obama announced his initial timetable for withdrawal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We have broken the Taliban’s momentum. We do begin this drawdown from a position of strength.”

But that’s not what the military says behind closed doors. Thanks to one U.S. military officer, the doors have been cracked open so the public can learn what officials really think.

Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis “spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners … [in] every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy,” Davis wrote in Armed Forces Journal. “As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.”

Davis’s article summarizes longer classified and unclassified reports, including his 84-page report bluntly titled “Dereliction of Duty II: Senior Military Leaders’ Loss of Integrity Wounds Afghan War Effort” (PDF). His conclusion is unequivocal.

“What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground,” he wrote.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level. …

I can say that [official] reports—mine and others’—serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress.

The Obama administration leads the American public to believe that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has established a credible government, and that U.S. and NATO forces have enabled local governments to create stability. Davis says that is untrue:

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

He also saw widespread incompetence.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    This is the worst advertisement for Soviet Vietnam propaganda ever written. Unless it is satire, then that is different.

    The other day Rush Limbaugh wondered if we have overstayed our time in Afghanistan and I agree. If Obama is not going to support our troops, then the Congress should bring them home.

  • anon||

    At least we are killing muslims, amirite?

  • small government conservative||

    i was startin to think it was a waste of money. thank for reminden me about them muzzies. i don't care if i get tortured or end up homeless as long as muzzies are killed.

  • ||

  • Tim||

    Get out now, give greencards to the few people who helped us, but get out.

  • anon||

    so they can take r jerbs? Fucking liberal, get out of here.

  • shrike||

    The general perception is that Afghanistan is an exercise in futility.

    But let me know when a Jessica Lynch or a Pat Tillman is cooked up to stoke the flag-wavers.

  • ||

    The ruling class uses weapons and then buys more weapons from those that financed their election.

  • Paul||

    Shrike translated: It's ok when Obama does it, but not when the christfags do it.

  • anon||

    Given what we know now, how can anyone vote for people who support these wars? Makes my skin crawl that friends from high school are getting shot at over this.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Sight unseen, I bet this guy is a LTC. LTCs always seem to have an axe to grind, be it left or right.

  • DJF||

    Once they reach full Colonel they are so close to Flag rank that they fear saying anything that might get them in trouble. Once they make General they are part of the club and they know the rules.

  • Tim||

    LTC is where 90% of officer's careers top out.

  • strat||

    I always thought it was Captain, at least in the Air Force. It always seems as though there are too many to count.

  • ||

    There are always too many zeroes.

  • Trent||

    I topped out at Captain in the AF. BS meter was pegged! Oxygen theft got boring after a while...

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I think Tim's got it. The real winnowing occurs at the O5 level (that is, most won't make O6), so there's a definite "fuck it. I got nothing to lose" vibe.

  • Old Salt||

    In the Navy, the two most dangerous ranks to deal with (at least to those around them) are Senior Chief (E8) and Commander (O5).

    For the officers, Commanders are often REAL fucking pricks since Captain (O6) is considered the "cool" rank for them to have, once they make Captain they usually calm down since most of them know that they'll never make Admiral (gotta have that Academy ring).

    For enlisted, Chief (E7) is the rank to have. Everyone with half a brain know that nothing gets done in the Navy without a Chief's say so. Damn near every Chief is content with that rank since giving a fuck is something they're no longer required to do. If they're lucky enough to make Senior Chief it's usually a big fucking shock and most of them figure "well, made it this far, might as well go for the hat trick" and often turn into the biggest ASSHOLES you've ever seen!

  • Double D||

    "Giving a fuck is something they're no longer required to do..."

    Not true always true. A real Chief has the balls and integrity to say what's what. Not every Chief is a REAL Chief.

  • romulus augustus||

    But our military policy expert, Donderoooooo, has a plan (he just won't tell us what it is.)

  • Eric Dondero||

    I've been over my plan already. Give all of your money to Israel.

  • DJF||

    And even if they get the Afghan Security Forces up to a level that they can take over and NATO leaves, the Afghans have no money to pay for them so the US will have to send billions to keep them armed and paid. And without direct US supervision the level of corruption in the Afghanistan will go from 80 to 90 percent to 100 percent and the Security Forces will collapse due to a lack of money and supplies

  • Paul||

    Stimulus! If it can work in Afghanistan, it can work here!

  • ||

    DJF, because you have the initials(?) of an old friend of mine, please indulge me by answering two questions: do you live south of Tennessee, and is your family name of Czech origin?

    (Well, also because you have the same realistic [sometimes mislabeled "cynical"] take my friend and I do.)

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but it's all about the good intentions!

    I mean, what's bad about intending to set up a stable government and oust the Taliban from power?

    C'mon!

    Criticize the war and you might as well criticize the good intentions!

  • Tim||

    Kipling:

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    Send forth the best ye breed--
    Go, bind your sons to exile
    To serve your captives' need;
    To wait, in heavy harness,
    On fluttered folk and wild--
    Your new-caught sullen peoples,
    Half devil and half child.

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    In patience to abide,
    To veil the threat of terror
    And check the show of pride;
    By open speech and simple,
    An hundred times made plain,
    To seek another's profit
    And work another's gain.

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    The savage wars of peace--
    Fill full the mouth of Famine,
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    (The end for others sought)
    Watch sloth and heathen folly
    Bring all your hope to nought.

    http://www.online-literature.com/keats/922/

  • anon||

    Obama isn't white, so it obviously immune to the white man's impulse.

  • Tim||

    You forgot that Bush dude already?

  • ||

    He's half white

  • ||

    Well, Bush is only half human.

  • Old Salt||

    I thought they were all Lizard People?

  • ||

    This article just proves that Reason is a bunch of America hating, peacenik hippies.

    /sarcasm

  • ||

    They don't appreciate the beacons of democracy that have been created in the world of Islam.

  • ||

    I think those beacons are usually called howitzers.

  • ||

    Americans have spent a decade fighting and dying for, and we're still wasting unconscionable quantities of money on, sand-strewn barbarians that will swiftly return to self-destructive depravity the moment we leave. It turns me inside out with disgust.

    The first thing Paul should do is recall American forces, if he manages to get himself elected.

  • anon||

    I wonder what Obama, or Bush before him, imagines we will accomplish over there. I imagine them thinking we will turn them into post ww2 Japan, but with a crazy religion instead of a crazy pop-culture.

  • Tim||

    mumble evildoers mumble mumble winning the future.

  • ||

    Maybe they're hoping to make Afghanistan sufficiently technologically advanced to allow them to televise all the awesome half-time entertainment at soccer games -- beheading, stoning, shooting, burning, and otherwise mutilating men and women for adultery, idolatry, possession of heretical scripture (if the convicted is lucky enough to be literate), or being caught with a Baywatch poster, all while the spectators cheer and scream their praise to Allah.

    These people don't deserve our acknowledgement of their existence, let alone our wealth or our lives. Obama is a petty fucking tyrant, as was Bush before him, and every other cunt who has though it appropriate to fight these retarded wars and engage in these retarded and entirely futile nation-building exercises.

  • sarcasmic||

    What's the point of being Commander in Chief except to send the troops off to kill people?

  • ||

    What's the point of having the most powerful military on the planet if we don't use it to loot our neighbors?

    Steal oil now!

  • Brubaker||

    Yeah, Afghanistan is a major source of crude oil. Idiot.

  • Anda||

    wooosh

  • Drug dealing CIA spook||

    Poppy pods, anyone?

  • ||

    I hears ya, RPA.

    I agree with going in to run off the Taliban and their pet government. At that point, however, we no longer fighting a war, we are doing . . . something else. Occupying the country, whoring out our military to provide security for a tinpot dictator, I don't really care what you call it, but we shouldn't be doing it.

    God-Emperor Dean would instruct the military to draw up a withdrawal plan to get us out quickest with the fewest casualties, with a unilateral cease-fire during the withdrawal, (any attack on American forces would be met such totally disproportionate force the Marines would be begging me to stop).

    Karzai's on his own, the evil fucker. The Afghans are free to wallow in barbarity as long as they want. If they change their minds, I'm sure that plenty of Americans would be willing to help out in innumerable voluntary ways.

  • Konfounded Kristen||

    Every high school level history class teaches us how stoopit Hitler was for not learning the lesson that Napoleon taught about invading Russia.

    What does that make our fearless leaders when it only took them 20 years to fail to learn from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

  • Old Salt||

    TWO lessons. Our fearless leaders failed TWO lesson.

    Soviet Afghanistan AND American Vietnam!

    The fun is trying to figure out which lesson we're failing the most!

  • ||

    We couldn't defeat guys wearing pajamas (the Viet Cong) and we can't defeat guys wearing bathrobes (Taliban).
    Obviously, we should only go to war against countries wealthy enough to properly uniform their armies...
    I say we attack the Germans....we've had good luck against them.

  • Tim||

    Stick with what works...I like it.

  • anon||

    sign me up.

  • T||

    Plus, the Germans actually have stuff worth looting. Provides a nice supplement to the paycheck.

  • ||

    Or France. Then we wouldn't have to fire our weapons much and could sit down for wine and cheese after the battle. Maybe loot some handbags and shoes for the missus.

  • ||

    The two best wars this country ever fought were against the Jerrys. I say get the Krauts on the other side of the fence where they belong. Let's get back to the kind of enemy worth killing, and the kind of war this whole country can support.

  • Sitting Bull||

    Yes. What the white man said. Go back to Europe and kill each other.

  • WarrenT||

    That's because a proper military staffed by professional soldiers has the ability to surrender. There are protocols and etiquette and rules and expectations of good treatment.

    A tribe full of warriors has little of that for dealing with other tribes and none at all for dealing with infidel invaders.

    This and Iraq which had a military grafted onto a tribal structure. So yes the US armed forces beat the Iraqi armed forces but could not beat the insurgency. Because the insurgency could not be beaten.

    There is simply no metric, short of depopulating the entire region, for knowing when they have been beaten.

    And since the insurgents cannot win a total military victory against the occupier the fighting goes on until the occupiers lose the will to continue.

    [/preaching to the choir]

  • Brandon||

    OT, but is your handle from "An American Tail"?

  • ||

    Based on two world wars, the Germans don't want to fight. They would rather rape someone's gradmother.

  • Paul||

    we can't defeat guys wearing bathrobes (Taliban).

    We can and we did. Occupying them isn't beating them. We're way off-mission with the occupation.

  • MNG||

    Living with people wearing bathrobes all day always goes poorly.

  • strat||

    I resemble that remark.

    On a side note, I think we should probably show everyone deploying over there the 1998 film, "The Beast", but it would probably be considered seditious.

  • GILMORE||

    FYI, "The Beast" (aka "the beast of war") was shot in 1988

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094716/

    The movie is indeed awesome. One detail I loved was that they actually made the leading 'Afghan' males (e.g. stephen bauer - aka "Manny" from scarface) actually do the whole *#@$ movie in *Pashto*. I mean, fuckin' A. Thats some solid shit. Also, George Dzundza?? Dude should have won an award. Forgotten masterpiece.

  • T||

    Makes an okay movie, though.

  • ||

    Actually we did defeat the VC. They ceased to exist as an independent force after the '68 Tet Offensive.

    By 1970, Vietnam was far less of a clusterfuck than Afghanistan is right now.

  • ||

    Exactly. And we all know how extraordinary the return on our investment in lives and effort and resources in Vietnam was.

    Politicians never fucking learn.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why should they learn when they pay no price for their many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many failures?

  • sarcasmic||

    Invest in the right contractors and you get a hell of a return off war.

    It's especially great when you aren't subject to insider trading laws.

  • Ballz||

    Of course they "learn". Romney & Obama are the front runners because they are backed by the guys that own the companies that sell the weapons of war. Those guys have been doing it for hundreds of years.
    It's us who won't "learn".

  • ||

    The politicians do innovate. In Vietnam, we legitimately had the thing won in '71. The VC was gone, the cities were safe and the hamlets were under control. Keep a few U.S. divisions there for 5 years while building up the South Vietnamese military during that time - and it's a win.

    Instead, Kissinger gives it away in Paris, Nixon and Congress bring the boys home and yank all the promised funding and equipment for the South Vietnam military. The collapse was inevitable.

    In Afghanistan, they did the opposite - failed to secure anything, then sent MOORE troops and money.

  • ||

    What, still no Dondero? I am surprise.

  • Old Mexican||

    Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.


    Why, those anarchists!!

    Can't they concede that only government brings prosperity through pillaging and money printing? Who do they think they are?

  • Realist||

    ....that takes some gall.

  • ||

    Yeah, maybe they should move to Somalia and see how they like THAT.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Innocuous Anonymous,

    Yeah, maybe they should move to Somalia and see how they like THAT.


    That would be an improvement to their lot, when you come to think about it.

  • kc||

    "I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government."
    so let's get out, stop propping up the bad govt., and let local entrepreneurs meet the people's needs -- if there's a vacuum, it'll be filled.

  • kc||

    sorry, OM, I need to learn to type faster........

  • MNG||

    I think you would at least have a government that would protect (provide?) contract and property rights...Many countries are so corrupt they can't count on even such basic things, hence they turn to armed thugs as the "next best thing"*

    * this line is placed here for the benefit of OM, if he can't make an anarchist comment from it... ;)

  • ||

    There is a dude that clearly knows what time it is dude.

    www.Gone-Anon.tk

  • MNG||

    I think the mess in Afghanistan shows why actions like Libya are so much more preferable than Afghanistan. Occupations are a b*tch. We should have responded to 9/11 by simply providing air and tactical support to the Northern Alliance.

  • T||

    We should have blown the Taliban into the next ice age, built a pyramid of severed human heads, and promised the same to the next bunch. Then walk away, and keep the promise if it becomes necessary.

  • ||

    That would be a waste because we could harvest their organs.

  • Tim||

    We did, but then we just sorta moved into Kabul and set up housekeeping.

  • MNG||

    100,000 troops is one hell of a housekeeping.

  • Paul||

    Jobs created or saved.

  • Tim||

    I'm not arguing, another Bush master stroke.

  • Tim||

    Of course Obama campaigned on this being the good war, so he gets a wedgie too.

  • MNG||

    Yup, he's actually increased our troop levels there at times.

  • ||

    I think the mess in Afghanistan shows why actions like Libya are so much more preferable than Afghanistan.

    Not using our military except to defend the nation against attack > Libya > Afghanistan nation-building.

    I'll agree with that.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I think the mess in Afghanistan shows why actions like Libya are so much more preferable than Afghanistan.


    Just like being mauled by a clowder of cats is preferable to being mauled by a pack of pitbulls.

    Just a question of degree, I guess... I would prefer not to get close to any of them, but I guess you are more tolerant towards stupidity than I am.

  • Observer||

    My little brother, who recently left the army, says that the LTC's visit was as an arranged for a bias as possible.

    Take from it what you will, I did.

  • T||

    I think you left out some words there.

  • Duh||

    He straight up said he took from it what he would.

  • ||

    This thing has been floating around for weeks. I haven't heard a single enlisted Soldier or Marine dispute it. Some just forwarded with a "told you so".

  • MNG||

    "The other day Rush Limbaugh wondered if we have overstayed our time in Afghanistan"

    Give him some time to think on it...

  • ||

    Been hearing the same stuff from friends coming home and on military blogs for a couple of years. We should have left about 9 years ago.

    I totally missed the part where there was a debate about the mission change from helping the Northern Alliance kill AQ and Taliban, to building some magical western democracy. One day we were all happy about chasing out the Taliban and slightly bummed about missing Bin Laden during Operation Anaconda. The next day, we were shipping heavy equipment and building bases for a long haul. WTF?

    It's a massive waste.

  • Paul||

    It's a massive waste.

    No, it's Stimulus!

  • MNG||

    "I totally missed the part where there was a debate about the mission change from helping the Northern Alliance kill AQ and Taliban, to building some magical western democracy."

    WTF? You didn't hear about this thing called "neoconservatism?" What did you think all that was about, welfare reform?

  • ||

    I heard the debating about Iraq. Some of it even made some sense - they are fairly educated and "western" by the standards of the region. (I had the chance to meet a whole lot of their conscripts in 1991)

    Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I never heard a debate about mission change in Afghanistan - it just seemed to happen under the radar. And it didn't make a bit of sense. Then Obama, being an idiot, called it the "good war" and doubled down on it.

  • MNG||

    Naw, I remember the enthusiasim for nation building in Afghanistan pretty early on actually. In Iraq it was to produce a model for the Arab world to follow, in Afghanistan the idea was we had to do it or we would have to just come back soon.

  • ||

    Going back with Rangers 5 years later to kill more Taliban sounds like the better option.

  • ||

    Observer: If the LTC's report is biased, it is still interesting in the sense that it shows dissention in the military. Higher ups insist the war effort is great, while a lower ranking officer (who knows he won't be promoted, so doesn't care) says it sucks. What would also be interesting is what your little brother thinks. I to have family over there, and personally think that the cost is not worth the gain.

  • Raston Bot||

    Is there any future gain? We blew our load w/ the OBL hit, time to withdraw, recover, and sleep.

  • MNG||

    I don't understand why we couldn't just use the power under the commerce clause to mandate that the people in Afghanistan like us and behave.

  • Tim||

    We should share some hope and change with them.

  • moop||

    no, we're going to do that with healthcare

  • protefeed||

    I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people.

    If you're counting on governments -- ANY government -- to provide for the basic needs of the people, you're bound to be perennially disappointed.

    This is not the actual mission of kleptocratic bureaucracies financed solely by theft intent on perpetuating their existence, PR spin be damned.

  • shrike||

    You mean, apart from all western democracies?

  • Jumbie||

    Which western democracy provides food clothing and shelter to it's people?

  • ||

    Of course, it is not a successful effort. First off, Obama's surge was half-assed from the beginning--fewer troops than the Pentagon wanted with a pre-determined deadline to get out, so everyone there knew the bad guys just needed to wait us out.

    More significantly, however, the whole thing was mis-conceived. Afghanistan has never been a real country--it is just a mountainous area filled with tribes that none of the bordering countries could annex.

    The Afghan tribes have no use for a central government beyond the occaissional Loya jirga to help them sort out their relations with each other. The idea of imposing a central government to provide goods and services could never work there because the people just want to be left alone in their own little valleys.

  • ||

    And the point is that we shouldn't be giving a single shit about them and their mountains. Ten years of unproductive hell for absolutely no gain post-fall of the Taliban is what we got, and we're STILL not leaving.

  • MNG||

    "First off, Obama's surge was half-assed from the beginning--fewer troops than the Pentagon wanted with a pre-determined deadline to get out"

    Free Republic is thataway ====>

  • Paul||

    The idea of imposing a central government to provide goods and services could never work there because the people just want to be left alone in their own little valleys.

    It's libertopia!

    Which is why Obama is there! He's going to foist the commerce clause on them even if it kills them. Free healthcare for all!

  • ||

    Dereliction of Duty II

    Sounds like an awesome video game.

  • ||

    You get to play as Obama as he butt-fucks the United States with his own minty-fresh brand of petty tyranny and retardation.

  • sarcasmic||

  • ||

    I caught a glimpse of bush!

  • ||

    Decline and Fall. It's a tragedy is what it is.

    Lawmakers willing to reach across the aisle are a vanishing species within the Republican Party – and are on the endangered list on the Democratic side of the aisle, as well. Nearly one-third of House Democratic centrists, or “blue dog” Democrats, aren’t running for reelection, including three top leaders. From 52 members in 2009, the blue dogs are down to 25 now – and their numbers are likely to sink lower after the November elections.

  • ||

    But the struggle is especially tough on the GOP side, where GOP moderates came to be viewed as less committed to conservative principles and were defeated in primary races by challengers to their right, or simply declined to run. When centrist Sen. Robert Bennett failed to make it into Utah’s GOP primary in 2010, moderate Republicans were stunned. This year, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a moderate with a celebrated record on arms control and foreign policy, is struggling to get past his 2012 primary race.

  • ||

    i>

    “Too many competent legislators have retired from Congress for the same reason as Senator Snowe. They’re sick and tired of being trapped in a rotten system,” said Mark McKinnon, a cofounder of No Labels, a public-interest group promoting bipartisan solutions, in a statement. “No Labels shares Senator Snowe’s frustration with the polarization and gridlock that is gripping Capitol Hill.”

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    gridlock apparently = spending 5 trillion dollars.

    Some gridlock, eh? I'd hate to see what they could do if traffic was free-flowing.

  • Almanian||

    Shorter Everyone on Capitol Hill in Washington DC: "HURR DURR HURR!!!"

    Jesus....

  • wareagle||

    you don't suppose the lengthy tenures of all those "competent legislators" had something to do with creating the rotten system, now do you?

  • ||

    Did you just call Snowe a competent legislator?

  • ||

    What will become of us when there are no more unprincipled "adults" in the legislature?

  • small government conservative||

    if obummer wasn't a sissy pacifist he would have turned afghanistan into a glass parking. it's ironic his party is called the "democratic" as obama doesn't believe that freedom and democracy are for afghans. nope he thinks money and democracy are things that only rich white american liberals have a right to.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: small government conservative,

    small government conservative


    There ain't no such thing, slaver.

  • sarcasmic||

    Small government conservative in practice equals big government liberal who opposes abortion.

  • NotSure||

    Lying is what politicians do, nobody should be surprised by that. What is surprising is that people think that somehow their guy they vote for will be the honest one.

  • ||

    We did kick ass in Afghanistan. We trounced al Qaida and the Taliban. Then, we looked around and realized, hey this whole country is fucked up. And the people in it are ruled by mob families, only without the "commission" Luciano set up to establish peace among the mafiosi. They can't even come to that basic a governing agreement.

    My view is we should have destroyed al Qaida, and their Taliban friends, since they seemed to want to get the way of our task. Then, like good farmers, check the crop every now and then. If weeds popped up, eradicate them. The notion that we were going to establish any semblance of permanent order was pure hubris. Our least endearing trait.

  • ChrisO||

    Yep. And a trait we can't seem to fix, either.

  • NotSure||

    Or perhaps you could stop getting involved in half the worlds countries, and then you will not face all the consequences of making so many enemies.

    You and many other people here think that Afghanistan is the way it is because of some innate fault, the idea of Soviet and American warmongering in the country never seems to register. Before the Soviet invasion, the place actually was not the hell hole most people here think it was, the same goes for Libya and many other places, foreign meddling did not make it better, it made it worse.

  • wareagle||

    right...Afghanistan was right there with the Virgin Islands, Bahamas, Greek Isles, and similar locales on the "favorite places to get away" list. Afghanistan has always been what it is today - a series of tribes sharing little more than a common border.

    Two other things: most of us oppose getting involved in other nations' business, and we would make enemies regardless.

  • ||

    Agreed. NotSure, while one cannot deny that our "involvement" (you mean wars, I presume) in others' affairs is an easy excuse for beheadings and bombings, etc., the fact is virtually every president in our nation's history has gotten us involved in the affairs of other countries. Even the sainted TJ invaded the Barbary states to protect our shipping and trade. The trick is to do it only when necessary, and then do it right. I may be wrong, but I think the notion that if we get our troops out of the middle east, everything will be hunky dory, is overly simplistic. But hey, I'm for leaving that god forsaken place right now.

  • ||

    I may be wrong, but I think the notion that if we get our troops out of the middle east, everything will be hunky dory, is overly simplistic.

    The Middle East is going to implode, then explode, regardless of whether we are there or not. Demography is destiny, bitchez, and they have a very large and growing population with minimal marketable skills, the need to import lots of food, corrupt kleptocracies, religious fanatics - pretty much every possible ingredient for a complete bloodbath.

    The only thing holding it together now is oil money. And that can't last forever. It may not even be enough to stay ahead of the demographic/economic tidal wave that is now building.

  • NotSure||

    Afghanistan had discos before it became a cold war battle ground. Not all the women wore Burkas as the latest fashion trend. The place was no paradise, but it was nowhere near as repressed as now, nobody can predict the future, but I would bet that Afghanistan would be much better off now had it not been invaded so many times.

    Last time I checked there were no suicide bombers attacking Brazil because of their freedom to wear tiny bikinis. Count the number of wars that America has been involved in, Am I supposed think that is not the reason for the enemies, its because of the US constitution or because of American idol ?

  • ||

    Yeah, that's it for sure. There couldn't be any ideological or theological component to it. Afghanistan became a hotbed of anti-American terrorists because we armed Al Qaeda to the teeth so they would ensnare Russia in a costly war resulting in an embarrassing military defeat. Typical American imperialism. Just like when we invaded Kuwait.

  • Jumbie||

    Al Qaeda didn't exist then. I AGREE with your overall point about arming the Afghans, but there was no AQ (or even Taliban) then.

  • GILMORE||

    Winston Churchill's, "The Story of the Malakand Field Force" (1892)

    e.g.

    The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. ... Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals.... Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger....

  • GILMORE||

    [more]
    ...Every influence, every motive, that provokes the spirit of murder among men, impels these mountaineers to deeds of treachery and violence. The strong aboriginal propensity to kill, inherit in all human beings, has in these valleys been preserved in unexampled strength and vigour. That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword—the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men—stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism...

  • GILMORE||

    [more]
    ...In such a state of society, all property is held directly by main force. Every man is a soldier. Either he is the retainer of some khan—the man-at-arms of some feudal baron as it were—or he is a unit in the armed force of his village—the burgher of mediaeval history. In such surroundings we may without difficulty trace the rise and fall of an ambitious Pathan. At first he toils with zeal and thrift as an agriculturist on that plot of ground which his family have held since they expelled some former owner. He accumulates in secret a sum of money. With this he buys a rifle from some daring thief, who has risked his life to snatch it from a frontier guard-house. He becomes a man to be feared. Then he builds a tower to his house and overawes those around him in the village. Gradually they submit to his authority. He might now rule the village...

  • GILMORE||

    Blah blah blah READ IT YOURSELF

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files.....9404-h.htm

  • ChrisO||

    I have to put "conservative" in scare quotes anytime I refer to a Republican who supports this kind of nation-building crapola, since it was the Wilsonian progressives who started the idea and LBJ who raised it to a fine art in Vietnam.

  • Tim||

    What about all those CHinese mining interests? Let them hold the place together.

  • ||

    Obama ended all the wars. Not just the wars the US was involved in. That's why he got the Nobel PEACE Prize. Get your facts straight you lying right wing wacko!

  • ||

    The sad truth is we needed to go and burn them to the ground. Thats the good part. The sad is that we arent over there anymore for our towers or the lives lost that day. We are over there for politcal reasons. We die for not protecting or land and people but for a few that have there own agendas and think of soldiers as a sheep.

  • ||

    classmate's mother brought home $18499 a month ago. she makes money on the laptop and got a $524600 home. All she did was get fortunate and put to work the clues made clear on this site Nuttyrich DOTcom

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement