Key word: "Flip-flop."
Seemingly ready-made joke that contains a pop-culture reference you might need to be over 40 to get: "…HIS MCMASTER’S VOICE."
Whether you get the reference or not, you might be interested to know that Wikipedia has a page for "His Master's Voice":
His Master's Voice, abbreviated HMV, is a famous trademark in the music and recording industry and was the unofficial name of a major British record label [parent of RCA]. The name was coined in the 1890s as the title of a painting of a dog...."His Master's Voice" is also the title of a sci-fi book by Stanisław Lem:
[T]he dog, a terrier named Nipper, had originally belonged to Barraud's brother, Mark. When Mark Barraud died, Francis inherited Nipper, with a cylinder phonograph and recordings of Mark's voice. Francis noted the peculiar interest that the dog took in the recorded voice of his late master emanating from the horn, and conceived the idea of committing the scene to canvas....
In 1968, RCA introduced a modern logo and restricted the use of Nipper to the album covers of Red Seal Records. The Nipper trademark was reinstated to most RCA record labels in the Western Hemisphere beginning in late 1976 and was once again widely used in RCA advertising throughout the late 1970s and 1980s....
It is a densely philosophical first contact story about an effort by scientists to decode, translate and understand an extraterrestrial transmission.... [T]he scientists are able to use part of the data to synthesize a substance with unusual properties. Two variations are created: a glutinous liquid nicknamed "Frog Eggs" and a more solid version that looks like a slab of red meat called "Lord of the Flies" (named for its strange agitating effect on insects brought into proximity with it, rather than for the allegorical meaning of the name).... "Frog eggs" seems to enable a teleportation of an atomic blast at the speed of light to a remote location, which would make deterrence impossible....But back to Breitbart. It's easier to understand than Lem's frog eggs. I'm not going to read all these articles. As a collection of headlines, they make a spicy first page, but I'm just going to use a sampling method by clicking on one. I choose "Flynn: An Old Casino King Doubles Down on a Bad Hand in Afghanistan." Flynn is a Daniel J. Flynn, not Michael Flynn, the general who used to have Trump's ear, and the headline distracted me into thinking Trump's old confidant had taken a swipe at him. No sooner do I succumb to the click than I get the feeling there's nothing here that isn't already understood from the headline, which now looks like a one-liner for a late-night talk-show host.
By the time the project is ended, they are no more sure than they were in the beginning about whether the signal was a message from intelligent beings that humanity failed to decipher, or a poorly understood natural phenomenon.
But Trump himself introduced the idea that he's playing a card game. From the text of the speech:
No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan and South Asia, but we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions. When I became President, I was given a bad and very complex hand, but I fully knew what I was getting into: big and intricate problems. But, one way or another, these problems will be solved -- I'm a problem solver -- and, in the end, we will win.He didn't say "I was dealt a bad and very complex hand," nor did he say "we will play to win." He didn't stress the card-playing metaphor, and but — by using the word "hand" — Trump played into the hands of comedians and headline writers who easily connect his presidential rhetoric to his old work in the gambling business.
The term "double down" comes from blackjack: "to double the bet after one has seen the initial cards, with the requirement that one and only one additional card be drawn." That's the OED, which explains the extended use: "to engage in risky behaviour, esp. when one is already in a dangerous situation." I'm fascinated by one of the examples, from a 1991 set of essays by Joseph Epstein called "Line Out of a Walk."
Epstein's weird title is easily understood once you learn that the artist Paul Klee described how he draws by saying, "I take a line out for a walk." And if that interests you, remember I have a whole series of blog posts called "How to draw/paint like Paul Klee," including "Approximating biomorphs," which sounds frog-egg-related, and see how this blog post is taking a line out for a walk?
Anyway, Epstein's quote, illustrating how to use "double down," is "Let me double down..and see if I can't win some points for being a racist by asserting that, for some while now, black men have worn hats with more flair than anyone else in America."
And that's where this walk abruptly ends, because Amazon's "look inside" feature excludes the page with that quote and there's no Kindle edition. I'll just assume the venerable essayist is only joking about being a racist, back in 1991 when smart white people were comfortable with the notion that everyone is racist and exposing a detail of one's own particular racism felt like a mark of sophistication.
Posts
273 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 273 of 273If you don't like Sun Tzu, try Moltke. The Elder not the Lesser.
Or read Svechin, Triandifilov, and Tukhachevskii. Fuller, the indirect approach. Deep battle/Deep Operations. Battle is not the payoff. The goal is not to destroy the enemy army.
buwaya said...
The rest of Afghanistans peoples are pro-government and its mainstays, to the extent there is one, the Tajiks, Hazaras, Turkmen, etc.
Hamid Karzai is an ethnic Pashtun (Pathan) as were members of his government.
From wiki:
[Pashtuns are] largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, Pashtuns have been the dominant ethno-linguistic group for over 300 years.
There have been many notable Pashtun people throughout history. Ahmad Shah Durrani is regarded as the founder of the modern state of Afghanistan. Bacha Khan was a Pashtun independence activist against the rule of the British Raj. Some others include Malala Yousafzai, Hamid Karzai, and Imran Khan.
Hard to be a bigger 'mainstay' of government than to be its founder.
So let me repeat: you claim that Islam poses an existential threat to America. My question is very simple: how? And how does helping the Kabul government get control of Helmand province mitigate this existential threat?
I gave you my answer. Figure it out.
As for your second question: if you carefully read what I wrote, you will note that I did not mention the war in Afghanistan and I did not advocate for a military commitment to that country. Nor did I advocate against commitment.
I see antiphone has given up reasonable debate.
Tillerson is on TV now talking about Pakistan. I wonder if the absence of Pakistan in the Wasserman Schultz/ Awan indictment, means that this is now a national security/espionage investigation.
The Pakistanis may have infiltrated the government through the Democrats in Congress and the Pakis may have been running our Afghan policy. The ROE were crazy but maybe that was part of it.
This could mean war with Pakistan, or some lesser manifestation of it. We have been in a sort of war with them for a decade as they sheltered Osama and the Taliban.
After all, Castro ran our Cuba policy for years through his agent in CIA.
"The goal is not to destroy the enemy army."
No, the goal is to defeat it so you can work your will on the people.
What direction should your will take you, once the people are in your power?
"Hard to be a bigger 'mainstay' of government than to be its founder."
This is the nature of imperial states. The dominant group splits in power struggles, while minorities, if not separatists (and in Afghanistan there really isn't anywhere to separate TO) usually back the central government out of self protection.
No, the goal is to defeat it so you can work your will on the people.
Partly right. Now: how do you defeat it? More to the point, what's the best/ideal way to achieve victory? See my reading list. Extend the metaphor into the civil/political spheres.
@Roughcoat:
I gave you my answer. Figure it out.
Brilliant. You make a claim but absolutely refuse to back it up. Well, as best I can figure out, you're repeating a cliche and when called to defend it, you back down. Great way to converse and exchange ideas and different viewpoints there.
Actually Kabul is a "city State" sucking all the life blood out of the provinces in the form of taxes and is despised by the tribal chiefs in the hinterlands. And the tribal chiefs despise the Taliban also with whom they battle for power and influence. Best solution is to heavily arm and bribe the Tribal Chiefs and let them deal with the Taliban valley by valley. As one British diplomat once said when he was congratulated on the way the British "ran" Egypt during the time of the Khedive (1882-1914) : "Oh we don't actually run anything, but we DO control those who do."
@buwaya:
These are all Pathans. The Taliban and all its factions are a Pathan movement.
That is not true. See here:
The Non-Pashtun Taleban of the North: A case study from Badakhshan
Ethnic Minorities Are Fueling the Taliban’s Expansion in Afghanistan
"Partly right. Now: how do you defeat it? "
If all they have is guerrilla war, then their people are already at your mercy.
The only thing that guerrilla war prevents is peaceful or benevolent policies vis-a-vis the people.
It does not protect them from harsh policies, such as ethnic cleansing, depopulation or extermination.
"And the tribal chiefs despise the Taliban also with whom they battle for power and influence. "
Interesting thought. Any evidence ?
"What is the threat? If not through terrorism, how can Islam pose an "existential" threat to us?"
Islamic governance is antithetical to our form of governance. Which would not be a problem if we didn't consider Islam a religion. By doing so we are forced to accept it as equal to our own western values, which it obviously is not. Islam as a religion (which it is not) poses no real threat. Islam as a form of governance hiding behind the mask of religion does.
Step 1: Islam is not a religion.
How the Russians won a guerilla war -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
@pacwest:
Islam as a form of governance hiding behind the mask of religion does.
Okay, even granting all that you have written here, that does not answer the question of mine you quoted. Absolute dynastic monarchy is "antithetical to our form of governance," too, but that doesn't mean it poses an existential threat to us.
@buwaya:
How the Russians won a guerilla war -
That's how the Roman Empire did it, too. So what?
"That's how the Roman Empire did it, too. So what?"
Because sometimes, that's what it takes.
J. Farmer,
I assumed roughcoat was using the word existential not in it's pure meaning as towards existenialism, but in its catchall meaning as in human crisis as applies towards human endeavor. Symantics, but I thought the underlying point was valid.
@buwaya:
So should the US respond to the problem of Abu Sayyaf by murdering a quarter of the Filipino population? Would that be "what it takes?"
@pacwest:
I assumed roughcoat was using the word existential not in it's pure meaning as towards existenialism, but in its catchall meaning as in human crisis as applies towards human endeavor. Symantics, but I thought the underlying point was valid.
I never presumed he was using the term "existential" in its philosophical context. And I have never heard "existential" as having a "catchall meaning" of "human crisis as applies towards human endeavor." The catchall meaning of "existential" is having to do with existence. Hence, when someone speaks of an "existential threat," they are implying that ones existence is at risk. Therefore I can only presume that he means Islam threatens the existence of the US. And all I am asking him to do is explain how. But he gave me his response, "figure it out," which suggests to me that he does not actually have an answer to my question.
"So should the US respond to the problem of Abu Sayyaf by murdering a quarter of the Filipino population? "
Only about 5%, the Muslim fraction of the population.
That's what the Romans would have done.
Not even Duterte is up to that, and the US less so.
The Spanish had the best approach, which was gradual religious conversion.
Unfortunately they only had about 15 years to work at it.
I guess the old reading of the term existential threat would be A threat that exists, the more modern one would be A threat to the existence of something.
Is Islamic terrorism a threat that exists? Sure. Is Islamic terrorism a threat that could feasibly end the Western way of life? Not terrorism alone, I don't think. It could be argued that the greater threat is encroaching Islamism combined with gradual sublimation of Western cultural values in favor of Islamic values. By Islamism I mean the acceptance and approval (tacit or otherwise) of violent Jihadism in Muslims.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@buwaya:
So should the US respond to the problem of Abu Sayyaf by murdering a quarter of the Filipino population? Would that be "what it takes?"
Now who is using strawmen ?
David Goldman estimates that wars end when the aggressor has lost 1/3 of the military age male population. Or the losing side gives up.
France in 1940 could not face that again.
Germany now cannot face even the local fight against the "immigrants."
Can Britain ? I don't know.
Can we ? We draw our military from a small fraction of the population.
The feminization of the military and the obsession with Social Justice may have given us a Navy that can't even negotiate narrow straits without running into other ships.
The Air Force is facing a similar problem. Pilots are leaving because of inadequate flying time and poor maintenance.
They get too much office time and not enough cockpit time. Too many powerpoint sessions.
The Navy admiral in charge of that Desron was a chairborne warrior until that ticket punching berth opened up.
@buwaya:
Now who is using strawmen ?
Did you read what he wrote? He brought up genocide as a means of winning guerrilla warfare. When I asked what that had to do with today's world, he said that it is "sometimes what it takes." It's not a straw man if someone is advancing an argument directly. So when I pointed out that Philippines could get rid of Abu Sayyaf by simply murdering a huge number of Filipinos, which would include Abu Sayyaf among its ranks, he responded, "Only about 5%, the Muslim fraction of the population. That's what the Romans would have done." Again, those are his words, not a straw man.
@buwaya:
Only about 5%, the Muslim fraction of the population.
Abu Sayyaf has perhaps 500 members. So to stop them, you're okay with murdering 5,000,000 people. Is that correct? If not, then I still don't know what your point was in bringing up genocide as a solution.
Nanopod covers my response for the most part. I think we agree about not letting the not letting the wolf in sheep's clothing into the US though. I'd like to follow through, but off to the mountains today.
@Michael K:
Can we ? We draw our military from a small fraction of the population.
The total deaths of Americans from Muslim terrorists is way less than 5 figures. That is about one-thousandth of one percent.
Can't stand Trump and disagree with his Afghan adventure... but have more confidence we will make a fish or cut bait decision quicker with Mattis and Tillerson running point. Like how Tillerson called out Ruskies on supplying arms to Taliban. Only way I see any success is we give Russia and China the mineral rights, help with intel and let them do the Taliban wet work. That way, we don't waste our boys and you blood-thirsty creatures get to see some scorched islamic earth that you pray to jesus for.
"Abu Sayyaf has perhaps 500 members"
You are looking at a small subset of the trouble.
Just for the overt lot, you are really dealing with a mass of organizations, including the MNLF, the MILF, these days the "Maute", which is actually a Lanao clan, "ISIS", or whomever wants to call themselves that, and any number of ad-hoc freelancers and opportunists, many of whom seem to be trickling into Marawi. Just the government "registered' armed men in the recognized MNLF/MILF are over 40,000.
ANY of these can make trouble at any moment, or any Muslim male for any reason can, and new groups pop up all the time. The invasion of Zamboanga in 2013 was by the formerly tamed MNLF Nur Misuari faction that decided to go on the warpath -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboanga_City_crisis
And, moreover, just to give a taste of the place, foreigners are not advised to be tourists in Zamboanga (a largely Christian city) because of the extreme danger of kidnap by opportunistic Muslims. Who are likely as not to call themselves "Abu Sayyaf" or "ISIS" if it suits them.
The overall problem is massively larger than "Abu Sayyaf".
And the Mindanao Muslim situation is akin to the state of the Muslim world as a whole. To see this or that named group or band as the problem is extremely short sighted. These groups are latent, they form all the time and call themselves whatever is fashionable, or nothing at all.
"That is about one-thousandth of one percent."
Not of the potential volunteers. Still, we are probably OK. I see the kids volunteering but we need to take better care of them.
Less "social engineering" would help.
The "Big Army is probably 85% "tail" but the 15% at the sharp end are good. They are getting exhausted by deployments, though.
@buwaya:
The overall problem is massively larger than "Abu Sayyaf".
You tell me the number. Is it 100,000? 500,000? You're advocating the genocide of 5,000,000 people.
Farmer, you are wearing out the patience of other people than just me with your straw men.
Come on !
"You tell me the number. Is it 100,000? 500,000? You're advocating the genocide of 5,000,000 people."
No-one has any idea of the number or proportion of this population who would go on the "Islamic" warpath, and under what circumstances. The only certain thing is that any one of them could decide at any moment to do so. And that those who do would have the sympathy to some degree or other, of the quiescent population. There were, for example, over 500 extremely well armed Maute clansmen and allies that set up depots and positions in Marawi in preparation for their revolt, kept quiet by the city population. And that was while the local PA garrison was skirmishing with them in the nearby countryside.
No, I'm saying that's what the Romans or the Mongols would have done to solve the problem, as they did with the Belgae.
@Michael K:
As I said once before (and you ignored), it isn't a straw man when someone is advocating something directly. And while buwaya may be talking about things on a different scale, he is simply reiterating a popular refrain that has been repeated in this and other threads. The problem is simply that the US is not killing enough people. This is just a "we know what you are we're just haggling over price" scenario. Achilles says we need to murder everyone that calls themselves "taliban." How many people is that? If I ask him to clarify, is that me attacking a straw man. When I ask buwaya why bring up genocide in the context of this thread, he says that "sometimes that's what it takes." I am trying to understand what he means by that, and pursuing that is not a straw man. Come on!
@buwaya:
Let's make this simple. Say I made you commander-in-chief and the Afghanistan strategy was completely left in your hands. What would you do?
@buwaya:
p.s. If Duterte announced tomorrow that the Philippines government would begin systematically, summarily executing Muslims due to the threat they pose to Philippines security, what would your reaction to such a policy be and why?
" If I ask him to clarify, is that me attacking a straw man."
Yes when you are acting as aggressively in trying to bully someone who is discussing in good faith.
"Are you a white supremacist?"
That's what I mean. There is far too much of that going around and you seem to be on a hobby horse, to mix metaphors.
@Michael K:
Yes when you are acting as aggressively in trying to bully someone who is discussing in good faith.
So then you're problem is not that I am attacking a straw man (which I clearly am not) but that I am being a "bully." How is that? I have not attacked him personally or said one thing about his character, and I don't deny he is acting in good faith; I am trying to understand what he means. He is the one that posited genocide as a solution to guerrilla warfare.
"Are you a white supremacist?"
That's what I mean.
If someone asked me that question, I would say "no" and explain why. I wouldn't complain about being bullied, which that question most certainly does not qualify as.
"Say I made you commander-in-chief and the Afghanistan strategy was completely left in your hands. What would you do?"
I have no idea, not being privy to information the US military has.
On a general policy direction I would find the most terrible internal or external armed group willing to take charge of the place, richly subsidize them, and leave them to their own devices.
"The problem is simply that the US is not killing enough people."
Its not. There is no getting around that. The US may be incapable of solving the Afghanistan problem for that very reason. The US wants an end to a war that is by definition endless, because it is endemic to the society it exists in.
If the US is unwilling or incapable of changing that society, or of finishing it off or driving it away, then the war is forever. Pretty much how all of the Muslim "bloody border" wars are.
@buwaya:
I have no idea, not being privy to information the US military has.
On a general policy direction I would find the most terrible internal or external armed group willing to take charge of the place, richly subsidize them, and leave them to their own devices.
Fair enough. And how would that make the US any better off than we are right now? Other than not having our troops in that godforsaken country.
@buwaya:
Its not. There is no getting around that.
There is a line of argument that says if the US were to act in a more aggressive, brutal fashion, it would simply rally the average Afghan around the Taliban and make the problem much worse. And, of course, the US would suffer attacks and losses, too. Something the average American has a hard time stomaching, especially considering that what is going on with Afghanistan has pretty much no consequence for the typical American.
"p.s. If Duterte announced tomorrow that the Philippines government would begin systematically, summarily executing Muslims due to the threat they pose to Philippines security, what would your reaction to such a policy be and why?"
Even Duterte is incapable of independently deciding this, barring an atrocity on such a cosmic scale, and risk of more, that would make this a consensus in Philippine Christian society. Given such a consensus I would have no option but to back it.
Note that the policy of every Philippine government, colonial or independent, has been to keep the Muslims suppressed at the lowest possible cost. The consensus has been to live with the troubles, which are not, today, any worse than they have usually been. The Philippines, at least, regards all this as "normal", which is understandable after hundreds of years of the same thing.
"Farmer, you are wearing out the patience of other people than just me with your straw men."
What you mean is that Farmer is frustrating everyone here who is making unsubstantiated claims they cannot support.
"And how would that make the US any better off than we are right now? Other than not having our troops in that godforsaken country."
Not having your troops in that godforsaken country is certainly being better off.
Also not having conceded defeat is a very valuable thing, as that is just the ticket to make this all more popular elsewhere. There is a whole world that would be affected by what the US does, or happens to the US, in Afghanistan. There would be a vast number more killed all over as a consequence, even if no other American dies.
The trick is how to do #1 without ending up with #2
"Even Duterte is incapable of independently deciding this, barring an atrocity on such a cosmic scale, and risk of more, that would make this a consensus in Philippine Christian society. Given such a consensus I would have no option but to back it."
A rather shocking admission. Does this mean you would agree with such a policy, or that you would simply have no means of opposing it?
"A rather shocking admission. Does this mean you would agree with such a policy, or that you would simply have no means of opposing it?"
Given what it would take to create such a social consensus (an Islamic nuclear attack on Manila?), yes I would probably agree. The probability of this consensus, or my acquiesence, is extremely low, but certainly not zero.
I don't pretend to virtue on matters where I have not been tested.
You guys sound like global warming alarmists. Especially since we have not targeted North Africa and Saudi Arabia is like alarmists not wanting to support nuclear power.
"Especially since we have not targeted North Africa"
You certainly have and are. US forces have often raided and bombed Islamist targets in North Africa and its allies have also, especially France.
Thats why you have these guys -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command
Saudi Arabia is, as always, a special case.
What you mean is that Farmer is frustrating everyone here who is making unsubstantiated claims they cannot support.
Even you, Cookie ?
See what I mean, Farmer? Even Cookie is frustrated.
"Even Cookie is frustrated."
Everyone is frustrated. They have always been. Islam is simply very difficult to live with, and more so if you are its close neighbors. There are no good answers unless you want to do the unthinkable.
If you can avoid being their neighbors, do that. Everything else is much harder.
"The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" by Samuel Huntington.
Good starting point for understanding the Islam-as-an-existential-threat-to-the-West thesis.
Also: "Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey" by V.S. Naipul. Dated but still relevant.
You certainly have and are.
Don't you think, after all these years living and prospering in these here United States, you could "we certainly have and are"? You know, like you're actually a part of the community in which you live.
Talk about your aloof colonialist mindset.
Well, at least you did breed with one of the natives.
"Talk about your aloof colonialist mindset. "
One has to keep ones distance old chap.
Else you really do "go native", and that is an irrevocable step.
This was a pretty good thread.
I fear the trolls will show up now. I can recommend McCullough's "The Path Between the Seas."
I'm about to start a biography of John Hay. Lincoln's secretary who wound up Secretary of State.
Looks like Bannon was the source of the leaks.
@Michael K:
This was a pretty good thread.
Agreed. Granted, I tend to get frustrated on this topic and perhaps do not present myself in the way I always try to present myself, but I still think it was a good back and forth. For what it's worth, while I may disagree vehemently with the opinions of buwaya and Achilles, I always enjoy sparring with them. Similarly, and while compliments tend to make me uncomfortable, I do appreciate Robert Cook's kind words of agreement. That he and I can have a meeting of the minds on issues of foreign policy while having strong disagreements on the domestic front just goes to show how the old left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R dichotomy is so useless for framing issues in the contemporary world.
And as far as book recommendations go, let me toss one into the ring. Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War by Pat Buchanan. By the end of the book, I was not persuaded by Buchanan's argument, but it's a terrific piece of revisionism that contains a lot of thought-provoking material. That Buchanan as a writer always has at least one eye on America's post-Soviet Union foreign adventurism makes it all the more enjoyable.
I like Buchanan's books and might read that one.
You should, if you haven't and maybe you have, John Lukacs book,. Five Days in London; May 1940.
It's a very small book but it shows how close we were to a triumphant Hitler in 1940.
Halifax would have signed an armistice in minute.
I think we should have stayed out in 1917. It was hard with the Kaiser as stupid as he was. I alsoi think the British would have done well to stay out and let it be a replay of 1870 but Belgium really was raped.
Sir William Osler was all set to go to Louvain for the 500th anniversary of Vesalius' birth (or death, I forget) when the Germans burned down the library with the only vellum copy of his book. They really acted like barbarians.
Trump has Corretta Scott King on stage with him in Phoenix. The Democrats are overmatched.
J. Farmer said...
@buwaya:
Its not. There is no getting around that.
There is a line of argument that says if the US were to act in a more aggressive, brutal fashion, it would simply rally the average Afghan around the Taliban and make the problem much worse. And, of course, the US would suffer attacks and losses, too. Something the average American has a hard time stomaching, especially considering that what is going on with Afghanistan has pretty much no consequence for the typical American.
1. The average Afghan hates the Taliban. They are truly despicable people. If someone showed the will to wipe them out very few in Afghanistan would shed a tear and they are just as awful. I have dozens of stories from intel and personal experience.
2. Name a Muslim controlled country that has not committed Genocide/Ethnic cleansing. Well over 90% of the muslim population in the world has participated in the elimination of at least one minority population. The religion is rabid. It will not stop until it is put down.
Isolation just delays the confrontation. Islam will not stop until it is stopped or defeated. You are just choosing to delay the confrontation and allowing them to grow in numbers and power. Your path just means more people will die in the end unless you would rather surrender.
If the course of history was on a stable path at some point someone would have to put them down. But it is not on a stable path. We have 20 years at most before things get really crazy and the threat of Islam will seem like nothing compared to what is coming.
So I agree with what Trump is doing by letting Mattis off the leash from the perspective of the veteran who has fought with these scum. Mattis just went to Iraq to announce they are putting an end to ISIS. They are pledging to destroy the Taliban. I will not be convinced they mean it until I see the pile of skulls. It is easily within our capability, but too many creatures in the swamp are invested in perpetual war.
But I also agree none of it matters. Just not for the same reasons you do.
The Althouse vortex has a logo. A borrowed one.
"Even you, Cookie?"
Nope, not me.
@Achilles:
We may be too far past this thread to continue any meaningful back and forth but I did not want to let your last statement to me go unanswered.
1. The average Afghan hates the Taliban. They are truly despicable people. If someone showed the will to wipe them out very few in Afghanistan would shed a tear and they are just as awful. I have dozens of stories from intel and personal experience.
I do not deny this point. But I linked to two articles earlier about how Taliban recruiting efforts were going, particularly among non-Pashtuns in the north and the joining of other ethnic minorities. Part of the difficulty in fighting this campaign is that it is not always so simple to differentiate Taliban from non-Taliban, and a lot of Taliban recruitment is in fact driven by people who have had their homes accidentally destroyed in airstrikes or have had close family members accidentally killed by coalition troops. From Giles Dorronsoro of the Carnegie Endowment:
"Most of the fighters do not join the Taliban for money. They join because the Afghan government is unjust, corrupt, or simply not there. They also join because the Americans have bombed their houses or shown disrespect for their values. For young people, joining the Taliban is a way to earn social status."
Who Are the Taliban?
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@buwaya:
The overall problem is massively larger than "Abu Sayyaf".
You tell me the number. Is it 100,000? 500,000? You're advocating the genocide of 5,000,000 people.
8/22/17, 3:58 PM
My God, man, and what's that to you? If I told you, with metaphysical certainty, that 5 million people would die in the AfPak region if the US doesn't stay involved, your response would be something on the order of "so how about those Mets?" You don't care how many foreigners die, for some reason you just don't want the US involved. Don't play the humanitarian hypocrite now.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@buwaya:
Let's make this simple. Say I made you commander-in-chief and the Afghanistan strategy was completely left in your hands. What would you do?
8/22/17, 4:12 PM
Buwaya can speak for himself but if you were to ask me: smallpox. Collaborators get vaccine. (Maybe Dr K could advise a better agent.)
Post a Comment