Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, December 11, 2008
George Will :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Long-Term Afghanistan
by George Will
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



WASHINGTON -- With President U.S. Grant's long, narrow desk behind him, he works at Gen. John Pershing's spacious partners desk, and converses with guests at a round table used by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, part of the reassuring furniture of government for most of 42 years, will soon serve his eighth president in a career that began in 1966 when Gates joined the CIA, of which he became director 25 years later.

On Nov. 1, 1979, he was note-taker when Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, met in Algiers with representatives of Iran's radical Islamic regime that had just overthrown the shah, who had fled to the West. Brzezinski assured the Iranians that America would recognize their revolution, sell them weapons the shah had wanted and embrace normal relations. They demanded the shah. Brzezinski rejected that as dishonorable. Three days later, U.S. diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran.

"I actually think," Gates says, "there is a reasonable chance" some combination of diplomatic and economic carrots and sticks can deter Iran, with its ramshackle economy and restive citizenry, from acquiring nuclear weapons, even though its nuclear quest began under the shah. Will other nations assist U.S. nonproliferation efforts? Gates answers obliquely, noting that Vladimir Putin told him that Iran is Russia's biggest security threat. And, he says, Iran might yet recognize that acquiring nuclear weapons would be a net subtraction from its security, if that acquisition provoked nearby nations to become nuclear powers.

Regarding Iraq, Gates is parsimonious with his confidence, noting that "the multisectarian democracy has not sunk very deep roots yet." He stresses, however, that there is bipartisan congressional support for "a long-term residual presence" of perhaps 40,000 U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the president-elect's recent statements have not precluded that. Such a presence "for decades" has, he says, followed major U.S. military operations since 1945, other than in Vietnam. And he says, "Look at how long Britain has had troops in Cyprus."

Regarding Afghanistan, Gates recalls with a flicker of a smile that two decades ago, when "we were the quartermaster for the mujahedeen" fighting the Soviet army, "I was pumping arms across the border to some of the same guys" America is dealing with today. He is encouraged by the "dramatic expansion" of Afghanistan's national army and police. But when asked if Afghanistan has ever had a national government whose writ ran nationwide, he says "no."

Afghanistan, which is almost as large as Texas, has fewer U.S. troops (34,000) than New York City has police (35,800). Asked if NATO, which will celebrate its 60th birthday in 2009, might die from its cumulative futilities in Afghanistan, Gates is acerbic: Afghanistan is the "top operational priority" of NATO, "which must never forget that it is a military alliance, not a talk shop." He says NATO nations other than America have approximately 2.5 million people under arms but protracted wheedling is required to get even 10,000 more for Afghanistan, and they come encumbered with "caveats" that cripple their usefulness.

Still, he thinks there will have to be American boots on Afghanistan's soil for many years because it would be "very difficult" to use "offshore" operations -- special forces, cruise missiles and other airstrikes -- to prevent the country from again becoming an incubator of terrorist capabilities. Noting that the first attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993, he says: "We paid a price quickly for turning our backs on Afghanistan after 1989." For that, he says, he shares the blame.

Asked what worries him most, he unhesitatingly answers with one word: "Pakistan." That nation's western region seethes with threats to the regime, and there are groups that hope terrorist attacks such as those in Mumbai can, like the assassination in Sarajevo in 1914, spark a conflagration.

Still, he says he used "an unfortunate phrase" when he recently said that the world in 1970 was "amateur night" compared to today. He meant that although Henry Kissinger deftly handled three simultaneous challenges (Syria attacking Jordan, turmoil in Lebanon, the Soviets building a submarine base in Cuba), back then crises "had a beginning and an end." Today's festering crises, from North Korea to Kosovo, "come up on the table and don't go off." Fortunately, Gates' experiences in the cauldron of crisis are as impressive as the provenances of his desks and tables.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
George F. Will is a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read George Will's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
LC
Your bias or agenda seems to be affecting your reading comprehension. You say that in my post of 3:17 that I was congratulating another poster 'for his "BRILLIANCE" (your quote marks)in foreign policy matters.'

That is factually incorrect.

Not sure what your inability to perceive the written word could mean about the rest of your conclusions but you might want to ponder that fascicle of your persona.

Also, as if you have been in a coma, you foolishly typed that Obama said he "was going to bring ALL the soldiers home from Iraq immediately."

Again, categorically incorrect.

Are you beginning to see the trend LC?

Actually, let's make deal: You show us the date and place where "Barry Dunham" ever said that and I will never post again. If you cannot, you promise not to post until you have taken a remedial reading class. Deal?

LC - What is your point?
That the US should keep banging away at Iraq? To what end? What is our objective there at this point? To try to continue a temporary stabilization? What are we getting for our dollar?

Afghanistan is where Bin Laden was given sanctuary by the Taliban. The border with Pakistan is destabilized because of the resurgence of the Taliban. This is the focus of the terror organizations and always was, or should have been, the focus of our military capability and planning.

Secondly, the funding for islamic terrorists is largely derived from the drug trade in Afghanistan. Why do you think the warlords work in concert with the Taliban?

Finally, we actually had the support of NATO and other western nations when we went into Afghanistan. An actual coalition of the willing.

Instead, we unilaterally went into Iraq to oust a dictator who may have been a personal irritant to the Bush Administration, but was only a minor irritant to the US. Saddam and Iraq was not the primary military threat to the US. Certainly not on the order of Iran or Al Quaida. We took our eye off the ball.

It's One Brick at a Time
Well, Tom, I can tell you this: I have read the quotes you cite. Some (or many) people cannot absorb the philosophy, or the history, of such callous machinations. My focus is not on the philosophers, but on the MEN who give the philosophy meaning. It is the corruption of ideals, by the people who are empowered to corrupt such ideals, that is the problem. Goering and others of his ilk were certainly correct--but they were men who corrupted ideals to suit their own evil purposes. Since it is almost impossible to argue against the ideal--for example, defeating terrorists--it is better to argue against the MEN who should corrupt this ideal to suit their own purposes. In essence, WE are being played for fools by elitists who would have no job, and no mission, if not for creating a crisis in which their own special interests could be employed. It is these idiots who should be scorned by the American public. If only, by one brick at a time, we could build resistance to their corruption of ideals, then we could make some progress. I only wish that the "big thinkers" like George Will could stop counting their money and start investing in the future of the American Republic.

Let's just end the war on terror.
Well Scott, there may be a method to all that madness you listed. Did you ever see Herman Goering's famous quote during the Nuremburg War Crimes trials after WW Two?

When one of the prosecutor's was telling him how bad the Nazi regime had been and that it could never happen here Goering said:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

Kinda scary huh after the past 7 years.

Responsibility
Gates is to be praised for a rare and altogether statesmanlike acceptance of some responsibility for America's "turning its back on Afghanistan." I admire the character of this man, this human being and citizen. I wish we could altogether leave this region of the world. Our prayer is that Obama press hard for Zbig's plan for another Camp David-like accord, this one "for the ages."

Let's Just End the War on Terror
Whether one calls these wars a product of mercantilism, colonialism, world-building, or neocon idealism, they are simply exhausting this country. Whatever good they might entail--and that's a stretch--the negatives are far higher. The scheme to create the "war on terror," like so many other global schemes, has been in the crock pot for a long time. If I were building a house, got stung by a bee, and spent the next 8 years combing the forest for every hive, my house would never be built. In fact, the cost to this nation has been enormous, with very little gain and a great amount of waste to show for these efforts. Yes, like James Baker once said, the war gives us jobs. Great, a lot of good those jobs will do when our infrastructure collapses. History and economic lessons point to one thing--it is time for us to leave. We may salivate over the vision of Korea and Germany as some of our greatest interventionist moments, but times have changed, and the geopolitics are greatly different. The war on terror was a very bad concept to begin with; it only grows worse with time.

gene
Also, you ask what will Obama be called if he starts acting like President Bush.

I'm not certain but I would guess that it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of "inept" or stupid" depending on what specifically might be the subject.

gene
Tell us seriously, do you think that terrorists could or ever will bring down our nation?

Robert 2:57, Tom 3:17
Tom patting Robert on the back, congratulating him for his "BRILLIANCE" in foreign policy matters. Of course...., that's because Robert agrees with Tom! How marvelous! And what genius!

"And Obama like an idiot seems to be heading down the same path as Bush."

Did it ever occur to you two quiz kids that Barry was read on to the threats to this nation from Islamofascists and that is why he may be taking the same path?

Oh wait...,never mind. You two will never understand the threat until the terrorists are kicking down your door.

Barry Dunham was going to bring ALL the soldiers home from Iraq immediately. Well...,no,now he is not. Barry is sending them to Afghanistan instead.And hey...,keep your eye on Africa too. The two worst places , as far as survival, our troops could be deployed.That's where Barry is sending them.

But hey Tom and Robert, you keep on keepin' on in your little faux world.

In spite of you, this is a real war. It is not going away. It is going to get worse. I do not know how much "HOPE and CHANGE" kool aid you guys drank but Barry ain't fixin' things any time soon.

After thoughts
I agree with the previous commenter's, that the absence of bomb throwers is a pleasant change.

I further agree with Nam 65, that Historian using the comments section to promote a blogspot website violates the rules of TH and if it continues I will begin to flag them as offensive.

Thoughtful comments
The comment thread has offered up some good points of view. We are a nation of immigrants but we have been lead away from being the melting pot by those who would see use become globalists. Most democrats and many republicans are promoting the "citizen of the world" ideology.

Many among them would see the nation state give way to a greater global community with mechanisms such as the UN or something similar to the European Council having ascendancy over the nations in much the same way as the federal government now supersedes the state governments in the U.S.

Nationalism is being painted as a divisive position instead of the glue that binds a nation together. The SCOTUS now cites international law as if it were constitutional precedent.

Isolationism is no answer today any more than it was in Jefferson's time. He understood that our country needs to trade, unhindered by threat of extortion or violence, and to that end he projected force where diplomacy had failed.

I think it is a huge benefit to some of these regions if a little western capitalism wears off on them but building nations is not our function. The proof of the benefit I describe is already evident in China, where in just a decade since the return of Hong Kong, they emerged as a trading juggernaut.

We have already developed the best system for striking a balance between liberty and government in a nation state. That is the system currently under attack by the forces of "change".

We the citizens must insist on the retained rights of a sovereign nation without concession to the leaders who would have us self-subjugate to a global community.

It is incumbent on or leaders to articulate to the people exactly how their policies will achieve that goal.

Symbol of American Culture
The three most recognized SYMBOLs of American Culture would be the Bald Eagle, the Liberty Bell and the Statute of Liberty.

(the flag is a symbol of our nation)

That enduring symbol of our Nations Culture PROUDLY proclaims:

" Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I can clearly see why people like Jim think the fact that I have a dozen ethnic restaurants to drive to is a bad thing.

Also I can see how our CULTURE should be based on keeping others that want to breathe free and live the American Dream out. Clearly makes sense.

Now notice there is a big distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration and visitation on a Visa.

Now here is the 1Million dollar question. How many of the 9/11 hijackers came here illegally?

Redlac
Your description of Afghanistan is absolutely correct. It was set up in it's current form as buffer state between Czarist Russia and British India. Afghanistan's boundaries were established by an Anglo-Russian commission with no input from the Afghans. If you look at the map you'll notice that there is this neck in eastern Afghanistan, the Wakhan Corridor. This created so that Russia and India did not have a common border It was made a part of Afghanistan over the objections of the Afghan government. The southern border, the Durand Line, was drawn through the middle of the Pashtun area, dividing the Pashtuns into two countries, which they've never really recognized. The Afghan government maintains that this agreement with the British expired when they left in 1947. On this basis Afghanistan lays claim to the majority of Pakistan's territory. And we're trying to make it into some sort central Asian Switzerland:(


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/afghan_ paki_border_rel88.jpg

isolation
There's alot of people here are support an isolationist view. God bless you all. However, our world is not one that you can simply build a wall and hide behind it. Nations, cultures, and religious/political views will creep in. For example, Europeon Socialism, as detestable as it is ,keeps sticking its stinking neck in our constitutional gov't. The fact that its unconstitutional to impose socialism on our society never seems to keep this or other ideas out of this country. This and so much more lurk outside our border and seek to instill its will on us. You can't issue some sophomoric platitude about avoiding what's outside and that if we simply ignore it we will all be better off. It took less than 4 years, after we left the mujahajeen ( Spl?) to get mount an attack against us (9/11). And no, I don't but that they attacked us becuase we were somewhere in the middle east meddling in their affairs. They attacked us because we are who we are,...Americans. We are abhorent to them and we must be converted or eliminated. Period. WE can't pretend we live in a bowl anymore.

Gene the Spanish American war
went as planned and in fact so did the war in Iraq. The problem wasn't the war not going as planned it was like with the Spanish American there being no plan for what happened after the war. In the case of the Spanish American war we ended up with 40 some years of occupation in the Philippines which included 20 years of terrorist attacks. In Iraq we are seeing the same pattern followed. This was something conservative warned about while liberals like bush, clinton, gore, and the majority of democrats rushed us into war for their own profit.

Of course nation building is an old old liberal idea. Which always leads to bad results just look at Wilson's nation building experiment in Russia which lead to nearly hundred years of cold war cost billions and took a conservative republican to end. Look at Haiti after clinton attemt at nation bulding there any number of other examples in south America. But liberals never learn anything from past failures they just go no making the same mistakes time after time. I just wonder were Obama is going to start his war Sudan or Pakistan? But you can bet the farm within four years he will have start a war of nation building some place.

NeoCons
What are you guys on the left going to call the Obama administration when they start doing everything Bush was doing?, . . What?!.
The political reality is that Bush did everything a president was suppose to do as a president. Mistakes were made, inteliigence was faulty at times, and people died. That's called WAR!. Please name me a sigle war were everything went well and on schedule with absulutedly no problems. Imagine if we had fully support this from the beginning instead of waiting for a politician we identified with to take command. In truth, Gore would have probably taken the same amount of time, if not longer, to find his Grant (Petraeus) as it did Bush.
Gitmo, Iraq, Afganistan ain't going to change. The only thing that will change is the left's view of it.

Robert
You are entirely correct about nation building. President Bush actually went back on the words of year 2000 candidate Bush per nation building. He may have had reasons, but he simply lied about nation building.

As for Sunni/Shia and knowing what's really going on over there it is obvious they do not. We hear all this ranting from Team Bush about how dangerous Iran is and yet we are supporting the exact same squad in Iraq that controls Iran!

If we really wanted to go after Iran we would have kept Saddam and the Baathist Sunni's in power in Iraq since they hate the Shia in Iran.

But what do we do...we remove Saddam and get rid of the Sunni. Then when we see the whole thing is going down the toilet, the only way we can create even a semblance of order (to Petraeus' credit) is to pay off (with hard American dollars) and rearm the Sunni's!

It would be humorous if it was not so deadly serious.

And Obama, like an idiot, seems to be heading down the same path.

Nation Building?
When did it become our responsibilty to build nations? I would just as soon they remain tribes. The Bush policy of nation building was a fallback position after the WMD fiasco was proven false. I am not sure that the neocons knew the difference between a shiite and a sunni. I am pretty sure Bush was not as aware of the Islamic schism as he should have been. The bloodbath will rival that in Viet Nam. Perhaps worse. The US will have to bear some of the blame for it. Some of these tribes are close to stone age.

We need to insure that our actions are for the benefit of the US. Let us avoid foreign entanglements. Our shores can be protected.

Brian
Not sure that when you say "We are a Christian nation" that you are correct. Actually, our nation was founded because of the desire to escape from (among other things) the religious domination of the Church of England.

A theocracy is probably the worst form of government. Look at Iran. Freedom FROM religion is just as important as freedom OF religion.
As I do not suscribe to0 long as it does not violate the laws of our nation any religion (or lack thereof) is not only allowed it is gauranteed.

Right now it's easy for us Christians to say that we have the ball and bat so it's our game. But the demographics of our nation are going to change dramatically in a few decades and that ball game could also if religion is the key element of our government.

I do not suscribe to any religion having a prominent or position of power in our nation's official government. And neither did the Founding Fathers.

jim
I do not totally agree with you that "We should not allow Moslems in our country, any more than we should allow socialists or communists."

That is actually contrary to our Constitution.

Not all or probably even most "Moslems, socialists, communists" are bad just as all Christians are not good.

We have to stand up in Afghanistan
This should have been the focus for the past eight years. Bin Laden planned his attacks under the protection of the Taliban and the warlords. If we had only focused on this fact instead of Iraq....


Islam as enemy
The real intractable problem on the worlds stage is Pakistan/India, because of profound religious differences going back 60 years to the partition of the nation into a Muslim and Hindu homeland. They have been fighting over Kasmir for literally decades, both have nuclear weapons, and large populations of very poor cannon fodder the elites would not hesitate to expend in the name of national interest. Plus, we really do not possess the mental toughness and pragmatism to negotiate with any of these nations, so we should not even pretend we can unless we are willing to be effective in our negotiations(which requires more than throwing money around). Pakistan came around into our camp not because of our words, but because of what we did to the Taliban in Afganistan. Piecemeal, and nuanced, approaches do not work in that region of the world, so we need to go in to win decisively, or stay out. Since staying out is not an option at this stage, winning is the only way left. Unless, of course, we want to go te way of France and Britain, appease our way into obscurity and Sharia law eradicating our national identity. Perhaps that is really where I feel gates and the rest of these oh so experienced people miss the boat, they are focused primarily on the physical insurgency of the islamic radicals, and not realizing that national security must in large part be based on defeating the ideology. We are a Christian nation and have no business, adopting Sharia compliant financing, foot baths, clean foods, or any other politically correct genuflucting to Islam. What our political classes tell us in the name of diversity we must do, is aiding and abetting our enemy in their efforts to destroy our culture and way of life. Multiculuralism is, indeed, the murdering of our culture, as noted in a previous post.

Jim
I agree with alot of what you say.

There is a fundamental difference between minding our own affairs, to the extent possible, and going about the globe in an arrogant and narcissistic obsession to bestow our experiences on governance upon others.

Who in the hell appointed us?

Isolationism should mean minding our own business.

It should not mean retreating from the world.

There may be a few instances where we are compelled to act, BUT they should be extremely rare. And I mean "extremely".

Alas, the forces who control Townhall have advised me I have used up all my chips for today on this board, and will not be permitted to post anymore comments.

So this will be it for me today.

Do I hear an Amen.


Post election and back to policies:-)
Nice to see the minds functioning again instead of flamethrowers (not that it wasn't fun to be ascerbic about liberals sometimes...) I agree that Pakistan and Afganistan are unwinnable by outside forces(without, as earlier noted, a Genghis mentality), and interior schisms between tribes and religions make any national government with real authority extremely unlikely. So, why are we involved? Simply because to not be involved carries far worse possibilities to our national security. We may not have much leverage, but we do at least have some, as well as intelligence assets on the ground and in the respective governments. The islamic nations worry us because of oil, and terrorism, but strategically they are backwards, insular nations. They have many smart, highly talented people, but the ruling regimes are so removed economically from the masses they might as well be different nations, which is why Osama and Wahabbism represent a more fundamental threat to the Gulf Arabic nations than to our own. The terrorists may blow some of our landmarks up, buy they cannot destroy our culture and throw us back, as a nation, to the middle ages, as they can Saudi Arabia, Quatar, et al, because we do not have a majority of citizens in grinding poverty being radicalized by religious imams while our rulers life large.

murderculturalism

People complain that I emphasize the fact that a country consists of a border and a culture, and they can not imagine why I am so much against multiculturalism.

My concern with multiculturalism is that it often destroys a culture. That does not mean that some country where people live in shacks, and have little to eat, and no good jobs, cannot adopt cultural items to improve their country.

Eggs, Milk, Flour, and Butter are each special items (cultures), and if you combine 2 1/2 cups of flour, 2 Eggs, a 1/2 cup of a Milk, a tablespoon of Butter, and a sprinkle of salt, you have created the wonderful new “Culture” of Noodles.

But if you combine 2 1/2 cups of eggs, 2 cups Milk, a tablespoon of flour, and a 1/2 cup of salt, you have not only created a mess, you have eliminated the original culture of flour, milk, butter, and salt.

Just to combine cultures willy-nilly, completely eliminates the original cultures, and results in something else, mostly a total mess.

Remember, “multiculturalism” is a misprint, it should be spelled “murderculturalism,” as that destroys a culture.


Thank you tom
tom Location: WI
Reply # 17
Date: Dec 11, 2008 - 11:59 AM EST

I mostly agree with Jim.

========

Thank you tom. You are right, the words I used were not quite what I meant.

When the United Nations was founded I expected their most important job would be to establish and protect Borders.

Fifty years ago I visited the UN Hq twice, and asked them to prohibit immigration, as we know it, all over the world. You were born someplace, that’s your place.

I suggested that Immigration be replaced with Invitation. If a country asked for you, you could go.

If you wanted to leave your country, you must not have liked it, and if you wanted to go to some other country, you must have liked something about that country, so don’t insist on confusing the two.

I suggested this because I believe in diversity. If I want to see how Mexicans live, I would go to Mexico, not Los Angeles. If I want to see how the Algerians live, I would go to Algeria, not to Paris. If I wanted to see how the Greeks live, I would go to Greece, not to Germany or Sweden. And on and on.

If we continue to allow people go where they want, and then allow them to change the country they go to, so it would be like the cesspool they left, there will be no more Diversity.

Look at the problem in France and England. Would you like to visit the “foreign” parts of those countries? Do you visit to see the culture of France and England, or the culture of the people who have moved there from third-world, Muslim countries?

And by the way, Islam is not a religion, it is a government. When what you eat, and what you wear, and if you are allowed to drive a car, or work here or there, is determined for you and enforced, and if you are a lady they can kill you, that is not a religion, that is a government.

We should not allow Moslems in our country, any more than we should allow socialists or communists.

We need improvement, not change

Tinsldr2 Location: GA
Reply # 14
Date: Dec 11, 2008 - 11:22 AM EST

Yes the world would be a much better place if we (and our ancestors) had all stayed home, right JIM?

==========

Obviously it would take a book to present the whole story. I am not talking about history, I am talking about the present.

Those original settlers in this land, did not come here to enjoy all the freedoms we have now, they came to establish what we have now.

With just a few Indians scattered around millions of square miles is not considered inhabited.

Understand, I do not like the stories of the history of how we treated those people already here, and those who came in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, but by now it is different.

Those early immigrants were from a similar environment, and after they eliminated the unwanted parts of their culture, and assimilated with the ones already here, they were much better off than before.

These days we have people sneaking into our country, and trying to throw out our culture, and apply theirs. We have enough population, and if we are going to be over populated by people who don’t understand or care about over population. We don’t need them.

McCain would have won if he had said, “I hate Change, we have nothing to hate but Change itself. I am always in favor of IMPROVEMENT. We would never want to change improvement, and we have nothing to fear from Improvement.”

And I say that about all aspects of our country, and immigration these days is change, not improvement.


Robert Gates
I am not an Obama basher but I think that choosing Gates might be a huge mistake. Gates is an extremely likable person and more of a diplomat than a defense or military guy. But he has a very checkered record and history to say the least.

He has always been more of a stutus quo type than an original thinking type. He made more than a few repeated miscalculations and mistakes in the past during his CIA career. His comments about Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that we are most likely going to see more of the same.

Afghanistan
We will not be able to handle this any better then the USSR did.Eventually we will have to pull out and let them do their own thing.It is unfortunate but some things are just not worth saving because never mind how hard we try success seems to slip away.Unless the Afghan people want what we want for them, it will not work and the same goes for Iraq.We can make all kinds of political agreements but they will only work of the people want them to.

Where am I?
What a great thread! Is this really TH? Thanks to all for actual conversation and rational thought without all the hyperbole and infantile name calling. This is a treat!


Robert Gates
Gates is an example of why the USA will remain a great and wondeful country. We are fortunate that he will continue his service. It would be nice if the USA could just ignore the rest of the world and try to solve our problems. Unfortunately, a lesson of 9/11/01 was that the rest of the world will not ignore us.

tinsldr2
I think that you are missing most of Jim's point.

He probably was not talking about "isolationism" per se. There is a big difference in isolationism and inteferring in the internal affairs of other nations. And sadly we have done exactly that more than any nation in hisotry.

Let's look at troops. How many armed foreign troops would you allow on US soil before you went ballistic...10,000...1,000...100...10? Probably not 240,000 huh?

So why do we do it? It's ludicrous to think that we can be the policeman of the world and at the same time tell other nations we support peace, democracy, and controling your own destiny.

And there would be a huge side benefit per our national safety to removing most of our troops from foreign nations. We could then let the other nut case nations and regimes around the world that if they actually do anything that threatens our national safety, there will be and severe and positive military actions from us.

As it has been over the past few decades, we get involved in all these ridiculous "limited" skirmishes that make us look like we are not serious about taking care of business. We handicap both our troops and our diplomacy. And the results have mostly been tragic along with encouraging more of the same from the nut cases nations and groups.

I mostly agree with Jim.

Gates is an example of
someone with a lot of experence at being wrong and learning nothing from that experence so that they continue to make the same mistake ever time.

While he might be a nice man he is the wrong man in the wrong place because he has yet to learn anything from his many failures.

No one government or occupliers have been able to rule Afghanistan since the beginning of recorded history that is not going to change just because some bright kid in Washington wishes it so. Pakistan is a creation of the British empire designed to be unrulable and is that also is never going to change.

We can no longer afford to play the world's police we have neither the money nor resources to do so and clearly after 60 years the world perfers lawlessness so let them have it.

Its past time to bring the troops home, forget Europe and the middle east and Gulf regions as historical failures with no future. We need to be working with the pacific rim nations which have a future before we too like Europe because a past without a future.

Tinsldr2
I find most of your postings to be insightful, and compared with some others, I think you are a valued addition to this forum.

On Jefferson, however, I think it fair to concede he NEVER envisioned democratizing the Barbary pirates, or nations from whence they came.

I don't see Jefferson as a neocon...obsessed with deploying our military and exhausting our treasury in an effort to bring democracy to tribal communities deeply steeped in Islam.

On your general point criticizing wholesale isolationism, I agree.

Even Pat Buchanan, so demonized by some on this board, never advocated strict isolationism.

No reasonable American would.

Reasonable Americans would, however, agree that it is not unpatriotic to place the interests of the United States first.


Jim and isolationism
Wouldn't it be great if we did what Jim thinks? Why havent we been doing this longer? Imagine if all those Pesky British, German's and Dutch had been kept out in the 1600 and 1700s? Not to mention the imported African labor pool.

Then of course we should have kept out all those irish and chinese and italians that built the railroads and worked the factories fueling our great industrial revolution and manifest destiny but who wants riff raff like that in the country?

At turn of the 20th century we had a large Jewish immigration along with northern Europeans and Russians and we all know how much Jews are bad for the culture, right Jim?

Now we should build a Magical "fence" around our country and retreat to isolationism. It doesnt matter if in the place that started WWI there is a genocide we should ignore it.

If a terrorist supporting country invades a neighbor its not our concern. If we do act and resolve the conflict with a cease fire and then they violate said cease fire we shouldnt care.

If a former Ally is threatened we should cancel our treaties. If weak countries we no longer support look to our economic and political enemies (china and Russia) and rivals for aid and they grow stronger while we get weaker it is not a concern.

We should be more like Thomas Jefferson, oh wait not him, when Islamic fanatics threatened US Commerce overseas he sent military over there to fight them. Whereas Adams jsut paid them bribe money.

Yes the world would be a much better place if we (and our ancestors) had all stayed home, right JIM?

ROFL
Tinsldr2@yahoo.com

Redlac
writes, "Sometimes, I think it's just a group of tribes, each with their own leader, that we've drawn a line around and given a name to.'

Good description. I think Pakistan suffers from much the same problem especially the northern provinces like Waziristan. Your description could also apply to most other countries, however. Our own country was a notable exception at its founding but, seems to be becoming more tribal all the time under the tutelage of the left and its diversity mantra. The subservience of tribal or clannish tendencies to a national identity is always a tenuous one, imo. Our street gangs here are an example of this tendency. Indeed, the bible speaks of the twelve tribes that make up Israel.

Robert: Vietnam was a bloodbath when we left. Iraq will not even be close. Will there be some sectarian strife, some isolated atrocities? Sure. When we eliminate that here, perhaps we can start lecturing others about brotherly love and peace. I agree with your statement about Saudi Arabia but, jerabaub is probably right that their deal with the devil will bite them in the arse. OBL has not kept it secret what he wants to see happen there. All the ruling families of those countries rule powder kegs waiting to explode. This is a primary reason I support Bush's nation building effort for better or worse as the only alternative to eventual explosion of those societies.

an isolationist, and a conservative

My favorite subject along this line would be to remember the wonderful country we lived in during the mid 20th century.

As I have insisted for 60 years, a country consists of a Border and a Culture and if you mess with either, out you go.

Bring home all US troops in the 200 countries where they are stationed, and put them on the border of our country, to keep out who we don’t want (most anyone), and to send back those already here by our mistake.

That would take care of the immigration problem, and would have kept us out of Iraq, and brought our military home from Germany, Korea, and all those other places we shouldn’t be.

I am an isolationist, and a conservative, and a nationalist, and what a wonderful world we would live in if everyone in the world thought the same of their country, and didn’t insist on leaving home and screwing up their destination.

I love other cultures and have visited about 70 of them. But remember, “multiculturalism” is a misprint, it should be spelled “murderculturalism,” as that destroys a culture. Multiple cultures within a Border does not improve anything.


Talking about the uninformed experts
Is anyone curious about where Obama acquired his experience to comment on the war in Iraq and his comments about what is good for Afghanistan? He is applauded for his position on being against the war from the beginning. He was a state senator at that time and had no background in foreign policy or knowledge of the intelligence regarding that part of the world.

funding of mujahideen; Wahabbism
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we funneled loads of money to the mujahideen drawn there to assist the native Afghans fighting the Soviet invaders.

And the middleman on dispensing that money was Pakistan.

Our money went to Pakistan, which then decided which of the mujahideen fighting the Soviets would get funding.

A relationship was developed between radical muslim mujahideen and elements of Pakistani government.

Often the most fundamentalist, the most radical, of the mujahideen got the money

Once the Soviets withdrew, those radical mujahideen returned to their homelands.

And they began to cause problems for their largely secular but despotic rulers(you know, our good friends and allies in the region).

Add to this brew the longstanding Saudi
funding of Wahabbist madrassas around the world, and the problems only get worse.

Saudis made a deal with the devil...they would fund radical Islam imams with the understanding that these imams would not agitate to topple the Saudi royal family..that they would do their "business" elsewhere.

It is not our fault...funding of fundamentalist mujahideen...but I guess it may be an example of the law of unintended consequences.

Usually the most fundamentalist Islamists were also the most anti-communist.

And back in the 1980s, the focus was on defeating the communists.

I don't guess we appreciated that 25 years later some of them, or their followers, come back and bite us in the a**.

Saudi rulers may also not be immune to this phenomenon.

Redlac - Spot On!
I am not at all confident of the future in Iraq. It is going to be a bloodbath once US troops leave. As regards Pakistan and Afghanistan, as you have pointed out, they should be the primary focus in the war on terror. We need to put much more pressure on Saudia Arabia to clean up its act as regards the propagation of Wahabism.


Iran vs. Afghanistan
Gates is right to worry about Pakistan, and he's right about Afghanistan - except that the latter is a graveyard for occupiers, an outpost for scavengers and where corruption may prevent anything like a serviceable government from ever setting up - (kinda reminds me of a third-world Chicago, but that's just my predjudice.)

Ghengis Khan came through; his solution worked. And what we need is a Ghengis Khan solution - if we ever had the will to try it.

As far as Iran goes, patience, not carrots and sticks - (we're far too gullible to try to trade with this culture.) More isolation. And make workable sanctions, not the porous ones that Saddam broke with impunity (with the aid of neighborhood miscreants and the French/German/Russian axis) Iraq was broken, the infrastructure disolving - as I suspect Iran's is doing presently. Wait, keep watching, and prepare for a desperation break-out move.

As far as Pakistan goes: they're battling a sect that resembles a well-armed People's Temple, suicidal and uncaring of consequences. As I have insisted on many occasions: the Wahhabis are the enemy - of Islam, as well as of every decent expression of humanity.

Pakistan needs to do two things: stop the spread of Wahhabi religious material and doctrine, and it desperatedly needs a hotline to India - to prevent Mutually Assured Destruction.




NAM65-66
It's not just you. Since the election, it seems that some of the more thoughtful posters have taken a break, and we're left with those that seem to get their daily fix on these boards. Anyone who thinks the world is a simplistic place needs to be giving much thought to what men like Gates have observed over the years of their service. Pakistan is, hands down, the place that we should all be concerned about. Iraq will settle into whatever government and system it chooses, but I think it's fair to say that it is not looking to stock up on nuclear weapons and, we have demonstrated that we can keep the violence down to somewhat tolerable levels. Since the Royal family left, Afghanistan has never been a country. Sometimes, I think it's just a group of tribes, each with their own leader, that we've drawn a line around and given a name to. And, I wonder if we shouldn't simply try to partition it somehow, and perhaps break it into 40 or 5 states, rather than 1.

But Pakistan. There's the rub. It has an area in the north that is, for all practical purposes, uncontrolled and ungoverned. And that region is contiguous to the equally uncontrolled and ungoverned regions in Northern Afghanistan. It has those nuclear weapons, used to support the Taliban, and provided most of the early nuclear information to Iran. And, it's politics are the politics of personality, and little else. Unstable, unable to assert control within its' borders, and home to numerous radical clerics and terrorists, it is the problem that is not going away.

eternal military opns. & our bankruptcy
I think Bob Gates does provide some insightful observations on Iran, especially his point that an Iran with nuclear weapons will be viewed by Russia as a threat.

Gates major point that Iran may well be "contained" thru economic and diplomatic measures is valid.

And Gates is correct to worry about Pakistan.

In fact, except for koolaid swiggers, most rational people understand Pakistan represents far, far more of a threat to the world than Iran.

She is a heavily armed nuclear power, with an increasingly radicalized population, mired in extreme poverty and whose government is increasingly seen as ineffective.

On Iraq, I don't think Iraqis will tolerate a sizable U.S. military presence, unless they derive huge financial incentives in the form of our bribing them to permit us to remain.

I don't share Gates optimism on Afghanistan at all. Radicals and terrorists are winning there, and our military responses to terror attacks too often outrage Afghans themselves, undermining what little support the corrupt and ineffective Karzai govt has with the populace.

Nor do I share his belief that the United States must maintain sizable military forces all over the globe in perpetuity(crises of yesterday had a beginning and end, while those of today have no end).

This obligates the U.S. to be the world's policeforce.

If that is what Americans want, to have their soldiers deployed all over the globe in perpetuity, and their treasury exhausted to finance these neverending operations, let there be a referendum.

Is it just me...
...or have others noted that Townhall has degenerated into too many posters such as "Historian"?

Subject Not Fit.
Well, I guess Will has written a nice column, here. It just doesn't seem to fit for the "Comments" section, which is inhabited by too many denizens of the "beer-bar," loudmouth crowd, nowadays. You know, the guys and gals going back and forth, with their tiresome innanities.

There's nothing wrong with the "beer-bar" crowd. No, not really. Hey, after a long, hard day's work, ya gotta unwind someplace.

There's something missing, though. Yes, this "beer-bar" crowd is a different breed -- they lack something, namely, courage. Yes, the ones showing up here might not really be found in the "solons" of the beer-bars. It takes courage to enter there, and spout off.

Here, there's no threat of, "Hey, you and me, outside, one on one." Yeah, from the sound of them, nobody like that, here.

A Good Man
Gates is a good man. We're desperate for more like him. Myriads more.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.