Reason Morning Links: Warning on Afghanistan, Net Neutrality Coming, PATRIOT Act Provisions Up for Renewal

- Top U.S. and NATO commander says that without more troops, the war in Afghanistan may fail.

- New York Gov. David Paterson says he'll run for reelection despite Obama's show of no confidence.

- FCC expected to vote to impose "Net neutrality" regulations.

- Least surprising news today: Federal Katrina funds steered toward political pet projects.

- Congress to hold hearings this week on extending key provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

Comments

[John-David]

New York Gov. David Paterson says he'll run for reelection despite Obama's show of no confidence.

I'm guessing he didn't see Obama's request coming.

[Troy]

"We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves,"

We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

[Michael Ejercito]

We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage.

How would strategic defeat result from civilian casualties?

Here in America, civilian casualties by the police have not resulted in a strategic defeat for them.

[Warty]

The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily;

All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll win, just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.

[John Tagliaferro]

Top U.S. and NATO commander says that without more troops, the war in Afghanistan may fail.

They need to send some Chicago politicians over there to clean up that crooked government.

[Michael Ejercito]

All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll win, just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.

That must be how the Gauls avoided conquest by the Romans.

[0%]

We play the game
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range
We play the game
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range

FTFY

[Tricky Prickears]

FCC expected to vote to impose "Net neutrality" regulations.

about the need for transparency from carriers on how they run their networks to ensure that they aren't singling out technologies that might compete with their own services.

I am a Comcast customer. About 6 months ago Comcast instituted an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)

Comcast offers an internet phone service which directly competes with Vonage. I wonder how many people have been flagged by Comcast's AUP policy because they were using Vonage?

In many areas Comcast is operating on 35 year old coax lines with limited bandwidth. Comcast would much rather use the bandwidth for PPV movies and events than on high speed internet.

Anyway, Comcast is screwed. Verizon (Bell Atlantic) is running triple optical fiber (TV, HSI and land line phone) (FiOS) directly to homes. Each connection is direct with no trunk lines. And they're providing better services and lower prices.

[Hugh Akston]

All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll win, just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.

Warty, you unpatriotic islamofacist! How dare you compare terrorists to our noble Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers wanted the freedom to govern their land according to what the knew was right, free of foreign oppression. Obviously there is no similarity.

[James Ard]

Troy, I love the album, and it makes some good observations, but Waters got the war as entertainment part wrong. The first Iraq war, and the wall to wall CNN coverage, was short enough to not wear out the public interest. These longer wars have brought out a fatigue that has the public not wanting to see or hear anything about them.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Founding Fathers wanted the freedom to govern their land according to what the knew was right, free of foreign oppression. Obviously there is no similarity.

The Taliban fight for the freedom to make women into sex slaves just like what happened to Jaycee Lee Dugard.

[Warty]

That must be how the Gauls avoided conquest by the Romans.

They didn't keep an army afield, now did they?

[Seward]

Net neutrality is such a terrible policy on so many levels.

[J_B]

New York Gov. David Paterson says he'll run for reelection despite Obama's show of no confidence.

Gov. Paterson is clearly a racist.

[Warty]

I'm getting a kick out of the thought of Obama holding a triumph, at the conclusion of which he ritually strangles the Taliban commander.

[The Angry Optimist]

Top U.S. and NATO commander says that without more troops, the war in Afghanistan may fail.

Afghanistan - too big to fail?

Let it fail, says I. Sunk costs are sunk.

[R C Dean]

All they have to do is keep forces in the field and they'll win, just like George Washington. Nothing ever changes.

While there's something to this, its not an iron-clad rule. The world is full of guerrilla movements that have not won, and guerillas that have been defeated.

This, however, strikes me as wrong-headed:

We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage.

Strategic victory over guerrillas typically is achieved by armies that are willing to cause civilian casualties and collateral damage. The recent defeat of the Tamil Tigers, the utter failure of the resistance throughout Europe in WWII are just two examples that come to mind.

[John Tagliaferro]

No link to the suspected terrorist arrested over the weekend?

The raid in Queens made Reason, with the note that no arrests were made (at the time of the initial raids).

[Attorney]

How will Obama-bots heads not explode when the PATRIOT Act is extended?

[John Tagliaferro]

While there's something to this, its not an iron-clad rule. The world is full of guerrilla movements that have not won, and guerillas that have been defeated.

Take that Shining Path!

[John Tagliaferro]

How will Obama-bots heads not explode when the PATRIOT Act is extended?

Obama would never misuse those powers. And he just caught three terrorists.

[Space Fiend]

If a guerilla army remains in the field, it has the support of the local populace. As long as that remains true, and it isn't drawn into a battle of annihilation, it will win eventually. The Tamils organized into a regular army that controlled defined territory, and were subsequently defeated. So did the Gauls against Caesar. I can't think of any cases where a guerilla movement was able to keep forces in the field and didn't ultimately win. It's kind of by definition: if you keep an army in the field, you will win eventually. If you are entirely defeated, you lost.

[Warty]

While there's something to this, its not an iron-clad rule. The world is full of guerrilla movements that have not won, and guerillas that have been defeated.

Maybe the rule is something like: forces kept in field + popular support + low enemy public support = guerrilla win.

[Michael Ejercito]

If a guerilla army remains in the field, it has the support of the local populace. As long as that remains true, and it isn't drawn into a battle of annihilation, it will win eventually. The Tamils organized into a regular army that controlled defined territory, and were subsequently defeated. So did the Gauls against Caesar. I can't think of any cases where a guerilla movement was able to keep forces in the field and didn't ultimately win. It's kind of by definition: if you keep an army in the field, you will win eventually. If you are entirely defeated, you lost.

Of course, keeping an army in the field is easier said than done.

[Warty]

Of course, keeping an army in the field is easier said than done.

Of course. That's why Washington was brilliant.

[Brett]

Net neutrality is such a terrible policy on so many levels.

+1. Operators have spent billions on their networks, and the government is now going to control what they're used for.

[Zeb]

"We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range"

"We zap and maim
With the sheer wisdom of being out of range"

These statements are not contradictory or mutually exclusive at all. No fix needed. I'm glad to see someone else likes Roger Waters.

[T]

That must be how the Gauls avoided conquest by the Romans.

And here I thought it was druidic potions and some funny looking short guy with a moustache.

[John]

The Dems talked a ton of shit for the last six years about how Afghanistan was the real war on terror and the war in Iraq distracted the US from it. Well, now is the time to put up or shut up. If it is the "real war" and Iraq just a distraction, Obama should be pulling troops our of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan.

[Xeones]

Fuck the FCC, yo.

How is the very existence of a "Federal Communications Commission" not a blatant violation of the First Amendment?

[Art-P.O.G.]

I'm guessing he didn't see Obama's request coming.

Deeply cruel, but funny.

[J_B]

Net neutrality actually involves two issues...

First, government requiring all network owners to provide equal access for all content regardless of its bandwith and the performance for other users.

The real intent on the left is a fear that network owners will block all content determintal to the network owner.

They have no issue because, unlike the public airwaves, there can be no claim of public ownership of internet networks.

[0%]

Edmunds.com reports that "September's light-vehicle sales rate will fall to 8.8 million units . . . the lowest rate in nearly 28 years, tying the worst demand on record. After the cash-for-clunkers program boosted August sales to their first year-over-year increase since October 2007, demand has plunged. In at least the last 33 years, the U.S. seasonally adjusted annual rate has only dropped as low as 8.8 million units once - in December 1981 - with records stretching back to January 1976."

Edmunds.com

[Troy]

These longer wars have brought out a fatigue that has the public not wanting to see or hear anything about them.

James:

I supposed I would disagree, but only a little. The war, as it was prosecuted the first three weeks in Iraq, was damn good entertainment. Of course the low level combat of just a few ordinary lives being blown to shreds by IEDs on a small scale patrol doesn't have nearly the entertainment drawing power.

[Troy]

James Ard:

Sorry, I fucked that post up. My point, that I didn't make too clearly, was the idea of using all those Predator drones to fly about killing people instead of using boots on the ground. In that sense, I think the "we zap and maim, with the bravery of being out of range," is correct.

[troy]

The Dems talked a ton of shit for the last six years about how Afghanistan was the real war on terror and the war in Iraq distracted the US from it. Well, now is the time to put up or shut up.

Amen.

[John]

Troy,

By implication you bring up an interesting point. And that is that there is a problem with only fighting wars as long as we don't take any casualties. No question, it is better to just kick the living shit out of the enemy. The last thing anyone wants to be in is a fair fight. But, what if that is not possible? Foreign lives are lives to. If a war is not worth an American life, why is it worth an Iraqi life or an Afghan life? My point is that either a war is worth fighting and killing people over or it is not. If it is, then our taking some casualties should not make it not worth fighting. If it is not, even a US casualty free war shouldn't be fought.

[ransom147]

anyone recommend any articles on net neutrality?

[James Ard]

Nice Final Cut reference with that few ordinary lives bit, Troy.

[Corduroy Rocks]

The best article I've seen on net neutrality is here:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775

[troy]

No question, it is better to just kick the living shit out of the enemy.

That remind of when I was in basic training. Our Drill Sergeants quoted that line from the movie Patton. The idea isn't to die for your country, the idea is to make the other poor son of bitch die for his country.

My point is that either a war is worth fighting and killing people over or it is not. If it is, then our taking some casualties should not make it not worth fighting.

I agree. I suppose the argument, then, is what makes a war "worthy"? I should be able to complete this sentence: Afghani and American lives are being lost in Afghanistan to_________________. Well it isn't self defense. There is no way the Taliban is a risk to our borders. It isn't to stopping slavery or genocide. All we seem to be doing is making more enemies by torturing teenage soldiers.

[Troy]

James Ard:

Thanks for noticing. 🙂

[James Anderson Merritt]

Often, I see Obama supporters (or Bush Bashers) bring up that Bush brought us PATRIOT, so it was necessary to replace him.

Well, if PATRIOT is THAT bad (and I won't argue that it isn't) what good is the replacement if he doesn't press the case to eliminate PATRIOT?

Is Obama pressing that case? If not, shouldn't his supporters shut up about Bush's sins? If PATRIOT was right, then quit criticizing Bush about it. If PATRIOT was wrong, then Obama compounds the error by not doing everything he can to scuttle it, and so shows himself to be no better than the reviled predecessor.

[T]

I should be able to complete this sentence: Afghani and American lives are being lost in Afghanistan to_________________.

I'd love to hear anybody in the administration complete that statement right now and follow it up with some justification.

[Meta4]

"There is no way the Taliban is a risk to our borders."

Not our borders. Skyscrapers and subways OTOH...

[ransom147]

thanks Corduroy

[R C Dean]

I can't think of any cases where a guerilla movement was able to keep forces in the field and didn't ultimately win.

Well, in WWII there were guerrilla armies "in the field" that did not win anything. They just stuck around until the Allied armies rolled through.

Really, though, it becomes a matter of definition and, perhaps, tautology. A guerrilla army can stay in the field forever, but if it never takes and holds ground, perhaps by taking over the government a la Castro, it hasn't won anything.

It also matters what counts as an "army". The Sendero Luminoso is still around, albeit much reduced, for example. Is it still an army in the field? Is its victory therefor preordained, eventually?

Also, query whether the IRA, which always had an "army" "in the field" ultimately won.

[PantsFan]

Why hasn't reason posted on the death of Neocon #1?

[jtuf]

troy | September 21, 2009, 12:20pm | #

I agree. I suppose the argument, then, is what makes a war "worthy"? I should be able to complete this sentence: Afghani and American lives are being lost in Afghanistan to_________________. Well it isn't self defense. There is no way the Taliban is a risk to our borders. It isn't to stopping slavery or genocide. All we seem to be doing is making more enemies by torturing teenage soldiers.

How we end a war matters very much on the international arena. If we leave Afghanistan "defeated", then the next government or terrorist group thinking of fighting America will be a bit more confident about attacking us. If we leave Afghanistan "victorious", then future enemies will be more reluctant to challenge us militarily. Defining "defeated" and "victorious" is complicated. Technically, the Nazis still have "forces in the field". Many Nazi groups in Europe and the US push for their goals. This year we even suffered one US casualty from a Nazi. Despite these underground groups, we still consider WWII long won. So, at what point to we start thinking of the Taliban like we think of the Nazis? They are both ex-dictatorships that America and our allies toppled. At what point to we hand over pursuit of the Taliban to regular police forces, declare victory, and bring our military home?

[Brandybuck]

? FCC expected to vote to impose "Net neutrality" regulations.

It's ain't broke, so dammit we need to fix it! Without this Evil Intertoob Mogols will take your children's lunch money!

[Michael Ejercito]

It also matters what counts as an "army". The Sendero Luminoso is still around, albeit much reduced, for example. Is it still an army in the field? Is its victory therefor preordained, eventually?

There was a Japanese soldier who was hiding out on an island near the Phillipines until the '60's.

Does this mean the Japanese did not lose the war until then?

[James Anderson Merritt]

# PantsFan | September 21, 2009, 1:15pm | #
# Why hasn't reason posted on the death of
# Neocon #1?

Is that intended to echo "Bizarro #1"? If so, I like it.