The Other Side of Popular.
At the eve of POTUS speech to West Point on the Afghanistan war, the media peanut gallery suddenly starts heaving old candy wrappers at the Oval Office, after thirteen months of hagiography, and it is worth noting that there is surprising slippage in the narrative of the popular presidency -- a glimpse of the other side of the popularity coin. My professionals John Fund and Jodi Schneider both noted to me Sunday 29 that independents have moved away from POTUS and that it is not obvious what will bring them back. The core of the POTUS support is the hard Democratic base plus the near unanimous African-American vote. That is why POTUS polls will unlikely go below 40% even in the worst of times. John Fund noted that there is a surprise in that the Latino vote has sagged to 60% for a Democratic president; and the white vote overall is at 39%. What causes all this disconfort? Politicio's Mike Allen argues effectively that is it issue based following the long Asia trip and right at the eve of the Afghanistan speech. Perhaps too it is based on a perception that the White House is overwhelmed and undermanned. Karen Hooper, Stratfor.com, tells me that an explanation for the State Department's many mistakes on Honduras is that Latin America is a low priority for an overtasked Obama team. This is the same explanation I have heard when asking about the Korean peninsula and the Kim regime problem. The same explanation I have heard with regard the chilly treatment of India. And the same explanation I have heard about the unstable dollar. Excuses don't much work unless you are an infant or a puppy.
What Administration Priority?
My Mideast source tells me that the Obama team is so distracted by healthcare, by the jobless number coming every month, by the defense of the stimulus package, that it does not have focus on the Palestinian breakdown nor on the Iran prevarication. I asked what is more important that the Iran nuke threat? Afghanistan? I am told that the Afghanistan review over many months turned into an embarassment because no one was in charge of the process -- it just evolved amid the other crises of jobs and the dollar and healthcare. So what is the Administration's priority? My Mideast source tells me, "They make it up as they go along." Is the polling showing that the public perceives the spontaneity? The trivial scene of POTUS bowing to the diminuitive and wholly powerless Japanese emperor seemed a one-off. Yet now we have the trivial scene of POTUS greeting the Salahis at the White House State Dinner and the mystery of how they gained access without an invitation. Tunku Varadarajan, DailyBeast.com, told me that it is not just the vulgarity of the Salahis -- the now exposed bankrupts and deadbeats and polo playing Palestinian acitivists -- but the tenacity of the vulgarity. There is more to learn about how the Salahis arrived at the reception and enjoyed an embrace by POTUS despite the fact that they did not sit for dinner -- and Aaron Klein tells me that the Salahis are Democratic fund-raisers who may have contributed to earlier Obama campaigns (not confirmed). What is possible now is that the bowing scene combined with the gate-crashing scene is the media stepping back from the Obama administration as it checks the polls. A popular president is good for sweeps. A weak or clumsy or misstepping president is not good for sweeps (unless you are FNC).
Retreat Priority.
The single threat to the Obama polls is the jobless number for November which is due 830 am on Friday December 4. However the immediate struggle is the Afghanistan decision and the selling of the choice on national TV. My conversations to Ann Marlowe and officers of the 82nd Airborne in Zabul Province Afghanistan (LTC Dave Oclander, Cpt Dan Whitten, of Task Force Fury) alert me to the assumption over there that ISAF and the American military is about to pull back, to reposition, to reset, to retreat in Afghanistan. There will be a retreat from the 249 thousand people in deprived and aimless Zabul Province, where most public officials cannot read and where there is so little to renovate or develop that the American aid agents cannot find anywhere to spend more than $12 million. Ann Marlowe tells me that the Airborne is pulling back from the FOB Nowheres outside of Highway 1. A few Special Forces camps may be left. What do the Afghans make of the fact that the Americans are going away to the big city area of Kandahar in the south? Leave bind spotters for the F-15 fighter-bombers? Fight the Taliban from a bomb bay? Air war against guerillas is not a winning strategy. Retreat is not victory, not on the road to victory. Is President Obama retreating? The word "exit" sounds like retreat to a doubting observer.
This highlights the biggest advantage of adhering to the Monroe Doctrine: It's easy to keep up on things. What's our policy w/r/t Honduras? We're ignoring them! W/r/t Iran? We're ignoring them! W/r/t Afghanistan? We're ignoring them! W/r/t Copenhagen? We're ignoring them!
POTUS has the same Bleak House I do, it's called health care reform.
Actually, the Monroe Doctrine wouldn't call for us to ignore Honduras, but you get the idea.
Even more embarrassing trivia are in the offing. Next week, POTUS will be wasting further time, focus, and popular support by attending the UN Copenhagen Conference to address a non-problem and then schlepping on to Olso to collect a Nobel Prize for non-achievement. What's wrong with this guy? Is he unserious? Lazy? Or perhaps POTUS is still an Alinskyite community organizer at heart, scattering issue seeds this way and that and leaving it to others to perform the heavy lifting of making them grow into coherent policies. That was Saul Alinsky's peripatetic approach, and was a primary reason why his various community organizing efforts bore so little fruit. If that's Obama's problem, then we are in serious trouble because, unlike creative and exciting campaign politics, policy politics -- domestic or foreign -- is too much like plodding, quotidian work to interest a community organizer very deeply or for concentrated periods of time.
The final return to nightly programming is a bright spot in the dismal news emerging daily from DC and arond the world.
Welcome back!
At this point I'm almost breathlessly looking forward to the sit-com. We're taking it all too seriously. Where are the belly laughs? All I hear is cynicism and outrage. Where is the updated version of "Being There"? "Life is a like a box of chocolates", after all. What's the sense of crashing if we can't get that blessed adrenaline rush? Unless we've lost confidence in the air bag (with the Chinese union label attached).
From what I've read, Groucho and his brothers never used a script or teleprompter. They made it up as they went along. They were hugely successful in their day. Obama, the Ballerina and all the Marxist czars have all the makings of a hilarious circus act. How come we're not splitting our sides laughing?
Maybe we've outgrown slapstick. Maybe, we're looking for thrills and chills - seeing our hero dangling off the hands of a clock some thirty stories up, à la Harold Lloyd? And I'll never forget that scene in 'Limelight' in which Chaplin and Keaton played music together. And Laurel and Hardy's 'The Music Box'. They all flirted with disaster - and we simply loved it.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
My adult daughter asked me what I thought of the Obama plan as veteran of the area and with more than 30 years in the military. I said it was a little early to decide as officially it wasn't out but that I didn't think much of it at all.
We will deploy the 34,000 to the places non-military minds think best. This deployment will not be sucessful as it has no focus for what to do--are we helping Afghanistan or pursuing terrorists, or both?
We will attempt to train a group of people who need 10 more years of experience to be ready to relieve our military. We will look again this coming summer just before the Congressional elections and decide it didn't work. We will withdraw either quickly or in 12 months (depends on how the campaigning is going). Afghanistan will fall back to the 6th century again (probably with the Taliban still in charge in various places). Karzi and Bush will be blamed; so will McChrystal and probably Petrateus as well.
And then in about 12 months from that point (or less) (make it 2011) a major terrorist event in the US. Why? Because by then someone will be able to execute a major event.
Again why? Because the US public is tired and no one wishes to repeat what President George W. Bush said in Oct 2001: it may take 30 years or more to defeat the enemy. No one believes we can actually stop terrorists because no one is convinced that the hate they hold for the US can be overcome by us (sadly we have no confidence in ourselves and believe the hype that we are somehow wicked and should not succeed; and sometimes I believe with such an attitude maybe we shouldn't but I know better and I know we are needed in both Afghanistan and elsewhere; not because we are good but because we try to be).
Also, with an apologetic President it will be impossible to convince ally or enemy that we have the strength of will to follow through with anything.
"From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother..."
But they won't be any part of the Obama administration, who truly do not want to be my brother nor my military brothers' brother...
I'm going to take a break from holding my manhood cheaply on St. Crispin's Day, to ask you whether you think that the Colonel JB interviewed last night (was it Lamplighter? Placeholder? Rockhammer?) was overly optimistic or just being a spin doctor? He thought that things were going pretty well. John didn't really press him on the matter.
Cadets will applaud politely. They are not permitted to question their commander in chief. Literally they are a captive audience.
OK, this didn't start out to be a long reply but bear with me ,Lou, I had to think this through for me as well.
I have not had contact with anyone in country in over a year. Things are much worse since then but every year is literally a different "war"---there is a basic time of year to fight (in good weather) and a time to regroup and re-supply. Also the East and South are and have always been much worse off then the North and West (minus the area around Kabul). (Iran is South; Pakistan is East....just to show what influences make for geographic differences).
ISAF (NATO) doesn't have a plan; it wants to offer security for humanitarian help similar to what UN peacekeeping operations are like. This mission has nothing to do with eliminating the Taliban or finding and eliminating Bin Laden.
The US mission has always claimed to be elimination of terrorist networking (to include the terrorists, the home "bases" of the terrorists and their methods of moving--i.e. trails, roads, etc.) I don't ever recall seeing anything that discussed "victory" in Afghanistan as I have see in war plans for Iraq.
Sorry to be so oblique in an answer to you but what would you like to be optimistic about---we are not actually war fighting--we fight "campaigns" which have some success in keeping some areas secure. This isn't the same as eliminating the enemy; containing yes, eliminating no.
There is a plan developed by ISAF that is a 10 year plan (of which we are in the 4th or 5th year of, if I remember correctly--in fact it might even be on the ISAF website); it's a plan on peacekeeping and building infrastructure and improving the lot of the average citizen in Afghanistan. Problem is no one reads it (including ISAF, NGOs, the State Dept , DoD etc) and it horribly behind its proposed timeline and was probably very unrealistic when written. There are, for instance, plans for highways (real paved roads), water works, electric plants etc but outside Kabul most of this is unattainable. Afghanistan has for instance few engineers but worse it has no one who can do modern road work or build modern buildings--why should we do things in a 21st century way? --good point but there is also no labor to build roads the old fashion way which is way more labor intensive. This is a country of farmers who need market roads to the local town but see no advantage to more than that. Hence the presence of over 100,000 contractors to do the modern work the plan calls for. There is no governmental structure to help out and no aghanistani capitalist with a great idea and funds to back it. It is the 6th century and things will get worse before it gets better because people see no advantage to modernity.
So....can we "win"? My question has always been, what does "winning" look like? We ran the Taliban out once--can we do it again. Yes, but in 5-8 years we will be where we are now unless we decide that the 6th century needs to be banished back to the past. Schools, new ideas--simple but elegant in their arrival and use (like modern roads), the freeing of women from the slavery of a life of "no account"---these are what will "win" but someone must be incorruptible and keep the peace. I don't believe this can be the Afghan Army for another 10 years (paying these people and the police a living wage would help keep people in the Army and police and stave off corruption). And yes, the tribal headman has to be brought along as well or things won't change either. Will it be worth it---yes. Are we, the US public, up to it--I would say no because they don't understand and because it's not a sure thing.
So the Colonel was right but was also discussing just a very narrow thing, chasing out the Taliban and any terrorist support---but without all the rest, "winning" won't really happen and by 2015 we will be here, right where we are now, again.
So yes, he was right but spinning as well, though he may not even know it.
John Batchelor on the air on Monday night! Maybe there really is a God after all.
And not only that, that segment with Mary Kissel just now, sounds like JB is finally fired up about Climategate! "A witch's story by a disgraced scientific community in East Anglia" ... wooo, now the train is rolling.
The more I see of President Obama the more I see a man who is way in above his head. It was one thing to campaign it is another to govern. And campaigning against an extremely unpopular President Bush and the Republican party last year was quite easy task. At times he looks like he still can't believe he is the President of the United States. His ideology is very much in step with former President Carter. It is an ideology that believes government and a central planned economy can do everything better than a free market system. I can only hope that Prime Minister Singh, of India gave Mr. Obama some insight into why the economy of India is doing so well since they started giving free market principles a chance to work in the 1990s. Wishful Thinking!
>Schools, new ideas--simple but elegant in their arrival and use (like modern roads), the freeing of women from the slavery of a life of "no account"---these are what will "win"
Doesn't anybody in the military actually read books any more--you know, Rudyard Kipling's "The Man Who Would Be King," for instance, or George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman novels?
The notion of that we can turn things around in the Graveyard of Empires by passing out copies of "The Second Sex" and "The Feminine Mystique" to their rachitic womenfolk is so mind-bogglingly imbecilic that it could only have been hatched by our hopelessly PC Pentagon brass. It promises to be even more catastrophic than was ">*our boneheaded attempt to transplant the Tennessee Valley Authority to Afghanistan half a century ago*, arguably the made-in-Washington genesis of our current miseries over there.
We are ruled by idiots. The grinning skulls of our sons will surely bleach under the skies of Afghanistan. Mother of God.
Yes, and King of the Khyber Rifles too but I never thought I would become a part of it's history.
"feminine mystique" and PCness has nothing to do nation building which is what is happening in Afghanistan; not actual war. And yes, there are many bonehead ideas (the water works stuff is crazy in a country without mid-level bureaucrats and little controlled waterways and with nothing like a labor force for infrastructure building). And we may be ruled by idiots but that would require including the American public as well as our ruling elites and you would need to add the other 32 countries helping out there as well.
I don't believe in fatalism and the "Graveyard of Empires" blah, blah. Just so we get this straight--you do know we (US) helped defeat the Russians in Afghanistan (and I am not talking about Charlie's War) otherwise the Russians own internal problems basically brought them to their knees; it was not the Pashtun, Hankani, etc all by themselves with Ben Laden, right? Or do you believe that Alexander, the Persians, the British and the Russians all lost for the same reasons....(hubris? and us too?)
Yes, we are doing something never tried before with a group of people who have very little to gain and lots to lose in going forward.
And I am not saying we move the 6th century country of Afghanistan into the 21st century but maybe we can move it through some very dark ages (that for the west last 300 years) and move forward into their 14th or 15th century; where citizens can aspire to something beyond serfdom and terror---and no I can't think of anyone else who suceeded at this (except Arthur Pendragon and you know what happen to his realm). Still doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Unless you think we should never have tried....however, I find this should of, could of stuff kind of a sorry argument. Complaining that something is being done at tremendous cost when we could do nothing and wait for ignorance and hate to swallow us for no cost at all; it is rather a silly argument.
And the cost has been enormous in money and lives. So, let's have the President make a decision and then let's stick to it...oh, yeah, that's the hard part isn't it. Getting 300 million people and two houses of Congress to stick with what they agreed to.
Can I ask, what would you like to see done? I know you know that getting out will have consequences. And maybe it won't be evident in our lifetime but it will be immediately evident in Afghanistan....and yes, it might be better. Sharia law means order and everyone following the rules laid out for them; because anyone who doesn't gets shot at the soccer field down the road. But our lives won't be much affected--and think of all the wonderful literature our grandchildren can read about the American debacle in Afghanistan.....
There are a lot of grinning skulls on many fields---when I was a child I didn't realize I would know some of them.....or be responsible for some of them being there. But I do know some and have been responsible for others and so PC doesn't enter into it for me. Idealistic, unrealistic--perhaps but I am a 1/2 full kind of futurist usually.
>"feminine mystique" and PCness has nothing to do nation building which is what is happening in Afghanistan
Quite the contrary. By your own admission the Pentagon's schoolmarmish social constructivists think that they can they drag the Afghans kicking and screaming through a millennium of wrenching cultural change in just a few years. That's as PC as it gets. Next stop, New Soviet Man--with New Feminist Woman as an added attraction. If that vision of the future isn't guaranteed to make every Afghan male sufficiently apeshit with rage to pick up a gun, I don't know what is.
>I don't believe in fatalism and the "Graveyard of Empires" blah, blah.
So just how many years, decades, centuries of blah, blah would it take to make a believer out of you? Stubbornness only counts as a virtue if you are in the right.
>Just so we get this straight--you do know we (US) helped defeat the Russians in Afghanistan (and I am not talking about Charlie's War) otherwise the Russians own internal problems basically brought them to their knees; it was not the Pashtun, Hankani, etc all by themselves with Ben Laden, right?
The Soviets retreated from Afghanistan after ten years of fighting, and in a mere two more years we will have been fighting and dying over there that long ourselves. Despite not getting any help from a major power this time around, the Afghans don't seem to be doing too badly at holding their own against the mightiest war machine the world has ever known, now do they?
>Or do you believe that Alexander, the Persians, the British and the Russians all lost for the same reasons....(hubris? and us too?)
I suppose that we could go 'round and 'round about why the above empires lost, but there's no disagreement about *where* they lost. That ought to tell us a little something important about our odds of success in Afghanistan, don't you think? Particularly since no invader's ever actually, you know, won over there.
>Yes, we are doing something never tried before with a group of people who have very little to gain and lots to lose in going forward.
Yep, sounds like a real recipe for strategic success to me!
>Complaining that something is being done at tremendous cost when we could do nothing and wait for ignorance and hate to swallow us for no cost at all; it is rather a silly argument.
So let's just run straight into the gaping jaws of ignorance and hate instead. I mean, why wait around? ">*Hey ho let's go!*
PS. Do all you Pentagon types write so fuzzily? I can only imagine what sorts of thoughts go through the minds of the troops in the field when they read orders and directives composed in such a bizzare stream-of-consciousness style and realize to their horror just what sort of people are leading them. That makes me suspect that any survivors of our inevitable Afghanistan bugout who possess a literary inclination will compose novels of the black humored sort.
Since my writing is imprecise let me give you a quote from the Washington Post on nation building; which is what I was attempting to explain is going on in Afghanistan as opposed to an actual war:
"Diplomats and officials involved in past nation-building efforts generally agree that the process works best when warring factions are ready to make peace. Elections, while important to lend legitimacy to a new government, should not be rushed -- creating lasting institutions is more important. The international community must have realistic, if modest, goals. Regional experts need to be consulted, and neighboring countries should be brought on board.
And nation-building should be done primarily by the people of the country involved, with the outside world there to assist, diplomats said.
Above all, there must be resources.
'More manpower and more money produces better, faster results,' said former U.S. diplomat James F. Dobbins, now with the Rand Corp., who has had firsthand experience in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. "There is a correlation between the commitment and the achievement."
He added: 'Lesson one was decisive force. Employ a force decisive enough and impressive enough to deter any violent resistance.'
It's from an article that points to East Timor and Kosovo as "successes". You can take it for what it's worth; this kind of success is probably not what the American public is looking for and it may not be achievable in Afghanistan because you must control the violence first; which in my estimation will not be the 4 or 5 years that the young Captains on the ground have been saying but more likely 10 more years. This is really all I was trying to say in my rambling style as an answer to Lou's question. My original remarks were that I don't think the current administration is willing to do that.
You still didn't tell me what you would like to see happen. I can see from your writing that you believe we will inevitable leave Afghanistan in a messy state--i.e. as a failed state. But do you really believe that's what is best for the US? (I understand the enormous cost, I am really asking about what you would like to see happen).
PS Here is a list of places I know of where empires were lost: Europe, Asia, North America, South America, Africa---what is much more important than where an "empire" is lost is what were the causes of it's loss. Which is why Afghanistan's label as a "graveyard" doesn't impress me. (Also, I am not convinced, perhaps because I am too naive, that the US represents "empire".)
Hey Anon- see how it goes? The next thing that comes is a whimpering demand for apologies.
Thank you for your service to our great country and no need to apologize for it.
empire- supreme rule; government by emperor or empress; group of states or territories under
one ruler
US is the opposite of an empire
Looking forward to hearing the President's directives tonight!!
Always remember that there are some who would rather turn back the clock in order to reinvent history rather than embrace the future and make history their own.
Standing over a mousetrap is one sure way to guarantee not catching any at all.
FERALS (Faltering Egos Resisting Avidly Life's Synchronicity)
I got a good laugh out of the Secret Service's comment that even though uninvited guests, who it did not know, got up close to POTUS, POTUS was never in any danger. And to prove the point, the Secret Service then said that everyone went though a metal detector, magnetometer or some such other device -- as if a gun or knife were the only weapons that can kill. Even now I feel the need to ask: What about a pencil in the neck? And I refer you back to my comments under 'JOADS' where I spell out some others. e.g a poison ring doesn't have to contain poison, but might hold enough anthrax to cause grave concern.
John: Your use of the word "retreat" is a nasty slur that is beneath someone of your intelligence -- unless, of course, you are merely getting in touch with your inner Limbaugh.
Tell me John, do you have children or family who stand the chance of being fed into the meatgrinder that is Afghanistan? And to what end? To continue to prop up a criminal government? Is Jeffersonian Democracy "on the march" in Afghanistan.
I guess 8 + years in Afghanistan is not enough for the neocon/military industrial complex.
But then again, this is the magical land known as America, where we don't read history, or we simply make it up as we go along; a country where Elmer Gantry frauds like Palin are sold to us as "qualified" to be president.
And yes, I have my criticisms of this president -- which is more than can be said for those hacks who continued to drink the Bush-Cheney Kool-Aid, even after the disgraceful non-response to Katrina (just to name one debacle among many).
The truth? History? Reality? In the post-Bush America, such concepts are malleable, hence, the push for nonsense like Creationism in the science classrooms.
God bless America, and our sacrifical lamb military soldiers, and our alleged "Marxist imposter from Kenya" who seems to be the only adult remaining in a paralized and cynical Washington.
And I can't let this good humor pass, w/o referring you back to Kenneth Stevens who started it all
with reference to rectal plastic explosives, which was tried on some Saudi prince recently, but failed miserably. However, I do think it killed the @!%hole who tried it.
The country and to some extent this blog seems to be caught in the "less filling........more taste" debate over stay and win vs get out asap.
But isn't the real question, first and foremost, what is the national interest of being there? If the president concludes in all conscience and legitimate analysis that we must stay because 1) we want to help Afgans or 2) we must keep Afgan in our sphere or Pak will fall or 3) our mortal enemies will use Afgan as a base from which to attack us or our interests , or....., then make the case and fight it like it was the last stand between the USA and Armageddon. Or, we will need resources in the coming war with Iran so we must free them from Afgan and/or Iraq. There are very big consequences just below the surface or around the corner.
If Afgan could be left to its fate and it would affect us much, then get out asap.
I fear however that this will be a half a loaf like the waves of half loaves we poured into Viet Nam. A definitive decision will require courage, either way. A weak kneed president will compromise, maintain the slog, butcher our own soldiers. To paraphrase his preacher, if he does the last "God damn BHO".
A lot of scorn laced with humor is being laid at the doorstep of the Secret Service. Apparently, Obama is content to leave it there, like a turd. From what I hear, the Secret Service is not allowed to defend itself (talk about the incident). If true, it reminds me a lot of the tactics that were used against Bush.
You already know quite well that America has a miltary budget larger than the rest of the world's countries put together, as well as 2.5 million personnel manning almost 800 bases in more than 130 countries. So does the others who frequent this website. If not an empire, then what are we?
And if Afghanistan is not the graveyard of empires, then what is it? That cursed place makes Iraq look like Switzerland.
Also, I am puzzled as to why you keep asking me what I want for us to do in Afghanistan. Such a question has about as much importance as my opinion on the inevitable heat death of the universe. We lack the capacity--not to mention the wisdom--to influence events there in any way beneficial to anybody who doesn't own defense stocks. And when we finally go, we will miss that place no more than its sanguinary inhabitants will our social engineers and Predator drones.
Making simple things appear unduly complex is the work of the parasite.
The Afghanistan war does nothing to benefit us. It costs us money and lives. We have no business there and should have been out years ago.
Obama is no better than Bush in this regard.
Whether we're an empire or not has no bearing on this discussion. Whether there's even a remotely good reason to be in Afghanistan has all the bearing in the world on it, and I have yet to hear anyone on this blog, or in the White House, or in any opinion piece, offer one SINGLE reason for being there that made even an iota of sense to me.
U.S. out of Afghanistan NOW.
P.S. Anyone who blames the damage from Hurricane Katrina on President Bush or any other President is a blithering idiot.
You know, I just get so tired of hearing nonsense, at some point I have to clear the air a bit.
Dick Morris predicted that the Republicans will take both houses of Congress in 2010.
Now there's an optimist for you. For that to happen unemployment would have to go to 12% or higher and that's not something we want to wish for.
I'd settle for picking up 5 seats in the Senate and maybe 25 in the House.
Kenneth: "If not an empire, then what are we?" We have bases, yes. We are not occupying any lands. We are not uninvited guests.
Protector of the defenseless innocents- a Paladin
Uninvited!! In the case of Afghanistan, we're invited by our own stooge, Karzai! We stick some idiot puppet in power and then prop our feet up on the table. Uninvited..... Do you suppose that if there were a plebiscite tomorrow in Afghanistan, and it were not held under the threat of violence from either the Taliban or the U.S., that a majority would want us invited?
We were invited in El Salvador too. Small comfort for the hundreds of bodies picked over by vultures at Playon, or the busload of nuns who were raped and then buried in shallow graves, or the Archbishop who was shot in the chest in broad daylight, all under our watch.
What about the atrocities that we have prevented from taking place? Those known unknowns?
We can't be everywhere all the time. Anyway, I stand by my comments that we are not empirical in nature and as our President said, if it were not for the threat posed in the region, he would order all US military personnel to come home.
OK, I'll bite. What threat? And to whom? It's only a threat to US because we're there.
It's only a threat because we are there?
We weren't there on 9/11 and all intell points to the fact that the Islamists and AQ desire to strike US in as devastating a way as they can, if they are able to do so. If we stand down there and drop our guard here, they will come at US with nothing less than their utmost.
You know this, Lou. It is known to be professed everyday by them and it is certainly a no brainer for those we entrust to know these things.
Thank goodness we have a President that knows the risks of being lackadaisical.
Maybe you're right, Spencer. Maybe they'll end up finding the missing WMD at the same time they find the missing Al Qaida honches. Who knows, maybe they'll find the Fountain of Youth and the Lost Continent of Atlantis and the Holy Grail while they're at it. You never can tell.
You want health care fixed and you want to purge Afghanistan of what I consider to be a largely manifactured and imaginary threat, and we don't have the money to do either, and then the next segment, as sure as the sparks fly upward, is John and Simon moaning about how weak the Dollar is. Wonder why? Any possible relation there?
By saying this I certainly don't mean to imply that even if we had no debt and a balanced budget I'd be in favor of pursuing either of the abovementioned policies, but it sure would make it just a bit less outrageous.
It's kind of lonely being a Libertarian. I'm further to the right than 90% of the people here, except that on foreign policy I'm right up there with the progressives. EXCEPT, and it's an important exception, I don't have a problem with using force where it is warranted, and I'm ruthless about it. I absolutely don't care about casualties or collateral damage or repercussions, or anything. Scorch the Earth, I say. But only scorch it when we have a reasonable interest in doing so. And we don't at the moment.
Sorry for the multiple posts. One final thought. A study of the history of the Byzantine Empire has convinced me that the most successful Emperors were the ones who best marshalled their resources. The story of the talents in the Bible comes to mind. The last Constantine, the one who fell in battle against Mehmet II, did an excellent job of marshalling his few resources in defending the City as best he could. Basil the Bulgar-Slayer is an example of one who did a great job when the Empire was at its zenith. The one thing these men had in common with all the other great emperors is that they did the best with the hands they were dealt. The worst emperors were the ones who frittered away their resources, wasting time on things like Papal Bulls and travelling back and forth to England and Rome trying to beg for help fromt he west. And giving unduly large bribes to the marauders to keep them at bay, when it would have been cheaper to rise up and knock a few of them off. The list goes on and on.
What Obama's doing with health care "reform" and Afghanistan and Copenhagen is so incredibly reminiscent, to me, of some of the actions of some of the very WORST Byzantine emperors, dissipating our precious and scant resources on absolute nonsense. It should all be about jobs at this point. How can anyone be so blind and stupid as to not realize this?
I know---> Let's build a big wall that surrounds the contiguous US (to hell with Alaska and Hawaii).
That would surely provide alot of jobs and when the wall is built we can all sell something to each other... any suggestions?
This President is going to lead US into an era of unimaginable prosperity.
If you're referring to the walls around Constantinople, understand that the Byzantine Empire in its zenith encompassed all of Asia Minor, the Balkan Peninsula, Rome, Greece, most of the islands in the Mediterranean, and even parts of northern Africa. It was a good deal more complex than defending a single city. It is true that the empire lasted for much longer than it would have without the walls, but there is still much to be learned from study of it. Of course, it's much easier to simply mock me than to actually take the trouble to see whether I might have a point.
I agree with you about the "unimaginable" part!
I wasn't mocking you, Lou.
What point do you make that I haven't taken the trouble to see whether you have one or not?
To do nothing? You said we can't afford to do anything about anything.
I say we can't afford to do nothing.
49% of respondents to a PewRes poll say America should adopt a more isolationist position.
MoE = 4%
See, I try to get both side of the story. Just a few more months and the isolationists will have a majority.
Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey:
* Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.
* 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.
Seems like Americans feel the need, but, they also doubt they will see it happen.
It comes back to what I've said before about preconceived notions.
This is very off topic for me but on your telephone survey, Spencer, can I ask if you know what the response rate of the survey was--the response rate is the number of phone calls that had to be made to get 2,999 responses.
If for instance the number called was 3500 then the response rate would be above 80 percent (if I did my math right) and is considered by social scientists as a valid poll. If the number called however was 35,000 (and yes even Zogby admits that it sometimes takes 40,000 calls to get 1000 answers) then the rate is way below 80 percent and the answers quite frankly are consider by polling experts to be garbage (doesn't mean they don't get published, just no one will give the response rate :-)
Two other notes--if it was a true "telephone" (versus VOIP/cell phone) poll, it will be weighted to older people (over 50, honest) because well over 20 percent of the population has switched to cell or VOIP only for "home" use; and these numbers aren't sold to pollsters. Also 40 percent of telephones (traditional kind) have blocking software (i.e. caller ID ) and don't answer while 30 percent are just not home for the call (on average) when called.
Just good info when you look at a poll--all polls; they are inherently influenced by the technology of the phone.