Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
More Troops to Afghanistan?
Earlier this year, President Barack Obama approved a big increase in troops in Afghanistan (basically a 50 percent jack, up to a total of around 65,000).
Now the top U.S. and NATO commander there says we need even more troops over there:
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months)—while Afghan security capacity matures—risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal didn't specify the number of additional troops he wants (that will come in a separate report apparently) but did say failure to provide them would "likely result in mission failure." Read the Washington Post story here.
Yesterday on Meet The Press, President Obama had this to say:
"Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there—beyond what we already have.... I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way—you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration."
That's good to hear, but if past is prologue, then expect Obama to give the commander about half of what he asks for, as he did earlier this year.
GILMORE|9.21.09 @ 2:40PM|#
There are no plausible conditions for 'victory' regardless
McCrystal, for all his merits, is like an auto mechanic with a
clunker, saying, 'yeah, if you give me as long as I want, I can
make this into a race car'
|9.21.09 @ 2:41PM|#
So, sending more troop is inherently bad? Even if sending more troops gets all of them back faster, with less overall deaths?
|9.21.09 @ 2:41PM|#
And Obama was the most "anti-war" of all the credible candidates for 2008. What does that say about the state of American politics?
John Tagliaferro|9.21.09 @ 2:42PM|#
So, sending more troop is inherently bad? Even if sending
more troops gets all of them back faster, with less overall
deaths?
That's built into the Reason staff DNA. Didn't you read the
primer?
|9.21.09 @ 2:44PM|#
So, sending more troop is inherently bad? Even if sending
more troops gets all of them back faster, with less overall
deaths?
There is a much easier way to get all of them back fast, with fewer
deaths. I believe the tactic is known as GTFO.
Kilroy|9.21.09 @ 2:45PM|#
If you set aside the argument of whether we should be in AFG at
all, and look at the best way to stabilize the situation there,
then McChrystal has the right idea: lock down the security
situation, give the local forces time and space to mature, then
gradually transition control over to local forces. This is what we
failed to do in Iraq.
Despite our enormous presence in Iraq, nearly every single
commander (military and civilian) pushed the idea of "local
control" way too hard and fast, before they were ready. Everyone
wanted to show how the Iraqis were taking care of themselves, even
when it wasn't true.
It's like operating on someone, removing the tumor, then just
standing around to watch. No stitches, no antibiotics, no pain
meds, just a bunch of doctors wasting time and claiming "watch him
heal himself!". Doesn't work out too well.
|9.21.09 @ 2:45PM|#
it says that the information about the situation over there
compelled an anti-war president to concede that our best course was
continued presence not precipitous withdrawal.
I personally think we should bring all of our troops home. I don't
think there is any real necessity for bases in Germany, Korea,
Japan, or other locations. However, if we start something, we
really should attempt to finish it, or be willing to admit that
there comes a point where we really can't do any more good, and
leave.
|9.21.09 @ 2:46PM|#
When we leave and the Taliban take back over, why is there any reason to believe that won't turn Afghanistan into an Al Quada haven just like they did before 9-11?
|9.21.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Maybe I'm completely clueless here, but I thought "lock down the security situation, give the local forces time and space to mature, then gradually transition control over to local" was pretty nearly exactly what we did in Iraq.
Kilroy|9.21.09 @ 2:48PM|#
John, check out this excellent article (surprisingly in the WaPo): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502977.html?wpisrc=newsletter
{^}|9.21.09 @ 2:49PM|#
"When we leave and the Taliban take back over, why is there any
reason to believe that won't turn Afghanistan into an Al Quada
haven just like they did before 9-11?"
Not likely. Osama loves Obama. I think they're both in the same
book club.
|9.21.09 @ 2:51PM|#
If the Taliban take over after we leave, we go back. However, if the Balitan take over, we're okay with that.
|9.21.09 @ 2:52PM|#
When we leave and the Taliban take back over, why is there
any reason to believe that won't turn Afghanistan into an Al Quada
haven just like they did before 9-11?
So instead the US government should stay there until Afghanistan
turns into a nice place? We'll be waiting a while.
Kilroy|9.21.09 @ 2:53PM|#
alhues,
I know that's what was portrayed as the intent, but actually didn't
happen until the surge. We were in such a huge hurry and desperate
to show the Iraqis doing things for themselves that we let
corruption, incompetence, and simple inexperience run rampant.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 2:54PM|#
When we leave and the Taliban take back over, why is there any reason to believe that won't turn Afghanistan into an Al Quada haven just like they did before 9-11?
Are you not one of the ones who likes to cite the fact that
President Clinton could have targeted top AQ, and didn't? Any
reason to suspect we couldn't go back to that?
John, the only way that Afghanistan is going to become a civil
society not subject to roaming gangs or empires is for us to stay
there fifty years. That isn't acceptable.
|9.21.09 @ 2:56PM|#
"So instead the US government should stay there until
Afghanistan turns into a nice place? We'll be waiting a
while."
Maybe so. Sometimes there are no good options. If the choices are
leave say 70K troops there for the next ten years and lose a couple
thousand casualties or leave and have another 9-11 or worse, maybe
leaving the troops there is the best of bad options. Of course we
don't know exactly what will happen if we leave. But, we need to
think about that instead of reflexively saying "this is hard we
must go home."
Ben Kenobi|9.21.09 @ 2:57PM|#
John--Why don't we just tell them that if they let the Taliban
come back to power then we will reduce the entire country to rubble
and they won't get a second chance.
As for Obama, I'm betting he will pick some half-assed middle
ground that neither provides the necessary security or gets the
troops out quickly, effectively allowing us to accomplish nothing
of merit.
|9.21.09 @ 2:57PM|#
"John, the only way that Afghanistan is going to become a civil
society not subject to roaming gangs or empires is for us to stay
there fifty years. That isn't acceptable."
Really? Is another 9-11 acceptable? Is Afghanistan and NW Pakistan
becoming a place a haven where international terrorists can train
and plan attacks unmolested acceptable? Yeah, the options suck. But
stop pretending we can leave with no downsides.
|9.21.09 @ 2:58PM|#
In essence, the problem with actions in places like Afghanistan is that I'm somewhat sure that we don't really have clear goals. We are there to suppress a threat, and someday someone will say when we've done enough. I'd prefer if we did this type of thing on a much smaller, more specific, and devastating scale. Instead of sending troops, it seems to me that if we or one of our close allies are imperiled by a country or other entity, we should drop a big ass bomb on their heads and leave it at that. Let people bitch about how mean we are, so long as they don't engage in war acts against us.
|9.21.09 @ 2:59PM|#
"John--Why don't we just tell them that if they let the Taliban
come back to power then we will reduce the entire country to rubble
and they won't get a second chance."
Because we would never do that and they know it. Further, the place
is so poor that I am not sure rubble is much of a threat. Further,
even if they don't want the Taliban to take over, what if they
can't stop them despite their best efforts?
|9.21.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Also, every liberal who said AFghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, was the good war, was lying through their teeth.
GILMORE|9.21.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Kilroy | September 21, 2009, 2:45pm | #
If you set aside the argument of whether we should be in AFG at
all, and look at the best way to stabilize the situation there,
then McChrystal has the right idea: lock down the security
situation, give the local forces time and space to
mature
...
200 years later, abdul looks over his donky sandwich at babur, and
says, "dude, check out the burqa on that one"
....
i'm sorry, but if you think 'stabilizing' afghanistan is an
achievable goal, you somehow missed out on something called 'human
history'. There is a difference between helping a society with a
longstanding history of civil government get back on its feet and
inventing civil society wholesale. The main difference being that
the first can be done.
|9.21.09 @ 3:03PM|#
"i'm sorry, but if you think 'stabilizing' afghanistan is an
achievable goal, you somehow missed out on something called 'human
history'. There is a difference between helping a society with a
longstanding history of civil government get back on its feet and
inventing civil society wholesale. The main difference being that
the first can be done."
Okay, then what is your alternative to trying? Leave, let it become
an Al Quada haven and hope for the best?
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Really? Is another 9-11 acceptable? Is Afghanistan and NW Pakistan becoming a place a haven where international terrorists can train and plan attacks unmolested acceptable?
Spare me your 9-11 invocation. There is no particular reason you
cannot fight terrorists through police actions. This is a false
dichotomy. If it's true that the Afghan occupation has cost 2
billion a month for 8 years, and you're talking about 10 more
years, that is (conservatively) 430 billion dollars.
No, sorry John, I'm not going to support that.
T|9.21.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Further, the place is so poor that I am not sure rubble is
much of a threat.
Or, to paraphrase Curtis LeMay, it does no good to bomb someone
back to the Stone Age when they never left it.
John Tagliaferro|9.21.09 @ 3:05PM|#
John, the only way that Afghanistan is going to become a
civil society not subject to roaming gangs or empires is for us to
stay there fifty years. That isn't acceptable.
Yea, you didn't see us doing that in Germany or Japan did you!
No More Mr. Nice Guy|9.21.09 @ 3:06PM|#
When we leave and the Taliban take back over, why is there
any reason to believe that won't turn Afghanistan into an Al Quada
haven just like they did before 9-11?
Tactical Nuclear Weapons
|9.21.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Anyone here supporting losing one more life, spend one more
dollar in Afghanistan better be able to define WTF is our
objective.
US Marines are not going to remake Afghani culture. Democracy in
that tribal hell-hole is a pipe dream for the forseeable future.
Some authoritarian government, probably fundie Islamist, will be
ruling one year after we leave. Leave now or leave in ten years,
we'll see the same end result.
Janeane Garofalo|9.21.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Or, to paraphrase Curtis LeMay, it does no good to bomb
someone back to the Stone Age when they never left it.
That's racism, straight up.
|9.21.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Spare me your 9-11 invocation. There is no particular reason you
cannot fight terrorists through police actions. This is a false
dichotomy. If it's true that the Afghan occupation has cost 2
billion a month for 8 years, and you're talking about 10 more
years, that is (conservatively) 430 billion dollars.
No, sorry John, I'm not going to support that."
Then what do you support? You honestly think, given 9-11, Madrid,
Bali, and so forth that it is a good idea to let Afghanistan become
a safe haven for international terrorists? And when you consider
that 9-11 cost us something like a trillion dollars and another
will cost more, $480 billion sounds like a bargain.
You want to pull out of Afghanistan. Okay, what is your plan? You
don't seem to have one beyond hope for the best. Sorry I can't
support that.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Yea, you didn't see us doing that in Germany or Japan did you!
GILMORE already refuted you. There is a big difference between
completely instituting civil society where none existed and getting
a formerly civil society back to that state.
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 3:10PM|#
If the choices are leave say 70K troops there for the next
ten years and lose a couple thousand casualties or leave and have
another 9-11 or worse, . . .
9-11 was a couple of thousand casualties.
You need to come to terms with the fact that some very small cell
of criminals is going to kill a million people in some big city in
our lifetime and there is essentially nothing that can be done
short of turing the entire world into the cold-war USSR.
|9.21.09 @ 3:10PM|#
"US Marines are not going to remake Afghani culture. Democracy
in that tribal hell-hole is a pipe dream for the forseeable future.
Some authoritarian government, probably fundie Islamist, will be
ruling one year after we leave. Leave now or leave in ten years,
we'll see the same end result."
I will give you an objective, keep hunting and killing the mother
fuckers so they can't come over here. And continue to do so until
Afghanistan has a police force and Army to do the same thing in our
stead. You are moving the goal posts. The goal is not to turn it
into America. The goal is to turn it into a country that can
control its borders and not support international terrorism.
Granted we are shooting ourselves in the foot by not admitting the
obvious and letting them grow poppies. But, that doesn't mean that
what we need to do can't be done.
John Tagliaferro|9.21.09 @ 3:11PM|#
GILMORE already refuted you.
How could he when I refuse to acknowledge him? Huh, smart guy?
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:11PM|#
And when you consider that 9-11 cost us something like a trillion dollars and another will cost more, $480 billion sounds like a bargain.
Are terrorists only in Afghanistan? Remind me
again where KSM was captured. Your false dichotomy is irritating:
either we stay in Afghanistan, at 2 billion a month, for the next
half-century, or we get another 9/11. Dude. What
happened to police actions again? Didn't we just perform one in
Somalia?
|9.21.09 @ 3:12PM|#
"You need to come to terms with the fact that some very small
cell of criminals is going to kill a million people in some big
city in our lifetime and there is essentially nothing that can be
done short of turing the entire world into the cold-war
USSR."
No. Criminals won't do it. Religous fanatics will do it. And we can
stop them. We just have to be brutal about hunting them down and
killing them. Sorry, I don't buy surrender. I mean really, if we
can't help it, why not just go Muslim, declare a caliphate. That
will get them off of our backs.
|9.21.09 @ 3:13PM|#
McChrystal is 100% right, but Obama knows nothing about war and
is so utterly unqualified to be CINC that he won't meet
McChrystal's request - not even 1/2 way. While this is definitely
not good, there is an upside.
A temporary "loss" in AF will look very bad for Obama - this can be
leveraged in 2012 and used in concert with his drastic domestic
policy failures (cap 'n tax, socialist healthcare, credit card
regs, banking regs, racism) to unseat his butt and send him back to
gangster Chicago. Once we get a real Patriot back in the WH we can
refocus on AF and WIN! And repeal Obama's socialist policies. The
thing to look at is the Governor's race in VA and NJ - these will
be an indicator! Also, the Arab Mind is not suited for democracy or
peace - it's in a book called the Arab Mind - Google it!
|9.21.09 @ 3:14PM|#
"Are terrorists only in Afghanistan? Remind me again where KSM
was captured. Your false dichotomy is irritating: either we stay in
Afghanistan, at 2 billion a month, for the next half-century, or we
get another 9/11. Dude. What happened to police actions again?
Didn't we just perform one in Somalia?"
KSM was only captured in Pakistan because we ran him out of
Afghanistan. If we hadn't done Afghanistan, we would never have
captured him because he would have never been in Pakistan.
Where is there any gaurentee that "police actions" can stop these
fuckers? They didn't in the 90s, when we had Kobar Towers, two WTC
attacks and the USS Cole. We have tried using cops and it didn't
turn out too well did it?
GILMORE|9.21.09 @ 3:14PM|#
John | September 21, 2009, 3:03pm | #
Okay, then what is your alternative to trying? Leave, let it become
an Al Quada haven and hope for the best?
Define "al quada haven" and tell me they already dont have half a
dozen. And so what: they're a loose network of terrorists. You
think a permanent occupation of the most un-occupy-able country on
earth constitutes a defensive strategy against *that*?
Do you normally use a bazooka to swat flies?
|9.21.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Obama: "Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right
strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over
there-beyond what we already have....
If you have the wrong strategy, why would you keep ANY troops over
there?
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Where is there any gaurentee that "police actions" can stop these fuckers? They didn't in the 90s, when we had Kobar Towers, two WTC attacks and the USS Cole. We have tried using cops and it didn't turn out too well did it?
Uh, if you want to play that game, I could cite Madrid, Bali and
London as evidence that the occupations are not working,
either.
I didn't say police actions would be easy or cheap, but it seems
apparent to me that we are fostering resentment in Afghanistan by
tromping around there, attempting to de facto colonize it.
GILMORE|9.21.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Parents Rights > Marine Patriot | September
Also, the Arab Mind is not suited for democracy or peace
You'd think after 8 years even the idiots would know that afghans
arent Arabs.
or that statements like this would be embarrassing.
|9.21.09 @ 3:17PM|#
"Define "al quada haven" and tell me they already dont have half
a dozen. And so what: they're a loose network of terrorists. You
think a permanent occupation of the most un-occupy-able country on
earth constitutes a defensive strategy against *that*?"
A haven is a government that allows them to opeate openly like
Afghanistan did before 2001. There are currently no governments
that do that.
T|9.21.09 @ 3:18PM|#
Religous fanatics will do it. And we can stop them. We just
have to be brutal about hunting them down and killing
them.
So, you advocate carpet bombing the Saudis? Because if we're going
to start hunting down anti-American religious fanatics, that's the
place to start.
GILMORE|9.21.09 @ 3:19PM|#
John | September 21, 2009, 3:17pm | #
A haven is a government that allows them to opeate openly like
Afghanistan did before 2001. There are currently no governments
that do that.
Somalia, East Algeria, Yemen, NWFP
Next?
comrade|9.21.09 @ 3:19PM|#
John, do you honestly think that MOAR TROOPS and/or MOAR TIME in
Afghanistan will eliminate (or do anything other than agitate) Al
Qaeda?
It's like doing shots of Listerine to get rid of hookworm.
Bingo|9.21.09 @ 3:19PM|#
John: Yes, I would rather have another 9/11 than to have all of the freedoms of this country stripped away while funding a fiscal blackhole that is an unending war.
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 3:19PM|#
No. Criminals won't do it. Religous fanatics will do
it.
People that murder innocents are criminals. They're motiviation is
not particularly relevant.
And we can stop them.
The police cannot stop crime only bring criminals to justice (on
those increasinly rare conditions where the system works).
We just have to be brutal about hunting them down and killing
them.
See comment on cold-war USSR.
Sorry, I don't buy surrender.
I didn't say surrender.
I mean really, if we can't help it, why not just go Muslim,
declare a caliphate. That will get them off of our
backs.
This is just the way the United States dealt with the native
population here in the territories -- just kill every man of
fighting age and put the rest on reservations.
It was effective, but some people look back on that with some amout
of sadness and embarassment.
The ultimate problem is poverty. People that have nothing and have
never been educated are easy prey for a preacher promising eternal
salvation for killing the "other".
|9.21.09 @ 3:20PM|#
"I could cite Madrid, Bali and London as evidence that the
occupations are not working, either."
Madrid and London were home grown terrorists. They were not from
Afghanistan or trained there like the 9-11 terrorists were. So
those are failures of Spainish and British domestic security not a
result of occupation. Further, we are not occupying Afghanistan. We
are there at the behest of their lawful government, that is not an
occupation. So stop using that term.
"I didn't say police actions would be easy or cheap, but it seems
apparent to me that we are fostering resentment in Afghanistan by
tromping around there, attempting to de facto colonize it."
We are not attempting to colonize it. That is stupid. They have
their own government. We are trying to help a legitimate government
fend off an agressive insurgency launched for Pakistan. That is not
colonizing.
Further, I would rather lose the lives of soldiers in Afghanistan,
than civilians in the US. That is what we pay soldiers to do.
John Tagliaferro|9.21.09 @ 3:20PM|#
but Obama knows nothing about war
Come on, Obama knows war. He was a community organizer in Chicago
for crying out loud!
tell me they already dont have half a dozen.
Buffalo, New York
Alexandria, VA (Del Ray)
San Francisco, CA
NY, NY
Colorado
Sorry, I only got to five. Anybody else have more to add?
|9.21.09 @ 3:21PM|#
I will give you an objective, keep hunting and killing the mother fuckers so they can't come over here. And continue to do so until Afghanistan has a police force and Army to do the same thing in our stead. You are moving the goal posts. The goal is not to turn it into America.
If I'm moving the goalposts I'm moving them back to when the Bush
administration was crowing about the success of the elections years
ago.
The goal is to turn it into a country that can control its borders and not support international terrorism.
Ten years after the initial invasion, five after the Karzai
government was installed/elected and Afghanistan is how much closer
to having a functional national government? 2%? 5%? Certainly not
any more than 25%.
Leave with a promise to return and kill the government leaders,
whoever they are, if they don't fucking behave.
T|9.21.09 @ 3:21PM|#
The ultimate problem is poverty. People that have nothing
and have never been educated are easy prey for a preacher promising
eternal salvation for killing the "other".
Bullshit. The 9/11 hijackers were neither poor nor uneducated, so
you'll have to come up with another excuse for them.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|9.21.09 @ 3:23PM|#
"Sorry, I only got to five. Anybody else have more to
add?"
Washington, DC
|9.21.09 @ 3:23PM|#
:"The police cannot stop crime only bring criminals to justice
(on those increasinly rare conditions where the system
works)."
That is why it is not a criminal matter. We cannot let every
terrorist get a free attack.
"The ultimate problem is poverty. People that have nothing and have
never been educated are easy prey for a preacher promising eternal
salvation for killing the "other"."
The problem is not poverty you nitwit. The terrorists in 9-11,
Mumbei, Bali, London were anything but poor. The leadership of the
Al Quada are all educated elites. If the problem were poverty,
terrorists would be coming from truely poor Muslim countries like
Bangledesh instead of coming from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Europe
and be part of the educated elite. Poor Muslims are not the
problem.
John Tagliaferro|9.21.09 @ 3:24PM|#
What, you think we should occupy Lawackahana NY
now?
We already occupy it. Just rounded up a few there.
Bingo|9.21.09 @ 3:25PM|#
John:
Just curious, do you think that Afghanis (and Muslims in general)
will be more or less motivated to fly airplanes into buildings if
we turn their country into the equivalent of a prison state?
|9.21.09 @ 3:25PM|#
"Ten years after the initial invasion, five after the Karzai
government was installed/elected and Afghanistan is how much closer
to having a functional national government? 2%? 5%? Certainly not
any more than 25%.
Leave with a promise to return and kill the government leaders,
whoever they are, if they don't fucking behave."
It is a tough job. Sometimes life is like that. And leaving with
the pledge to return and kill everyone, while a good idea in theory
is not practical. We would not return and kill everyone and they
know that. Issuing idle threats is not going to get us
anywhere.
|9.21.09 @ 3:26PM|#
I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake
of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way-you know,
sending a message that America is here for the duration.
See?
He wouldn't say one thing, and do another. That would be like
lying.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Madrid and London were home grown terrorists. They were not from Afghanistan or trained there like the 9-11 terrorists were.
Now who is moving the goalposts? you specifically said this, John,
in support of the occupation of Afghanistan (and
yeah, I am going to keep saying 'occupation', 'cause that's what it
is):
You honestly think, given 9-11, Madrid, Bali, and so forth that it is a good idea to let Afghanistan become a safe haven for international terrorists?
Did you or did you not write that?
That is why it is not a criminal matter.
It isn't a "war" matter, either. Face it, the Bush Doctrine was way
over-ambitious. You cannot just reform every failed society. There
are better ways, and they do not involve being in a worthless
country for 50 years.
|9.21.09 @ 3:26PM|#
"Just curious, do you think that Afghanis (and Muslims in
general) will be more or less motivated to fly airplanes into
buildings if we turn their country into the equivalent of a prison
state?"
How are we turning their country into a prison state? There are
prison states all over the Arab world in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and
Iran. It isn't the US who is running those countries. The taliban
is going to turn the place into a prison state. We are trying to
prevent that.
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Bullshit. The 9/11 hijackers were neither poor nor
uneducated, so you'll have to come up with another excuse for
them.
Start over jackass.
The Saudis that participated in 9/11 were boxed in with no long
term opportunities by the unique social structure within the Saudi
culture. They may have been educated, but they were stuck on a
deadend path.
Every rule has an exception; every execption has an exception; and
so on.
But, in fucking general, the foot soldiers that provide the bulk of
terrorist groups have sprung from poverty and cultural
dead-ends.
|9.21.09 @ 3:27PM|#
When we leave and the Taliban take back over, why is there
any reason to believe that won't turn Afghanistan into an Al Qaeda
haven just like they did before 9-11?
Al-Qaeda already has taken over most of Afghanistan:
map of Taliban versus government-controlled areas
The questions are:
1) Is our involvement turning into a Vietnam-style unwinnable
clusterfuck?
2) Has ANY foreign power, ever, managed to control and pacify
Afghanistan? (Hint: No. Not Genghis Khan, not Alexander the Great,
not the British, not the Russians. Nobody.)
3) If we leave and the Taliban take over, are they stupid enough to
try another 9/11 attack, given the ass-whupping they got last time,
rather than settling for making the lives of Afghans miserable and
more or less leaving us alone?
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 3:29PM|#
That is why it is not a criminal matter. We cannot let every
terrorist get a free attack.
You get two choice John. They're soldiers so we wage war against
them. Or they're criminals so you turn the police loose on
them.
John Tagliaferro|9.21.09 @ 3:32PM|#
The Saudis that participated in 9/11 were boxed in with no
long term opportunities by the unique social structure within the
Saudi culture. They may have been educated, but they were stuck on
a deadend path.
They studied abroad. They lived abroad for quite a while. They
ended up in a "deadend path" on their last airplane flights by
their own choice.
BTW, Arafat was an Engineer who decided to start blowing up Jews by
his own choice too.
John Tagliaferro|9.21.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Where are the "Obama wants me to . . ." people from the weekend? Some of you need some guidance.
Bingo|9.21.09 @ 3:33PM|#
How are we turning their country into a prison state? There are prison states all over the Arab world in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. It isn't the US who is running those countries. The taliban is going to turn the place into a prison state. We are trying to prevent that.
What would you consider an occupying force of 60,000+ soldiers
attempting to keep order?
Your argument seems to be we need to do whatever it takes to stop
another 9/11 from happening, including keeping troops there for
however long it takes for the nation of Afghanistan to somehow not
be a breeding ground for terrorists. I'm arguing that your solution
to the problem is going to motivate that breeding ground even
more.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:33PM|#
prolefeed has it. Afghanistan is intractable. There is no
instituting a government there, and there never has been hope of
doing so. There is no reason to think that the Taliban is going to
readmit AQ given the past eight years, and there isn't any reason
that withdrawal from having ground forces there means we are wholly
uninvolved. We have been providing airstrike support to the
Ethiopian government and won the Kosovo war that way as well.
John's false dichotomy is, well, false. We could pick a side (the
Afghan government) and provide them material and air support, if
necessary. If they fail, they fail.
MNG|9.21.09 @ 3:36PM|#
You fools.
If our government had been investing in a weapons X program like
our more government friendly neighbors to the North this kind of
thing would be no problem. But you anti-government types killed any
hope of that, now didn't you? Like private R&D is going to put
up the money for the adamantium!
T|9.21.09 @ 3:37PM|#
The Saudis that participated in 9/11 were boxed in with no
long term opportunities by the unique social structure within the
Saudi culture. They may have been educated, but they were stuck on
a deadend path.
[Citation needed]
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:39PM|#
MNG - the Xavier Institute is private. I would take all of them over that one government-enabled mutant any day of the week. :P
|9.21.09 @ 3:39PM|#
And leaving with the pledge to return and kill everyone, while a good idea in theory is not practical. We would not return and kill everyone and they know that. Issuing idle threats is not going to get us anywhere.
Another terrosist attack on the U.S. orchestraed from Afghanistan
and yes, we would return. Make no mistake about it, we are a
vengeful people.
Short of turning evil ourselves, we are not going to remake these
societies. All we can do is punish them.
MNG|9.21.09 @ 3:42PM|#
TAO
Good point!
Iirc the pre-Ultimate FF had the Baxter Building as a private
entity too supported by funds from Reed Richard's numerous
patents.
And of course Iron Man was the employee/head of a major
corporation.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 3:43PM|#
lest we forget that NATO has no small part, either. Combined,
we're pushing 110,000 total troops in that country.
Enough is enough - it is clear that this is not working and is just
going to lead to more US deaths.
MNG|9.21.09 @ 3:45PM|#
I often hear that the Taliban has no substantial support amongst
the Afghan people, that they just terrorize them. But if that is
true why don't the majority of Afghans kick their asses?
If it were the case that the Taliban represented 15% of the nation
that were terrorizing the rest of the nation, and the rest of the
nation were begging for us to come in, how many people would
support that? Sort of like, iirc the whole Chuck Taylor thing in
that African country. You know the one, it's in Africa and Chuck
Taylor was up to no good there.
|9.21.09 @ 3:48PM|#
Sorry John, but I think you are wrong on this one. It is an
assumption that if we leave Aghanistan, another 9/11 will happen.
9/11 happened to some extent because we a relatively free country.
Going about bombing the shit out of everyone who hates us isn't
going to increase our safety. Per my recent post, you are saying
this: Afghani and
Americans are dying because the Taliban might regain
control and might execute another act of terrorism. Sorry,
but that isn't good enough.
It someone really wanted to, really cared, they could bomb plenty
of soft targets right now like Time Square or any pro football
game. And how come they don't?
Anyway, I subscribe to J sub D's proposal:
Leave with a promise to return and kill the government leaders,
whoever they are, if they don't fucking behave.
Brian Lockwood|9.21.09 @ 3:48PM|#
Thanks for being the voice of reason TAO.
We should use our current policy toward Somalia as a template for
how to deal with Afghanistan. It is essentially a failed state.
Trying to build up a centralized government is a fool's errand. We
should just do what we can to provide support to the government
that is friendly with us (i.e. guns, intelligence, training, etc.)
and take out any high value targets with air strikes or special
forces. In fact, extend this strategy to Pakistan while we are at
it.
|9.21.09 @ 3:48PM|#
"It isn't a "war" matter, either. Face it, the Bush Doctrine was
way over-ambitious. You cannot just reform every failed society.
There are better ways, and they do not involve being in a worthless
country for 50 years."
They you are going to have to take the J sub D method and kill them
all. Because that is what we are headed towards. Let's leave
Afghanistan tommorow. Then when there is another 9-11 and it is
traced back there, what are we going to do? Nothing? Go back and
occupy the place?
I admit it sucks, but there are no good options. None.
Zeb|9.21.09 @ 3:51PM|#
Afghanistan as terrorist haven was not necessary for 9-11 to happen. Any group of reasonably big and strong men could have done it from completely within the US. If you are not an idiot, it is not too hard to keep plans for such a thing secret. The idea that our being in Afghanistan is preventing another similar attack is ridiculous.
|9.21.09 @ 3:56PM|#
And leaving with the pledge to return and kill everyone,
while a good idea in theory is not practical. We would not return
and kill everyone and they know that.
Bullshit. I remember the palpable blood lust that was running
through the air after 9/11. We wanted someone to pay and we wanted
them to pay at the business end of a JDAM. When James Baker warned
Terik Aziz that if Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against
our troops, the American people would seek vengeance, and the
President had the means to exercise that vengeance....that wasn't
entirely hyperbole.
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 3:57PM|#
5 seconds on Google -- Top article.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/driving_a_wedge/part1.shtml
The road cuts across southwest Saudi Arabia, its tribal culture,
desert wilderness, and bleak patches of development that missed out
on the oil-rich kingdom's largesse.
Highway 15 cuts through southwest Saudi Arabia, a region bubbling
with economic frustration and Islamic
puritanism.
Engineered in the late 1960s by Mohammed bin Laden, patriarch of
the family's construction empire, this two-lane highway was his
pride in a life of service to a monarchy trying to build a nation
out of the Arabian sands.
But to his exiled scion, Osama bin Laden, this road
stretched into the Saudi heartland of isolation, boredom, economic
frustration, fiery Islamic puritanism, and the mounting rage of its
disaffected middle-class youth - fertile soil for recruits
to his Al Qaeda terror network.
Along this narrow and treacherous highway, US and Saudi officials
say, bin Laden and Al Qaeda saw a way to drive a wedge through the
fragile US-Saudi relationship - and steer home the point that the
Sept. 11 strikes were as much an attack on the House of
Saud and its alliance with the United States as they were an attack
on America itself.
Twelve of the 15 Saudis among the 19 hijackers who carried
out the terrorist strikes came from the leading tribes in the
provinces that straddle this highway.
Senior US officials and Saudi Interior Ministry officials involved
with the investigation into the involvement of Saudi nationals in
the attacks say they now believe bin Laden's Al Qaeda actively
sought out young Saudi volunteers from this region for their
''jihad.''
The investigation is beginning to reveal a picture of how bin
Laden, a native of the Saudi southwest, exploited the young
hijackers by playing off the region's deep tribal affiliations, its
economic dis-enfranchisement, and its own burning brand of
Wahhabi fundamentalism which the kingdom's religious
hierarchy fosters in the schools.
The path to understanding this culture which bore the hijackers -
almost none of whom had any deep links to Islamic militant
movements much before Sept. 11 - lies somewhere along this road. On
maps it is ''Highway 15,'' but to Saudis it is commonly known as
''The Road of Death.'' Stretching south from the lowlands around
Mecca into Taif and the woodlands of Al Baha province, and then
climbing up to the mountains of Asir, it is considered the most
dangerous road in a kingdom which officials say has an
extraordinarily high rate of fatal car crashes. Highway 15 alone
claims hundreds of lives every year, and thus its name.
It has become known as a strip of asphalt where disaffected,
middle-class Saudi youth climb into large American-manufactured
Buicks and Chevrolets and race at speeds over 120 miles per hour.
They say it is a way to vent their rage against the limited
economic opportunities in the kingdom as well as the
crushing boredom and confining strictures of life under Saudi
puritanism.
Bin Laden, it seems, provided the inspiration for at least 12 of
the alienated young men from this area to find a far more
apocalyptic way to express that rage.
|9.21.09 @ 3:58PM|#
"The idea that our being in Afghanistan is preventing another
similar attack is ridiculous."
You are so right, Zeb.
|9.21.09 @ 4:00PM|#
And for what its worth, I do think the terrorist won. The fucking TSA, Department of Homeland Security, The Patriot ACt, all that shit. We played a game of chicken and we fucking swerved. We gave up on our principles for the fucking illusion of security.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 4:02PM|#
I admit it sucks, but there are no good options. None.
There are good options. Not included in those is occupying a
"nation" that has no business being a nation in the hopes
that we can make it a nation.
This is a total fool's errand, and it has the added bonus of
destabilizing Pakistan (hence why this is now the Af-Pak
'war').
T|9.21.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Thanks, kinnath. Interesting stuff I wasn't aware of.
Of course, this makes my snarky suggestion of carpet bombing Saudi
Arabia more valid.
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Thanks, kinnath. Interesting stuff I wasn't aware
of.
You're welcome.
Of course, this makes my snarky suggestion of carpet bombing
Saudi Arabia more valid.
I concur that the problem is not Afghanistan; it's Saudi
Arabia.
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Married for 33 years, which is probably longer than the twat that impersonated me has been alive.
|9.21.09 @ 4:15PM|#
"I admit it sucks, but there are no good options. None."
Stop meddling over there. That's an option. How would we like it if
some other country was occupying our country? Wouldn't we fight
back? But if we stopped meddling all over the world, there would be
a lot of unhappy warmongers in this country.
|9.21.09 @ 4:22PM|#
"we can to provide support to the government that is friendly
with us (i.e. guns, intelligence, training, etc.) and take out any
high value targets with air strikes or special forces. In fact,
extend this strategy to Pakistan while we are at it."
Or just be neutral to all countries, free trade with all and
animosity toward none.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 4:23PM|#
bookworm - those glib answers does not provide a framework for preventing terrorist attacks against this nation. There is something to be said for being anti-occupancy, but you are bordering on the ridiculous. If there are criminals out there who have or will perpetrate crimes against the United States, then we have to have methods to find and kill them.
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 4:28PM|#
If there are criminals out there who have or will perpetrate
crimes against the United States, then we have to have methods to
find and kill them.
Explain how occupying a hostile country is going to solve that
problem.
Remember, the bulk of the 9/11 highjackers came from the stagnant
underbellies of some very wealthy countries. Afghanistan was just a
convenient location for staging the attacks. There are many, many
others.
|9.21.09 @ 4:36PM|#
"The taliban is going to turn the place into a prison state. We
are trying to prevent that."
Like we did in Iraq? Women now have less freedom there than they
did under Saddam.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Explain how occupying a hostile country is going to solve that problem.
Where did I say that? I'm on your side here. The side I am *not* on
is bookworm's, who seems to think that invoking Washington's
Farewell Address is a good enough answer for all foreign policy
quandaries, especially the current one.
|9.21.09 @ 4:41PM|#
"If there are criminals out there who have or will perpetrate
crimes against the United States, then we have to have methods to
find and kill them."
"Explain how occupying a hostile country is going to solve that
problem."
Our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is just breeding more
terrorists. I see the only solution as sending in special forces to
track down those who have perpetrated crimes against the American
people. This minimizes collateral damage and therefore less apt to
provoke more hatred against America.
|9.21.09 @ 4:43PM|#
"The side I am *not* on is bookworm's, who seems to think that
invoking Washington's Farewell Address is a good enough answer for
all foreign policy quandaries, especially the current one."
TAO, can you explain why it wouldn't work in this case?
kinnath|9.21.09 @ 4:43PM|#
Where did I say that? I'm on your side here.
Sorry. I lost track of the thread.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 4:46PM|#
bookworm - I do not support occupations. I
support your plan of using SF, in conjunction with providing
material and air support to friendly nations who would track down
folks like the Taliban and make sure they do not foster problems
like in the past.
We are all on the same side. However, your response to Brian
Lockwood was not really a response, given that you support his
strategy. Keep in mind that SF forces cannot just launch themselves
- they need support, which means bases, either ours or a friendly
nation's.
|9.21.09 @ 4:47PM|#
"bookworm - those glib answers does not provide a framework for
preventing terrorist attacks against this nation. There is
something to be said for being anti-occupancy, but you are
bordering on the ridiculous. If there are criminals out there who
have or will perpetrate crimes against the United States, then we
have to have methods to find and kill them."
Those who have committed crimes against American citizens should be
sought out by using special forces, but the best way to prevent
future terrorist actions against Americans is to have a
noninterventionist foreign policy.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 4:54PM|#
bookworm - that's fine so far as it goes, but recognize
that:
1. SF Soldiers don't just launch themselves and live off the land.
They need home bases.
2. It's going to require at least a temporary treaty with whatever
nation has the criminals to allow us to tromp around and;
3. If the SF folks are significantly outnumbered by the criminals
or those protecting them, it's going to require escalation.
Honestly, I think that some neoconservatives are just plain lazy.
Rather than do the hard work, roll-up-your-sleeves kind of job that
it takes to negotiate multilateral criminal-hunting agreements,
build forces meant for that kind of thing and then go get the
criminals, neocons say "Fuck it. We'll just colonize this place and
presto-wammo! it'll be perfect!"
It does not work that way (as you know, I am sure). A lot of
wishful thinking, more money and more bodies does not a foreign
policy make - I am reminded of liberals and public schools.
|9.21.09 @ 4:56PM|#
"Like we did in Iraq? Women now have less freedom there than
they did under Saddam."
No they don't. You moron. Saddam may have had lots of rights
enshrined into the law. Every authoritarian state does. But, women
and men alike had no legal rights in Saddam's Iraq and essentially
lived at his will. His sons were free to rape and kill anyone they
want. The state was free to and did kill and imprison millions. I
will never understand why the Left loves Saddam so much.
|9.21.09 @ 4:58PM|#
"BTW, Arafat was an Engineer who decided to start blowing up
Jews by his own choice too."
As if Israeli policy had nothing to do with provoking his acts of
terrorism.
|9.21.09 @ 5:00PM|#
"Rather than do the hard work, roll-up-your-sleeves kind of job
that it takes to negotiate multilateral criminal-hunting
agreements, build forces meant for that kind of thing and then go
get the criminals, neocons say "Fuck it. We'll just colonize this
place and presto-wammo! it'll be perfect!"
So you think we should have just made a mutlilateral agreement with
the Taliban whereby they agreed to let us in to hunt Al Quada? No
one is saying that we shouldn't have multilateral agreements. We do
all over the world. That statement is beyond retarded.
Since you think we should leave Afghanistan, I take it you think we
should have never been there in the first place? What should we
have done in December of 2001? Asked them to turnvoer Bin Ladin to
the FBI? And when they didn't what? And if we should have invaded,
when should we have left?
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 5:00PM|#
John, as usual, you pick out the easy targets and ignore the substantive and substantial criticism that has been lobbed at your "Occupy or get more 9/11s" stance.
Timmy|9.21.09 @ 5:00PM|#
I think the solution is to take the bored and disaffected youth of America; give them computers and high-bandwidth Internet connections; then tell them they get to keep 30% of whatever they can steal from the accounts of the people that finance terror.
|9.21.09 @ 5:01PM|#
"As if Israeli policy had nothing to do with provoking his acts
of terrorism."
As if he didn't kill just as many Palistinians as Jews and wasn't a
criminal scumbag. Fuck you you anti-semetic piece of shit. Anyone
who defends Arrafat or justifies his actions is a piece of shit
whack job. You are not better than Lonewacko.
So, shut the fuck up Bookworm.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 5:02PM|#
So you think we should have just made a mutlilateral agreement with the Taliban whereby they agreed to let us in to hunt Al Quada?
I don't know - would that have worked better than this?
I take it you think we should have never been there in the first place?
No. Where did I say that? It should be apparent, to you,
especially, John, that having a decade to generation(s)-long
occupation is both harmful to United States interests and
detrimental not only to the morale of the United State military,
but a serious drain on our treasury. And, as has been pointed out
to you repeatedly, isn't working.
|9.21.09 @ 5:03PM|#
"I will never understand why the Left loves Saddam so
much."
John, I'm not a leftist and I don't love Saddam. I just question
whether or not the Iraqis are better off or not with Saddam gone
and even if they are, is it really our business to overthrow
totalitarian regimes? If it is, then why don't we overthrow
China's, Iran's, and North Korea's regimes and all other
totalitarian regimes? These wars are draining our economy and have
we really done much good for Iraq with all the death and
destruction that we've brought to those people?
|9.21.09 @ 5:05PM|#
"I don't know - would that have worked better than this?"
They told us know and were harboring mass murderers. I don't see
how we could have not gone in. And once we went in, what then? You
either just kill everyone or you rebuild the government such that
it can stand on its own and won't attack you anymore. These things
are hard. We occupied Japan and Germany for nearly 10 years before
they were allowed to have their own government again. You can't
just come in and take over and expect a hostile power to give up.
It takes a long time. Should we have gone home and left Germany and
Japan to their own devices in 1951?
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 5:05PM|#
As if he didn't kill just as many Palistinians as Jews and wasn't a criminal scumbag. Fuck you you anti-semetic piece of shit. Anyone who defends Arrafat or justifies his actions is a piece of shit whack job. You are not better than Lonewacko.
Yeesh, John, as usual, you misinterpret. Questioning whether a
policy gives rise to people like Arafat is exactly what we are
talking about here. Please learn to be a little more honest.
|9.21.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Like we did in Iraq? Women now have less freedom there than
they did under Saddam.
That is very hard to believe.
The Angry Optimist|9.21.09 @ 5:07PM|#
John - Japan and Germany have been addressed. Getting a formerly
civil society to stand up on its own =/= forming a whole new
society and government from scratch.
You either just kill everyone or you rebuild the government such that it can stand on its own and won't attack you anymore.
Dude, wrong again. Is that how Kosovo went, for example?
|9.21.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Asked them to turnvoer Bin Ladin to the FBI?
Why Not? Sounds like a fine place to start. Who knows, they MIGHT
have said 'Sure!' (i know, i know, but its nice to dream)
And when they didn't what?
What about one of those Navy Seal, sneak-up-out-of-some-water Black
Ops missions we see in the Navy's commercials. Or was that the
Marines?
Even better, hire the Mob. They know how to get someone
killed.
If we wanted bin laden, sendings 10's of thousands of troops his
way seems like the best way to get him to go hide somewhere
else.
Armies are designed for engaging other Armies. NOT tracking down
and killing a few people.
War on Terror fails on its premise*.
(*Till the terrorists number in the thousands and wear uniforms at
least. Lining up in 18th century battle ranks wouldn't hurt
either.)
|9.21.09 @ 5:21PM|#
"""When we leave and the Taliban take back over, why is there
any reason to believe that won't turn Afghanistan into an Al Quada
haven just like they did before 9-11?"""
Do you plan to leave someday John? The Taliban will continue exist,
like it or not. If we leave in 50, 100, or 1000 years, they will
fill the gap then.
|9.21.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Even better, hire the Mob. They know how to get someone
killed.
I know, hire Joe Peschi. He knows how to get things done.
GILMORE|9.21.09 @ 6:20PM|#
On The News Hour just now
Hilary Clinton on Afghanistan troops:
"We're going to be very deliberate"
About what?
"We're still deciding"
I think that sums it up
Brian Lockwood|9.21.09 @ 6:57PM|#
John,
If you are so into nation building, why not occupy Somalia? It is
the same situation as Afghanistan. Weak central government not in
complete control of the country that is harboring terrorists. The
reason we don't go in there is that the benefits do not out way the
cost. Why spend billions of dollars and risk the lives of our
soldiers to occupy the place when special forces and air strikes
can accomplish nearly the same goal? And before you criticize, I
should say that I completely supported (and still do) the initial
invasion of Afghanistan. I just think the main goals of that
invasion have been achieved and a continued occupation isn't
advancing any of our interests.
Bookworm,
You are too apologist for my tastes. Fact of the matter is that
most terrorists hate the US for what is great about this country,
not all the bad stuff we have done. Most Palestinian terrorists
hate Israel because they are Jewish, not because of a particular
policy.
Lynwood|9.21.09 @ 9:29PM|#
Our commitment, customer is God.
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE====== http://www.icfshop.com
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is
enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can
ship within 24 hours after your payment.
accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price:
(Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE===== http://www.icfshop.com
I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
lucy lanes|9.21.09 @ 10:02PM|#
I don't know, can he say no to General McChrystal? If he needs to say no, I hope he does, but if he says yes, I hope he does what he needs to for the continued protection of our country and the USA.
Michael Ejercito|9.21.09 @ 10:26PM|#
Because we would never do that and they know it. Further, the place is so poor that I am not sure rubble is much of a threat. Further, even if they don't want the Taliban to take over, what if they can't stop them despite their best efforts?
Then perhaps we should threaten to use poison gas.
This whole war was the result of the Taliban sheltering Al
Qaeda.
I didn't say police actions would be easy or cheap, but it seems apparent to me that we are fostering resentment in Afghanistan by tromping around there, attempting to de facto colonize it.
Apparently there was enough resentment for the U.S.S. Cole bombing,
nevermind 9/11.
Plus, those people were willing to kill and burn over a bunch of
cartoons. There is no reasoning with them. Just use poison gas and
be done with it.
So, you advocate carpet bombing the Saudis? Because if we're going to start hunting down anti-American religious fanatics, that's the place to start.
If the Saudis shelter Al Qaeda, I am fine with thermonuclear
weapons followed up with nerve gas.
Our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is just breeding more terrorists.
How so?
Police abuses in America have not resulted in retaliatory bombings
of police cars and police stations.
|9.22.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"""This whole war was the result of the Taliban sheltering Al
Qaeda.""
Close, it was about the Taliban's failure to hand over OBL, not AQ
per se. Bush told them to hand over OBL or else. They chose or
else.
""How so?
Police abuses in America have not resulted in retaliatory bombings
of police cars and police stations.""
Except for that Waco/OK City bombing thing, and maybe a few others.
It depends if you want to count burning police cars or if your
strictly interested in bombs.
But there is a nexus between kicking peoples asses and them wanting
revenge for their kicked asses. Right?
Michael Ejercito|9.22.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Except for that Waco/OK City bombing thing, and maybe a few others. It depends if you want to count burning police cars or if your strictly interested in bombs.
But there is a nexus between kicking peoples asses and them wanting revenge for their kicked asses. Right?
So when will the families of Sean Bell and Pedro Navarro-Oregon start killing police officers.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245