Wednesday, October 28, 2009
|
|
Sounds Good, But Will It Work?
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
3:30 PM
|
Thomas Friedman tries to offer a theoretical justification -- some might even call it rationalization -- for an American withdrawal in Afghanistan.
His argument reminds me a lot of the ones used by enablers -- enablers of abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, you name it: That is, "they" won't change until "they" want to. We can't make it happen. And so the best we can do is get out. Then, "they'll" hit bottom and come to their senses.
Such an approach might well make sense in cases of private behavior -- thankfully, I don't have enough experience to know one way or another. But when it comes to very public behavior -- behavior that can result in a suitcase nuke going off in a major American city -- the reasoning is defective.
Friedman's approach might have worked in a different age, one without cell phones, computers and -- oh, yeah! -- suitase nukes. But if we fall for Friedman's line that a "stronger America" will result from abandoning Afghanistan, and then just leave, what could happen as a result? After all, it's important to weigh the risks of a proposed strategy, not just consider possible positive outcomes (as critics like Friedman would have been the first to tell the Bush administration).
Will America really be "stronger" -- as Friedman argues -- if Afghanistan falls to Al Qaeda and its allies, who then push the fight into the already-unstable nuclear power of Pakistan?
|
|
We had a right to go in and kick out the Taliban and drive Al Qaeda out of their camps. Where the Bush administration screwed the pooch was announcing that we were going to bring democracy to Afghanistan. Nobody is ever going to bring democracy to Afghanistan. Nobody is ever even going to impose stability on Afghanistan from the outside.
Afghanistan is very different from Vietnam, but Bush put us in the same position that Johnson put us in in Vietnam: leaving is unacceptable, and staying is unacceptable. No matter what option Obama chooses, there will be reasonable people with reasonable arguments who can say that it's totally wrong. |
|
|
Wouldn't it be cheaper and less deadly (for us, anyway) to just pullback and announce we'll let the afghans fight it out, but we will not accept a Taliban regime? If the Taliban takes over, we go in and kick them out again. Afterall, they're a lot easier to fight when they're out in the open and in charge like that. |
|
|
Understood. With thugs like al-queda, a weak response begets more terrorism from the weaker players not the reverse. |
|
|
Who cares what the crazy left-wing lib Thomas Friedman says? If George W. Bush had listened to his anti-Surge ranting, Iraq would be mayhem right now! |
|
NOTW writes: Thursday, October, 29, 2009 1:31 AM
Col B
It does breed more. They just don't have what it takes to rise above (see last post).
Arch says
:LOL) |
|
|
It does breed more. They just don't have what it takes to rise above (see last post). |
|
|
I'll answer your question with another: who was Zaqwari's (sp) replacement in Iraq? Supposively he had one. Or more locallly who was John Gotti's replacement inn the NY mafia? I don't accept the premise that a strong response to terrorism begets more terrorists. |
|
Spontaneous writes: Wednesday, October, 28, 2009 6:21 PM
Nee
Ah, the discourse of the ignoramuses is led by the king of the assclowns, Nee. Poor, sad sack of sh*t.
Arch says
Spontaneous. You poor ignorant fool! Read Blackfive like Nee said. You are educable are you not? You do have a working brain synapse left right? Am i asking too much? |
|
What about Bin Laden?...
Few ever rise to a level unprecedented. Coming from a bike racing life, it has a certain parallel. Only few somehow are in the 99.9 percentile. In cycling, its genetics, place in life, and fortitude. In war there is a trinity of some sorts also.
Take for instance Armstrong and his campaigns to win that frenchie race. Every year, there are almost 200 in the race. While everyone has the oppurtunity, there but a half dozen that matter and can rise to the top. Once in awhile there is a surprise player. But year over year, the race is won like any other, defeating those that matter.
So the bigger Q is what and who is keeping OBL in the race? |
|
|
This is the devil and I have taken over this blogger. You're hatred turns me on. I will have to plant my seed soon... |
|
Thomas Friedman was invited to the WH and played golf with Obama. Then he wrote the article according to Bill O'Reilly.
|
|
|
You lead them up the hill where the pike and rotted skull stands, look them in the eye and ask, "Any questions?" |
|
|
Then maybe you can answer the question Exeye thus far hasn't: what about Bin Laden's replacement? |
|
|
Ah, the discourse of the ignoramuses is led by the king of the assclowns, Nee. Poor, sad sack of sh*t. |
|
|
So many to vilify and so little time. What with all that constant campaigning and spending money. |
|
HIS latest DEMON is JOE LIEBERMAN
Obama has to manage that personal destruction war and campaign to destroy JORE LIEBERMAN
started with ?
the oil companies
Bush
Palin
Joe the Plumber
Bush
the DRS who chop off feet and rip out tonsils for money
The Banks
Those who earn a living
Rush
The drug companies
Glenn Beck
The insurance companies
BUSH
Fox News
The rich who make 200,000 a year
BUSH
The GOP
The conservatives 912 protesters
Glenn Beck
RUSH
FOX NEWS
BUSH
JOE LIEBERMAN
SO MANY WARS SO LITTLE TIME |
|
Shut the Fuc* up, already.
PS...Friedman and Krugman are idiots in the same pool. Don't give a rat's as* what they have to say.
May I suggest reading Blackfive.net and the latest on COIN and CT in Afghanistan for those of you who actually think. |
|
|
Couldn't have put it better. Gold star for you! |
|
GOES TO RUSSIA
Thought the liberal radicals OBAMA and his extremists said BUSH wanted AFGHANISTAN's obscene pile of natural gas?
IRAQ oil has gone to China now, GEESH it it all belonged to BUSH the hate peddlers claimed |
|
"Maybe. Maybe not." What? Of course, the Taliban will come back strong. And of course, by quitting, we will look weaker than we do now. If we don't want to win, however, then we should get out. After we get rid of the anti-American congress, if need be, we can go back and do it the right way to win.
In the meantime, it is cheaper to pay off a few bad guys to keep the other bad guys in line. We risk losing thousands of American citizens but at least we won't lose soldiers. |
|
|
Well, if we're going to base military foreign policy on a slim possibility of some worst case scenario that might happen eventually down the road, we might as well start WWIII and launch a first strike against China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. |
|
Of wingnut nonsense.
Face it, the wingnut bottom line is war all the time and tax cuts to the wealthy. And screw the neediest - they haven't 'proven' themselves like Carol 'has'. |
|
"One reason to withdraw
Bin Laden. Head. On pike. That is the ONLY reason we're there, and it is the ONLY measure of success."
And his replacement(s)?
|
|
|
Bin Laden. Head. On pike. That is the ONLY reason we're there, and it is the ONLY measure of success. |
|
|
|
|
|