Tag: war

TIME beats the war drum

The cover picture of a woman with her nose cut off is captioned “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan.” This would appear to indicate that the Magic Negro isn’t even thinking about ending the occupation next year or his supporters in the media wouldn’t be reduced to banging the drums in an attempt to stir up some belated war fever in such an obvious way.

The ridiculous thing is the way in which TIME missed the obvious point, which is that the brutal punishment meted out to the young women for breaking a marital contract happened under the American military occupation. Saving the noses of Afghan women certainly isn’t a bad thing but there is no circumstance in which one can honestly claim that it is in the American national interest or concerns American national security in any way.

Talking out of both sides

Joe Lieberman on the Wikileaks document dump: “The disclosure of tens of thousands of classified documents on the Afghanistan war is profoundly irresponsible and harmful to our national security. The Obama administration is absolutely right to condemn these leaks. Most of these documents add nothing to the public understanding of the war in Afghanistan. The materials – which cover the period from 2004 to 2009 – reflect the reality, recognized by everyone, that the insurgency was gaining momentum during these years while our coalition was losing ground. That is precisely why President Obama carried out a policy review in late 2009 and subsequently ordered a surge of forces to Afghanistan as part of a comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency strategy that is now under way under the command of General Petraeus.”

James Jay Carafano of NRO on the same: “For sure, the “Afghan Diary” will be used to trash the U.S.-led war effort, just as the Pentagon Papers were used to undermine the war in Vietnam. But we must remember that (1) selectively released documents lack context and don’t tell the whole story; and (2) these documents are about the past. Wars are won in the future. The U.S. has a new general and a new strategy and more forces. Past performance is no guarantee of future earnings. While the documents may be less useful for understanding where we go from here in Afghanistan, their release certainly speaks volumes about the timeless challenges faced by democracies trying to wage wars. That should be the real focus of public concern. It looks as if information that was released could well put lives at risk in the future.”

One Democrat + One Republican = One War Party. And note the incoherency of the message that they’re pushing with more unity than JournoList. The leaked documents don’t matter and add nothing to the understanding of the war because they are so ancient and from the past… but at the same time they harm national security and are putting lives at risk in the future! I’d be interested to hear a defense of the logic upon which that argument rests.

It’s interesting to see how the War Party, which is ostensibly fighting wars to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, desperately wants to shut off the flow of relevant information to the free and democratic people who are theoretically supposed to be deciding if they wish to engage in war or not. It’s almost as if the War Party is really more dedicated to the “fighting wars” part of the equation than the “to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world” bit.

WND column

Better Late than Never

Being one of the many columnists who initially supported the invasion of Iraq under the mistaken impression that Saddam Hussein had violated a ceasefire agreement with the United States (although I did argue that it should not be undertaken in the absence of a declaration of war), I am in no position to criticize Mr. Farah or anyone else for taking a long time to come around to the understanding that the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq must come to an immediate end.

Only a very few commentators, such as Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo and WorldNetDaily’s own Pat Buchanan and Ilana Mercer, can truly say that they were opposed from the start to the expensive, unconstitutional and ultimately useless abuses of the American military that have been inflicted upon it by Republican and Democratic commanders in chief over the last nine years. And even fewer opinion writers are man enough to admit in public that their previously expressed opinions were incorrect. Farah, to his credit, is not afraid to do so.

“For the life of me, I cannot begin to understand our objectives in either Iraq or Afghanistan any more. … I admit I was a supporter of both of these campaigns. I was obviously wrong.”
– Joseph Farah, Where are protests of Obama’s wars?, July 22, 2010.

Weekly Poll: Afghanistan and Iraq

In light of Mr. Farah’s recent conversion to the anti-war cause, I’m wondering how many readers here support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, how many oppose them, and how many, like Mr. Farah and me, have changed from supporting at least one of them to opposing them both at some point along the way. As for me, I never supported the Afghan war and began openly opposing the Iraqi war in 2004 when I learned that my support for it on the grounds of the broken ceasefire agreement was based on incorrect information; the agreement was between Iraq and the United Nations, not Iraq and the USA. Therefore I was forced to conclude that sans any declaration of war or casus belli, the Iraqi war and subsequent occupation was always wholly illegitimate as well as lacking in any national security interest.

Better late than never

Joseph Farah flips on the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq:

For the life of me, I cannot begin to understand our objectives in either Iraq or Afghanistan any more.

Because I appreciate the sacrifice our men and women are making over there, it is with a heavy heart that I make this proclamation. But enough is enough. We have spent over $1 trillion on these two wars and spilled far too much American blood. We are obviously unwilling as a country to do what is necessary to kill the bad guys in either place, so what is the point? Isn’t it time to declare victory and get out? What is the point? Can someone, anyone, tell me?

I admit I was a supporter of both of these campaigns. I was obviously wrong.

Being one who flipped on the Iraqi War in 2004, I’m hardly in any position to condemn latecomers. I made the mistake of supporting the war under the misconception that the ceasefire Hussein had violated was an agreement between Iraq and the USA, (it was actually an agreement between Iraq and the UN and therefore had absolutely nothing to do with the USA or its national security), but I was always against any potential military occupation. Pat Buchanan, to his credit, was one of the very few who had it right from the start. As for Afghanistan, we never had any business fighting the Taliban in the first place, much less attempting to occupy the country.

Anyhow, it’s good to see relatively mainstream Republicans beginning to join the libertarians in opposing the ongoing occupations. What a pity that the anti-war Democrats have again decided that they like war after all so long as a Democrat is the Commander-in-Chief. But given the history of 20th century American military conflict, it is a mystery that anyone believes Democrats are anti-war.

WWI – Wilson (D)
WWII – Roosevelt (D)
Korea – Truman (D)
Vietnam – Johnson (D)

That is not the track record of an antiwar party. Which, of course, is why I predicted that Obama would not end the wars, but rather, expand them.

Breaking the Army

As if there wasn’t enough reason to stop occupying Iraq and Afghanistan:

For those of us working in the US military it was clear that by the surge in 2007 the US forces were in terrible shape. By 2007, the repeated deployments resulted in an estimated 30 per cent of the US Army with some degree of post traumatic stress disorder. Every indicator of morale showed problems. Divorce and suicide were way up. Officers leaving the service after repeated deployments meant that the promotion selection of those remaining rose to 100 per cent. Before the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars lower performing officers were weeded out on the promotion lists from captain to major and major to lieutenant colonel. Competition for promotions ensured high standards in the officer corps. Normally only about 60 per cent of majors were selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel and those not promoted retired.

Yet by 2007 officer retention was so low that virtually all officers below full colonel were being selected for promotion to the next higher rank. The joke in the US Army was that the new standard for promotion was “fogging a mirror.” This also means that a lot of incompetent officers are moving higher in rank. This means big trouble now and even more in the future.

The absurd thing about these occupations, as with the Korean occupation, is that they have absolutely NOTHING to do with national security except to threaten it. Meanwhile, the southern border is being invaded on a daily basis. And both political parties are culpable.

Fire McChrystal

Then bring the troops home. Does this report give you any reason to believe that the US military is on the verge of achieving victory?

But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American officers had asked permission to destroy.

McChrystal’s devotion to restrictive rules of engagement isn’t totally ridiculous; the Coalition is an army of occupation, not conquest, after all. But, the fact is that Afghanistan isn’t going to be pacified by the mere presence of 100,000 troops over a period of ten years; the incompetence of the US strategy is exhibited by the fact that America’s military leaders had to already know that going in.

If McChrystal wasn’t, like most of the US military’s general class, a politician at heart, he would have resigned, not whined about his Commander-in-Chief to a magazine. Obama does not personally merit respect, but no soldier who fails to respect the chain of command should be permitted to retain his command unless he has some very, very good reasons for not doing so.

UPDATE – Looks like Gen. McChrystal did the honorable thing.

According to an unnamed source ‘Gen. McChrystal has submitted his resignation’ – Joe Klein on Rick Sanchez, CNN…

Mailvox: Fear-based strategy

DS disagrees with today’s column:

Afghanistan is important, although it is being mishandled to the “nth” degree by people who know nothing about combat. Afghanistan was/is the base for the Taliban and they were using it as such for their incursion into Pakistan. The government of Pakistan is at best, wobbly. Pakistan has nukes and the wherewithal to deliver them into the hands of the likes of Al Qaeda or simply launch them against either us or Israel.

By keeping the Taliban fragmented and on the run were have been preventing that from happening. Now maybe you want to wake up to an air burst over the Midwest (or 2, or 3) taking down our grid, our nation and our way of life, followed by mass starvation in our cities, or to read the morning paper and see that Israel no longer exists, but I don’t.

First, it is ludicrous to think that occupying Afghanistan is somehow tantamount to defending American territory against nuclear attack. The invasion of Afghanistan not only destabilized Pakistan, but renders a terrorist nuke more likely since terrorism is a fundamentally non-military option. Keeping the Taliban “fragmented and on the run” in no way inhibits their ability to acquire nuclear technology from North Korea or Iran.

Second, it is remarkable to see DS attempt to argue that we should occupy Afghanistan in defense of Israel. I don’t think even Justin Raimondo at his most peacenik paranoid would draw a connection between the one and the other. This attempted defense isn’t so much hapless as complete gibberish. Anyhow, if Israel’s survival truly depends on occupying Afghanistan then let the IDF do it. As they have demonstrated for 30 years, they are more than capable of occupying territory populated by a hostile people.

Fear seldom leads to clear thinking, least of all when the thinking required is strategic.

WND column

Nine Years of Futility

In December 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan with 80,000 soldiers supported by 1,800 tanks. The government of Afghan President Hafizullah Amin was overthrown in less than a week at a minimal cost of only 86 fatalities. However, Marshal Sokolov was unable to establish control outside the major population centers, and despite reinforcements that increased its total occupation force to 100,000 troops, 80 percent of the country remained outside the control of its military or its puppet government. Over the 10 years of the failed occupation, Soviet forces lost an average of 1,445 dead annually (63 percent of which were combat-related), until they finally retreated in a two-stage, largely peaceful withdrawal that was completed in February 1989.

The United States Yankee Corps

I was raised to revere the Marine Corps my entire life. I have always harbored the greatest respect for the many Marines I have met through the years. But I have absolutely no doubt that my grandfather, who fought in WWII and Korea and was declared a Marine’s Marine by the Commandant of the Corps himself, would be bewildered by the rejection of the American South by what should apparently be renamed the United States Yankee Corps:

Straight out of high school, one 18-year-old Tennessee man was determined to serve his country as a Marine. His friend said he passed the pre-enlistment tests and physical exams and looked forward with excitement to the day he would ship out to boot camp. But there would be no shouting drill instructors, no rigorous physical training and no action-packed stories for the aspiring Marine to share with his family. Shortly before he was scheduled to leave Nashville for boot camp, the Marine Corps rejected him…. When the young recruit didn’t go to boot camp, Andrews learned of his rejection based on his tattoo of the Confederate battle flag on his shoulder.

It would be educational to see what would happen if Southerners refused to enlist and re-enlist until ludicrous ban on Southern heritage and Southron pride is rescinded. Without the South, the Marine Corps would find itself transformed into a mercenary force largely populated by gangsters looking to acquire combat training and Mexicans seeking citizenship. Of course, if that’s the ultimate objective of the policy, then we can expect that the ban on the Confederate Battle flag will only be the first step and it won’t be long before other patriotic symbols such as the Gadsden Flag and the Betsy Ross Flag are banned as well. Does anyone believe a UN or Mexican flag would be cause for similar rejection?

Speaking of Mexico, it is already on the verge of civil war violent revolt in the north. This makes me wonder, how long will it be until Round Two?