Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Leaving Afghanistan
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a new contributing author to Penigma, one that you may recognize from his regular comments - "ttucker".
Here is the first of what I hope will be many posts to come. Ttucker - welcome!
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George Patton Jr
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
- George Santayana
When the US sent our military into Afghanistan most of the country supported it wholeheartedly. The Taliban ran the country and had helped and motivated the people who attacked us on Sept 11, 2001. They gave them sanctuary and a place to train and celebrated with them when the twin towers fell in New York. We went over there with a clear mission, remove the Taliban from power, kill as many members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda as possible, destroy their training camps, and deny them a safe haven in Afghanistan.
For the most part we accomplished a large part of this within a couple of years and were busy hunting down small groups of them and capturing or killing them. After 4-5 yrs of focusing on Iraq and sustaining little to no casualties in Afghanistan the mission creep started. Now we needed to rebuild their government, train their troops, and win over the hearts and minds of the people. The last war we tried to win over the "hearts and minds" of the people was Vietnam and we all know how that turned out. I am now fairly certain that this war will turn out no better. I have not ever been in the military but I read a lot of military history and have friends and family who have served or are currently serving. Reading some of the military blogs and seeing news of Afghanistan it seems to me that we are no longer fighting to win.
When we pulled our ground troops out of Vietnam the South Vietnamese were still winning battles with the help of US air and naval support, as soon as the funding for that was cut the entire South fell in less than a month. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in the 80's they were winning until we supplied the Taliban with stinger missiles to take away the Russian air support. The key to beating a guerrilla force that knows the area is air and artillery. We have now almost neutralized our own air and artillery support in Afghanistan. The new rules of engagement have caused us to be so cautious of civilians that our troops are required to retreat if it is possible that engaging the enemy could endanger civilians. Some have said the rules are not that strict and are being misinterpreted but either way the rules of engagement are putting US soldiers in more danger than they were in before.
Another problem occurs when the US conducts joint operations with the Afghan forces. There are a higher percentage of ambushes in joint operations than there is when US forces go on missions with only US forces. Maybe the Afghan troops are just not as alert about spotting an ambush, maybe someone in the Afghan HQ is still loyal to the Taliban, who knows, but US soldiers are dying because of it.
One of the military blogs I read spoke of a discussion with a former marine who was commandant of “The Corps” when LBJ took office. LBJ called him in and asked what to do about Vietnam. The commandant told him that Vietnam was like a snake in the grass and your first and best option was to leave it the hell alone. If you just cannot live with a snake in the grass then you get the biggest stick you can find and you beat it to a bloody pulp. The one thing you do not want to do is go in the grass with a small stick and play with the snake. Of course LBJ chose the last option and it looks like we have again in Afghanistan. It is time to get out of the grass and leave the snake alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I rather favor pinning the snake to the ground, right behind its head, with a forked stick, grasping it firmly and milking its venom until it's harmless, but then I'm less afraid of snakes than most people, and more comfortable handling them.
ReplyDeleteThat is reflected in my feelings about Afghanistan as well.
I applaud your use of quotations, tt!
May I add a couple of other Santayana favorites of mine that I think pertain to what you've written?
"History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there.”
and
"Knowledge of what is possible is the beginning of happiness.”
(or, in the case of Afghanistan, perhaps wisdom?)
“We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the past; and we must respect the past, remembering that it was once all that was humanly possible”
I'm of two minds about the possibility of success in Afghanistan; I'm not sure if we might be the exception that proved the rule - or not.
Excellent post tt.
An excellent post, and I for the most part, agree. The US has never been good at nation building, and is an even worse colonial ruler. Britain was quite good at it back in the day. Perhaps we should take some lessons from them.
ReplyDeleteLike DG, I am of two minds about Afghanistan. We neglected Afghanistan for far too long, on the idiotic war in Iraq. Having squandered our resources there, we allowed a corrupt, inefficient government to take hold (such as it has) in Afghanistan, and let that government do its best to lose the country back to tribal and regional factions.
President Obama has not chosen to "not decide", despite K-Rod's assertions. However, he is taking a long time to make a decision. Making a thoughtful, informed decision isn't by any means a sign of weakness. Making snap decisions is part of what got us into trouble in Iraq, which may eventually force us to acknowledge that Afghanistan will continue to be chaotic for decades to come.
Ttuck
ReplyDeleteThere are several thoughts about this topic and this post which occured to me as I read your draft.
First, we are often told that if we'd simply 'taken the gloves off' we would be more successful. History shows to me, that's really not so. We would, for a time, create a police state - but, for how long are we willing to do so? For 100 years, 200? Algeria tought the French that while 'get tough' tactics, including a certain lack of regard for collateral damage, may work, the human cost, reputational cost, and economic cost, was simply too high.
Our failure was in not stopping the warlords from taking back over. Guys like Dostum, a mass murderer, and who were the people the people of Afghanistan actually preferred the Taliban to, were essentially just re-inserted into local/provincial leadership. We allowed the country to degenerate into vast corruption - so much so that the people feel very disaffected with our presence, and even moreso with the Karzai government.
Our remedies are really two bad choices, first, support the current government - but the reality is that reckless bombing and shelling (as they see it) actually alienates more people by far than it gets rid of opponents. So we exacerbate the problem.
Second, leave - taking out troops with us. I think you are suggesting a third option, namely, leave but keep our air and artillery power present. We can't reasonably leave artillery power on the ground without local security, and then we run into Vietnam 1964 scenarios where we keep escalating forces to protect our already present forces. As well, while the South Vietnamese Army put up a decent fight, it did not lose because of a lack of US Airpower, it ultimately lost because it was overwhelmed on the ground, regardless of our air support. We stopped Linebacker II - but that was bombing against North Vietnam, not local GS airstrikes. We also stopped because we were losing too many planes and pilots.
I'll continue in the next section..
The bottom line is, we felt the human, material cost to supporting a failing government was too high - and they were failing on the ground.
ReplyDeleteI think our best solution may well be to follow the lessons of Patreus in Iraq.
If you want to stop insurgency you need:
1. Jobs
2. A functioning government
3. Cooperation of local leadership
Patreus made it a focus to put Iraqis to work both rebuilding Iraq and in the oil industry. As well, he rousted out corrupt Shiites as a measure of good will toward the Sunnis fighting other Sunni insurgets. Lastly and most importantly, he advocated understanding the culture and working within it. That culture included payouts (bribes if you like) to local tribal leaders to fight against the insurgents.
This same culture is generally present in Afghanistan. In fact, in 2001, we relied upon cash payments to local (then warlords) to fight on our side.
We must also, however, replace the most brutal and corrupt of the warlords with much more effective and responsible leadership. Obama is trying in part to address this by requiring Karzai to win a run-off election. Further steps have to be taken to reorganize that government or retrain its participants to not allow for corruption.
I think Obama has changed the nature and tone of our support for Afghanistan, in fact he, as opposed to Bush, is listening to the commanders who are calling for more troops and power, but we must address the lack of a functional government. He has started, but he's certainly not done as much as is needed, undoubtedly he's hamstrung in part by not wanting to simply oust Karzai.
Regardless of all of that, I don't think a heavier hand in the use of force will be effective. It certainly failed in Iraq - and was NOT what Patreaus did or advocated, anything but really.
HA!
ReplyDeleteKR, you made a funny!!!
For 5.5 years Bush failed to listen to voices like Patreaus - in fact he mocked those who advocated what Patreaus generally advocated - meaning closer cooperation. In fact, originally Patreaus was mocked inside Bush's Pentagon machinery as molly-coddling locals in Anbar.
You have the 2006 election (and the polling prior to it) to thank for the replacement of Tommy Franks (aka Tone Deaf Tommy) with Patreaus. Franks was ambivilent to civilian casualties. You have Democratic pressure to thank for the change in direction (i.e the 'surge') which generally FAILED to accomplish it's goals (according to George Will), but DID change the dynamic of HOW the Iraqi government is handling insurgency.
Second, Obama, as opposed to Bush, agreed taht we needed more troops. Prior to Bush leaving office he generally declined (in fact routinely declined) to provide those troops as well as to stand up agains the corruption of Karzai. Obama IS providing more troops, as opposed to Bush - which was the request of the generals on the ground. Does he do EVERYTHING asked for, hell no, but neither did Bush. Yet he comes far closer to actually listening, as opposed to say, someone who invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMD, when his Pentagon staffers as well as the CIA was telling him there simply wasn't conclusive proof Iraq had either functional WMD or any active programs.
You really are funny.. you may want to refresh your memory on the run up to Iraq (point 1), on the recommendations of Eric Shinseki (point 2), the failures to increase troops in Afghanistan as asked for from 2003-2008 (point 4), and the increases Obama has provided for (point 5).
Either way, once again, your comments really don't add to the discussion. What do you suggest be done in Afghanistan, not "let's insult Obama (yet again)" which seems to be the only focus you care to worry about.
KR wrote:"I'm calling 8-855-7448 on Penigma."
ReplyDeleteWhich means......what? Please clarify KR, this is obscure.
Pen wrote:"HA!
KR, you made a funny!!!" and "You really are funny.. "
Pen, while not an outright insult, this language is in the neighborhood of being demeaning to a commenter. I applaud the rest of your content, but ......this part.....please? Not?
We should be exemplary here.
His comment was funny, it may not have been intentionally funny, but it WAS funny.
ReplyDeleteI shall restate my comment - KR, what you wrote was funny, I doubt that was your aim - but I found it to be funny because it reflected a view in 100% opposition to how things came down - Bush refused to change direction in Iraq until he lost the 2006 elections, we don't have him to thank, we have him to blame. Thanking him is a laughable idea... and so, I laugh(ed).
DG - I think your 'offense' antenna may be a little too finely tuned - I think we can find the comments of others 'funny' without anyone, other than the truly far too easily offended, taking real offense.
Please dear Pen, take care to make clear the difference between being genuinely amused, and not derogatory.
ReplyDeleteAnd I shall try to adjust my antennae....LOL.
Bush, unfortunately, was commander in chief until January, 2009. However, without the results of the 2006 elections, and the disaster for the Republican party, I think that its doubtful that Mr. Bush would have changed his tactics. Donald Rumsfeld should have been fired for incompetence long before the 2006 election, but Bush continued to be blindly loyal to him, even as the body count in Iraq mounted, and success of any sort was illusory at best. The final chapters of our ill-advised adventure in Iraq are yet to be written, and I think that while it will eventually be shown that the surge worked, it didn't work for the reasons you suspect. It worked because we changed our tactics and had a leader in Iraq who knew how to do the job. George Bush didn't have some flash of brilliance in appointing Petreus; it was more of a dull bulb finally coming into 40 instead of 15 watts.
ReplyDeletePen, the problem is that like the Vietnamese the Taliban has learned our soft spot. In Vietnam almost every history shows that in engagements with the enemy we won about 99% of the time. So the enemy adapted, used land mines to send people home missing legs, snipers to raise the body count without risking much,and attacked from among civilians so that when we fired back there was a high chance of hitting civilians and we became the bad guys. The Taliban is doing the same things. The two gas tankers that were hit by planes and killed several civilians make us look bad. Some villagers nearby said the Taliban forced people to stand near the tankers so when we hit them we would kill civilians. I don't think the answer is to use a more heavy hand but when I watch a video online of a chopper tracking some guys that even in the grainy black and white I can see are carrying guns and rocket launchers and it takes him a good 10 minutes to get permission to fire, after confirming to at least 3 different people no one else is around, we have gone too far.
ReplyDeleteKR wrote:"I'm calling 8-855-7448 on Penigma."
ReplyDeletePlease someone explain the reference because I don't get it.
KR,
ReplyDelete"the surge might have failed if done earlier"
and
"ToE you failed..."
It also might have succeeded, might have ended the war, and might have cured cancer. Engaging in argumentation based upon 'might haves' is the province of those not worrying too much about facts.
The surge DID fail (according to conservative columnist George Will) - you may have missed that - but what DID succeed was a change in attitude, a change in attitude you opposed presumably given your genuflecting toward all things Bush/conservative. It wasn't ToE who said we have Bush to credit for the change in direction in Iraq, that was you, you brought Bush's conduct up, and so it was fair game for your comment to be exposed as fraudulent and wrong. It was, it has been, and it is.
Apparently you know better than the Generals on the ground, including the Chairmain of the JCS going in, and including the head of MP forces for Bagdhad going in. Time and again comments were made during the period from 2003 to 2006 that there were insufficient troops to provide adequate security at former Iraqi military bases resulting in the comprimise of munitions, munitions then used against US. Time and again there were complaints about how our troops were simply being stretched too thin, that we simply didn't have enough troops to support the mission, not only IN Iraq, but simply in total combat divisions. It is part of the reason we have increased total combat brigade strength, but clearly, prior to the invasion Shinseki and others said we had TOO FEW TROOPS. We can conjecture about what might have occured - but you've offered NO counter to what DID occur, namely that Bush opposed Patreaus' approach until change was forced upon him by repeated failures - that being cooperative rather than contemptuous (as you often are - vis a vis your rather culturally ignorant turban comment) of the local populace was the ONLY course of action which would succeed. For years Bush (and those like you) said the method to win was "to kill the terrorists, and then kill them some more until there aren't any" (Mitch Berg 2005 in a verbal confrontation with a peace protestor). You don't get to (once again) do revisionist history dances and say you supported changing the attitude and treatment of Iraqis when you didn't - WE, the moderates, supported Patreaus' approach. Not all Dems did, no question, some Dems opposed increasing troop strength - which Patreaus wanted, but NOT ONE I know opposed doing what has actually succeeded, namely, working with local leaders.
ToE is far closer to accurately reflecting what happened, and your overblown hype and exageration about his 'failure' adds nothing to the discussion.
As for your comments about me and BS, I've refuted your comment on its face - apparently you meant to criticize yourself. Perhaps becoming more familiar with happened in Iraq will help you avoid these kinds of errors in the future. Let me recommend some books I've read on the subject:
Fiasco - Thomas Ricks
State of Denial - Bob Woodward
The Greatest Story Ever Sold - Frank Rich
My War - Colby Buzzell
If you take the time to read these, you may become aware of the collosal screw ups committed by Bush in Iraq, and may then stop knee-jerk reflexively attacking Obama in a manner which belies an extraordinary bias.
If instead, assuming you disagree, you want to name all of the vast successes of Bush in Iraq prior to 2006 - maybe you can illuminate all of us about how well Iraq was going in 2004, 2003, 2005, etc.. and how the CPA didn't lose $15B, how KBR and Halliburton DIDN'T get in trouble for indiscriminately killing Iraqis, how Bush WASN'T duped by 'curveball', how we DID find WMD, how the capture of Hussien DID end the insurgency.. you see ALL of these were thins we were told either would happen and didn't or weren't going on, but were.
K-Rod's ignorance of history is shocking, but perhaps not surprising. The Bush administration "picked a fight" with Iraq for reasons which are still largely unknown. It was clear at the time the US invaded Iraq that where were no WMD, and the Bush administration knew it. Having lied to Congress and the American people about the necessity for war, what led Mr. Bush and cronies to bungle the next 5 years of the war is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteIn the aftermath of the disaster for Republicans in the 2006 election, Donald Rumsfeld was replaced as Secretary of Defense. The Iraq Study Group and a number of other proposals were considered by the Bush administration. A shuffle began which ultimately led to a massive increase in troops in Iraq. Whether K-Rod likes it or not, there is no indication from the record that I have seen that Mr. Bush was interested in sending more troops to Iraq prior to the massive losses to Republicans in the 2006 elections, (which losses increased in the 2008 elections)
From Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary:
ReplyDeleteMain Entry: ig·no·rance
Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness
I pointed out your apparent lack of knowledge of history, and I stand behind the use of the word. My comments were not intended as an insult to you, but as a description of your apparent lack of knowledge of the history involved.
The Iraq Liberation Act passed overwhelmingly in the US House, and unanimously in the US Senate in 1998. It was signed into law by President Clinton. So what? George Bush wasn't the president in 1998, and clearly couldn't have signed it.
Its sheer speculation what Mr. Bush was thinking in Iraq. Its seems clear to me that whatever he thought, the decisions he and his top advisers made were wrong.
It is true that many democrats, including the income Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, opposed the troop surge. Its also true that the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution disapproving of the surge. However, the House and Senate eventually acquiesced in the surge.
Bush didn't ponder that decision in Iraq. He acted ONLY when his party had been kicked in the teeth, and had lost control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections. Would he have acted differently had the Republicans remained in control? Again, that's speculation, but based on Mr. Bush's previous behaviour, I think it a reasonable supposition that he would have continued on his path of losing the ill-advised war, compounding his administration's incompetence.
ToE - well said.
ReplyDeleteKR - you said the following, "As for an earlier troop surge, well, it didn't happen so you don't have any actual facts on whether it would have made things better or worse. You have no facts to offer that can possibly prove that changes would have made things better or worse. You only have, as you said, 'might haves'."
You'd have been correct if it wasn't YOU who brought up what MIGHT have occured if the surge had been tried prior to the point it was tried. I pointed out what actually happened and the conduct of those involved at the time. ToE rightly points out some reasonable suppositions about attitudes, but it is you, and you alone, who have engaged in trying to counter well-founded arguments with speculation about what MIGHT have happened - I merely pointed out the fatuousness of your approach by offering equally unprovabable speculation.
The difference being, I then supported my ACTUAL argument with facts and actions. I think you need to apply your medicine to yourself and cease with what are effectively baseless and unprovable arguments. You incorrectly claimed we had Bush to blame, thus bringing Bush into the discussion on this point, you then engaged in sophistry by making an argument that the surge might have failed if tried earlier - and you've now been called out on both as being either flawed fact or flawed argument. It seems your reason for claiming 'it might have failed if tried earlier' is some continuing attempt to defend Bush's conduct of that war. I suggest you point out his numerous successes, and then weigh that against the resound repudiation the REST OF THE COUNTRY delivered to Bush, mostly about Iraq, and realize that (at least on this blog) and in that, as a reflection of American opinion, you are alone in suggesting Bush's conduct of Iraq was effective or competent. You attempted to conflate some form of competence upon Bush because of 'the surge', a move forced down his throat - and the point being made, the point you (as is your norm) appear to desire to ignore, is that Bush did NOT conduct the war in Iraq with competence, not by a darned site.
sorry, that should say, "you incorrectly claimed we had Bush to thank (rather than blame) for the surge"
ReplyDeleteSince unfortunately the Obama administration seems uninterested in bringing most of the major players of the Bush administration to justice, (an area where I profoundly disagree with the Obama administration) we will probably never know the true reasons that the US went to war against Iraq. The stated reasons (weapons of mass destruction) are and were patently false when we went into Iraq, and the Bush administration knew it. I refuse to speculate further on whatever reasons Mr. Bush might have had.
ReplyDeleteThe Iraq Liberation Act was probably ill advised, but did not call for nor did it authorize the introduction of US military force to invade Iraq. In that sense it was no different than our attitude about Iran today, although I don't know if there was a similar measure passed against Iran in the early 1980's. (I believe that Iranian assets in the US for frozen for a very long time, and some are still frozen today). The Iraq Liberation Act did not pick a fight in the sense that I used the term. Picking a fight meant that the US was the aggressor in a war or a battle. That's exactly what happened when the US invaded Iraq, and its also why many of our allies repudiated our actions. As I pointed out earlier, our stated reasons were based on lies from the Bush administration. Our real reasons for invasion of Iraq will probably never be known.
K-Rod, I have not insulted you nor have I been discourteous to you. I have given you far greater courtesy than you have given me. However, my patience is wearing thin. I pointed out to you that you apparently did not know the history of the Iraq war. I did not violate our own rules, and will not further discuss this matter with you on this blog.
TOE- you keep insisting that Bush lied. If you go back and search you will find that a large part of congress,Bill Clinton, and the British Mi5, believed Saddam had wmd. I read a long article in either Time or Newsweek about 2 yrs after we invaded Iraq about the wmd and there were 2 major theories that the authors were considering about why they were not found. One of the things Bush based the claims of wmd on were the counts Iraq gave to the UN of wmd they admitted having after the first gulf war. They compared that to what Iraq said they destroyed and there was a large discrepency that Iraq could not account for. Possibly very bad bookkeepping but who knows for sure. The other theory is that Iraq overstated how much nerve gas and such they had because the people making it were defrauding the Iraqi government. There were intercepted communications when we invaded ordering front line troops to use their chemical weapons, but all the front line commanders thought the other front line commanders had them and it turns out no one did. So if even some of the people in Iraq believed they had wmd then possibly Bush was wrong or got bad intel but it is doubtful he knew they did not exist.Also the links I sent you in email show some evidence that at least everything needed for producing wmd was present.
ReplyDeleteTTuck,
ReplyDeleteWhat Bush lied about what the quality and nature of his intelligence (beyond the lie about yellow-cake). Cheney setup a special intelligence office called the NEI - because he was so upset with the CIA, DIA and NSA for telling him that realistically, whatever Iraq had/may have had, there wasn't conclusive proof they still were active, or had anything active. Further, those other intelligence assessments said that guys like Ahmed Chalabi, Iraqi expats, were likely schemers and liars. Lastly, Bush and Cheney were BOTH told that the alluminum tubes and 'mobile weapon' plants were almost certainly not for production of WMD, yet they both said they were. They were also told that Iraq was AT BEST 5 years from a nuclear weapon, but more likely - assuming generally unverifiable accounts of any program at all were true - was that they were between 15 and 25 years from it (or about the same distance as nearly any country).
Finally, the WMD unaccounted for after Gulf Storm 1, was about 5% of the total Iraqi arsenal. It comprised (the missing compenent) - about 500 pounds of mustard or phosgene, and if memory serves, about 50 litres of VX (a nerve agent). The thing is, consider the following, Iraq is in a desparate rush to destroy these weapons after the war (in 1993) because they want a free hand to put down a civil war - so they lose the records of destruction (inadvertently of 5% of their arsenal) - are you telling me that's implausible - that a country in a civil war might not keep perfect records? Anyway, so they do, then Bush says in 2002, provide proof of destruction or we're going to war (which btw, was exactly what he said, comply with UN resolution requiring documented proof or we're invading - it was NOT about future production - it was ultimately about the resolution) - what could Iraq do to avoid war? Waht could they produce - in short, nothing, there was nothing left to show - other than to fabricate records, which they had the chance to do twice, but didn't. Instead, they told what turned out to be the truth, they couldn't find them and didn't have them. I strongly suspect Bush had a pretty good idea Hussien might no longer have them, and so required him to disprove a negative - a fool's request - it's impossible, because he knew it could not be complied with, and thus, war was inevitable.
Because, here's the thing, both the chem agent and the VX were inert, useless after 2 years. There was NO credible proof Hussien produced any further weapons after 1992 - there was NO credible proof of a weapons program either - all there was were the 'unaccounted for' INERT weapons - weapons which had been inert for 8 years when we invaded. So, while you are right, those weapons were never accounted for, which explanation seems more plausible, Hussien HID inert weapons for 8 years which if produced would have avoided sactions (for 8 years) and avoided war? Or that he couldn't find them, and Bush went to war over weapons he KNEW were useless?
That's the basis of accusing Bush of lying, and I think it's a pretty darned good basis.
Penigma wrote"So, while you are right, those weapons were never accounted for, which explanation seems more plausible, Hussien HID inert weapons for 8 years which if produced would have avoided sactions (for 8 years) and avoided war? Or that he couldn't find them, and Bush went to war over weapons he KNEW were useless?"
ReplyDeleteFrom the reading I've done, which differed from the other books quoted here,more was known about Saddam Hussein's weapons by the time Bush was in office. There was still some ambiguity about what he did and did not have, but it was becoming much clearer to the intel services that SH was probably perpetuating a sham to create an image of more power than he had.
Bush asserting that there were definite, 'slam dunk' weapons, that there was clear evidence was blatantly untrue, an overt lie of commission perpetrated on the citizens of the United States and on the UN. Among a number of sources, I refer you to the statements made by Colin Powell.
There was little or no reason to invade Iraq; it was stupid, and Bush emphatically distorted and lied to attempt to justify something he wanted to do. He will be reviled for years to come for what he did, and how he did it, in American History.
KR, in speaking out of both sides of his mouth chastised ToE for talking about 'might haves' when he was himself then chastised.
ReplyDeleteLater, in the same post, he went to AGAIN speculate that an earlier 'surge' would have/could have potentially backfired - including comments about how the other commenters 'flippantly' disregard that possibility.
Hypocrisy, it seems, is alive and well - but the term 'flippantly' is out of place at best. It assumes the idea wasn't considered in detail - when at least by me it was - but again, it falls into the realm of pure speculation. We know the 'surge' in and of itself DIDN'T accomplish it's objectives - but rather, Patreaus' change in the treatment of Iraqis DID. We can't know what might have been, because there are too many variables to predict. I speculate that more troops earlier were EXACTLY the right medicine as they'd have brought some order to an otherwise orderless environment AND secured weapon cache's used against our own troops. In no small way, in fact, is it wrong to say that our own short-sightedness and politicization of troop strengths early on by Rumsfeld lead directly to the deaths of probably no less than DOZENS if not hundreds of US soldiers. Conjecture that it might have had a bad effect is an unprovable without analysis as is conjecture that green men live on Mars unless otherwise proven. It is meaningless speculation asking for the reader to DISPROVE a negative, rather than requiring the person suggesting the idea to prove his or her case. It is the hallmark of arumentative foolishness - as those with more sophistication will rightly condemn such commenters as base and poorly (in fact utterly unsupportedly) reasoned. Anyone thinking such comments are effective are, in the end, only trying for deception - and in that, only deceive themselves.
For KR, a new poetry form, the epic limerick:
ReplyDeleteA man with initials "KR"
Too often offended by far,
ToE, Pen and Dog
Agreed from this Blog
All further comments to bar.
At first "KR" went away,
But Gone he just could not stay.
Yes, he came back
With another attack,
He tried to post yesterday.
Not only withg comments obsessed,
In emails he also transgressed.
With polite explanation,
To KR's consternation,
We blocked email from "KRodby" addressed.
SoWHYdo we get such attention?
Despite attempts at Prevention?
Why is KR so keen
To vent his spleen?
This addiction requires Intervention!
In humorous rhyme I propose
To remind KR what he already knows.
We've been very clear,
KR can't comment here,
Under the bn we unanimously impose.
On Penigma agreements, and dissents,
Framed in courteous well-reasoned arguments,
(Not insulting or mean
Rude or obscene)
Are welcomed on current events.
K-Rod persists in being K-Rude
ReplyDeleteAttempting to get comments viewed;
Calling us coward,
His vocab's underpowered.
For his language, there's no latitude.