Except for the pilgrims! Those dirty religious fascists! Oh and there was that small bit where the south invaded the north shortly to suffer a reverse fate. P.S. there was that migration of the Indians coming here from what is now Russia I think.

pisc writes...[...] Quite right. Mea culpa. Those in the south certainly understand/stood. Native Americans probably grasp the concept pretty clearly, too. The issue for me, however, really is recognizing that Afghanistan isn't going to go away and that leaving the place in a state of complete illiteracy and domination by drug-lords and religious nuts isn't going to make any of us any safer. Cheers.

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of ironic humor.

Thanks to Michael and Josh.

Agreed. A profound discussion of the issues. I'm very happen to see foreign policy wonks really grapple with the issues of militarism, exceptionalism and "multilateral colonialism," as well as the contradictions inherent in the pseudo-progressive warmongering lite of COIN in Afpak. I really hope Obama doesn't ruin his presidency by escalating the war, but I have a creepy feeling that the die is cast, and he will foolishly continue to squander his political capital and his legacy on this debacle. As Michael and Judah suggested, the president should listen to the guy who ran and won in 2008: “It’s not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq.”

Quoting Wonderment: Agreed. A profound discussion of the issues.

I'm very happen to see foreign policy wonks really grapple with the issues of militarism, exceptionalism and "multilateral colonialism," as well as the contradictions inherent in the pseudo-progressive warmongering lite of COIN in Afpak.

I really hope Obama doesn't ruin his presidency by escalating the war, but I have a creepy feeling that the die is cast, and he will foolishly continue to squander his political capital and his legacy on this debacle.

As Michael and Judah suggested, the president should listen to the guy who ran and won in 2008: “It’s not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq.”

And let me second.... or third that. This is the kind of discussion on international issues that makes bhtv such a valuable source of information and debate, at least from my vantage point in Europe. Perhaps more could have been said on the militarization of American foreign policy in the last fifty years and its relationship to domestic politics and the economy. The illusion of omnipotence through military power could never have

for different view, from an individual that has been the front of the spear, One Tribe At a Time. It is a 45 page pdf but large type and pictures so it is not a long a read as it first might seem.

I totally disagree with Judah's assertion that it's America responsibility to "maintain these global commons and their security." Say what? I think anyone proposing that should be wearing a uniform and promise to put their children and their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren in uniform as well because that dangerous idea is just a recipe for all war all the time. No thanks, Judah. Let's get out of Afghanistan....tomorrow! I thought Mr. Cohen's position was pretty thoughtful and logical... that even if we could change Afghanistan (which we cannot, I may add), the United States has neither the resources or the political will to do so. And since that's the case (and it is the case) then we should not have one more soldier die for a lost cause. We had nearly twenty die in the last two days.... for what? Please, let's bring the troops home.

Quoting piscivorous: for different view, from an individual that has been the front of the spear, One Tribe At a Time. It is a 45 page pdf but large type and pictures so it is not a long a read as it first might seem.

Wow! And this guy says he's not a writer! Just a few take aways from the first part. Afghanistan looks like it needs to be whole different kind of war. Is the US up to it? It will require dedication, intelligence and integrity.
The risk-averse nature of our current method of
operating would have to change. American soldiers
would die. Some of them alone, with no support.
Some may simply disappear. Everyone has to
understand that from the outset.

“Democracy” only has a chance to be cultivated at
the local level by a small group
of men—Tribal Engagement
Teams—who are willing to
dedicate their lives to the
Afghan people and cause.

I like using analogies. If the war in Afghanistan is
a boxing match, here’s what’s happening: The US has
won every round but has not been able to knock them
(Taliban) out. The fight has no limit on the number
of rounds that can be fought. We will continue to
punish them, but never win the fight. It will go

Yea just another of those too dumb to do anything but go in the Army guys, a theme that both these gentleman tacitly alluded to.

Quoting piscivorous: Yea just another of those too dumb to do anything but go in the Army guys, a theme that both these gentleman tacitly alluded to.

So if we are to take the notions of evo-psych seriously, it is easy to understand the Afghan notion of tribal loyalty. The problem in the evo-psych context, it seems to me, is whether anyone from our tribe can be persuaded to risk everything for theirs. It's a huge leap for mankind, but maybe one that is required at this point in history.

Nor could the reliance on military solutions to all problems have won such widespread support among Americans without the constant drumbeat of fear that has been so striking a feature of political discourse in the past eight years. A fear quite disproportionate to the actual "existential" threats facing the US.

Yes, the Dems. conveniently blamed all this on a stupid president, his evil cohort Darth Vader and a cabal of crazed neo-con hawks (the "right-wing conspiracy"). There would be a new "mindset" when Dems. got to power. But that's not how it's playing out so far. On the contrary, militarism is enjoying renewed prestige, and -- as the speakers pointed out -- the lines are being blurred between humanitarian aid and shock and awe. We are in Afghanistan and Iraq to "protect" not to kill. It just looks like killing if you happen to be the person killed. To everyone else, however, it's supposed to look like "spreading human rights, democratization and emerging global values." Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation (1960):

...Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as

Fine discussion. Most of the worthwhile comments were coming from Grunstein. Not sure that Cohen had much to add, other than responses that were impulsive, unorganized, and often off point. Grunstein is right to point out that counterinsurgency is really a strategic doctrine, not a tactical one. It may have some tactical effects. For instance, changes to the rules of engagement. No kicking down doors. No excessive use of fire power. Heavy emphasis on discriminate use of targeted killings. And so on. But the bigger implications of counterinsurgency, like the distribution and size of military bases throughout the countryside, or emphasis on protecting the population as opposed to attacking enemy strongholds--these directives are strategic in nature. The distinction is important since, if this is right, counterinsurgency will only provide a remedy for strategic ills, but not tactical ones. The discussion then took up the Thomas Barnett thesis that the should US should make it, its duty to integrate non-governed spaces. The underlying motive for this kind of argument is that continued commitment to Afghanistan and other expensive missions cannot be justified by a narrow understanding of a nation's interests. Only by a wide consideration of what

Quoting Francoamerican: And let me second.... or third that. This is the kind of discussion on international issues that makes bhtv such a valuable source of information and debate, at least from my vantage point in Europe.

Fourth.

Perhaps more could have been said on the militarization of American foreign policy in the last fifty years and its relationship to domestic politics and the economy.

Sounded at one point like they (or at least Michael) wanted to have that conversation. I'd be delighted to hear an hour on that, for sure.

The illusion of omnipotence through military power could never have gone so far--well beyond what is necessary for self-defense--- without the incestuous relationship between the military and the industries that provide it with weapons. Nor could the reliance on military solutions to all problems have won such widespread support among Americans without the constant drumbeat of fear that has been so striking a feature of political discourse in the past eight years. A fear quite disproportionate to the actual "existential" threats facing the US.

I think you and I are not only on the same page, but in the same

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, the Dems. conveniently blamed all this on a stupid president, his evil cohort Darth Vader and a cabal of crazed neo-con hawks (the "right-wing conspiracy"). There would be a new "mindset" when Dems. got to power.

But that's not how it's playing out so far.

You're right to remind people of this. You're unrealistic to sound so impatient. You're inaccurate to say "Dems." First, there are close to as many blue hawks as there are red, especially when you consider the people who have the most power. Second, you also have many Dems who are unable to step outside of that "Father Knows Best" attitude toward the rest of the world, and how this plays out goes to blurring those lines you go on to mention. Third, there is the reality of our political system, pertinent pieces of which include (a) all politicians care first about getting (re)elected, and (b) the narrative so well established over the past couple of generations that "the DemocRat Party is weak on defense." Not only has the GOP had little else to run on lately, they know it works, at least as far as getting into the minds of their

... so we don't have to go back there in 5 or 10 years time, and start over what we already are involved in. There are consequences to leaving. Short-term choices can have long-term consequences.

Quoting badhatharry: So if we are to take the notions of evo-psych seriously, it is easy to understand the Afghan notion of tribal loyalty. The problem in the evo-psych context, it seems to me, is whether anyone from our tribe can be persuaded to risk everything for theirs.

It's a huge leap for mankind, but maybe one that is required at this point in history.

Why frame that way? Self-interest is the obvious motivating interest in the case of Afghanistan, don't you think? The real issue is whether the folks in charge of policy can sell the self-interest angle effectively.

I liked your replies to Franco and me, and I'm glad to see we were all impressed with Michael's take on things. I'll just push back (since Judah used that term a dozen times, I thought I'd try it out once) on "patience." MLK was very patient. Patience is effective if, and only if, you never take your eye off the prize. I am happy to give Obama 8 years and the Dems. 50 years if we really share a vision and a mission. A lot of people, however, maintain a healthy skepticism about the Obama administration's courage, capacity and desire to challenge militarism. We applaud when Obama talks about abolishing nuclear weapons; we swoon when he refers to a "new mindset;" but when he escalates wars and pays hundreds of millions of dollars for weapons the he claims are obsolete ($560 million for the F-35 fighter jet engine built by General Electric Co and Rolls-Royce Group), we wonder if our hopes are not misplaced. Put simply, we need a draw-down and end game exit strategy for militarism, especially the idea of US military domination (and casual policing) of the planet. This is true even under the generous supposition that we engage in

Didn't find the guys arguments about how to win that persuasive; he may have gone a little to native. But I thought it was an good description of the social conditions that those in the hinterland of Pashtun Afghanistan are facing. I'm sure that you could find a few that would go for it but I don't believe the cadre would be all that large. I also believe that like it or not some of the tribal nature of the culture needs to go by the wayside if Afghanistan stability is to be achieved.

well if we stay, we will be there for another five to twenty years.... so I'm not sure what you are advocating.... we CANNOT make Afghanistan into a modern state. As Mr. Cohen points out...we have neither the time, political will nor the resources... so you are just asking us to get more of our soldiers killed.... and for what? What do you think you are achieving? The first sign of a failed policy is when you start hearing things like "IF we had a reliable partner, IF we had forty thousand more troops, IF, IF, IF! For god''s sake, people wake up! Do we need 50,000 dead soldiers to prove you all wrong? (Btw, we already killed 50,000 Iraqis.... hasn't that sated someone's bloodlust?)

Quoting AemJeff: Why frame that way? Self-interest is the obvious motivating interest in the case of Afghanistan, don't you think? The real issue is whether the folks in charge of policy can sell the self-interest angle effectively.

I was framing it that way to allude to what I read in Pisc's link, which I highly recommend http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/wp-..._at_a_time.pdf. I am not a great student of history, but from what I have gleaned, supporting the tribal leaders in the way this soldier describes will mean a pretty radical description of what our self interest really is. One that may include 'saving the world' and certainly giving up a lot in order to do so. The commitment he describes may be beyond anything we Americans are capable of.

Quoting Wonderment: I liked your replies to Franco and me, and I'm glad to see we were all impressed with Michael's take on things.

I'll just push back (since Judah used that term a dozen times, I thought I'd try it out once) on "patience."

Ugh. I am beyond tired of that bit of social lubricant. It was driving me to distraction during the diavlog. Glad to hear I'm not alone. As to the rest of what you say, I don't really disagree, but I dislike your placing this, once again, so much on Obama's head. Try to recall what went on during the last cycle of negotiations regarding the DoD's budget (e.g.). We're talking about far more pervasive and entrenched a mindset than any one guy, even a president, is going to be able to overturn, especially if he has hopes of getting anything else accomplished, and particularly if he's a Democrat. It just doesn't do much to help when you frame your views in ways that sound so much like kneejerk Obama haters, is my view.

I don't know anyone arguing that we can make Afghanistan into a modern state. I think what people want is to make sure the Taliban don't come back into power and allow extremists to incubate in their hinterlands. If we leave now the Afghanis we've been trying to help will get burned and there will be no guarantee Afghanistan won't revert to Taliban control and go back to being a safe haven for people even more extreme than the Taliban. Like with Iraq we might then find ourselves having to go back to Afghanistan in ten years time spilling more American blood there. We will be there a long time. That needs to be understood. The world is still a mostly a messed up place and we have to deal with that whether we want to or not.

Hmmm....It boggles my mind how elections could be held when so much of the population, so much, is under threat of death or mutilation for participating. Imagine going to vote, and bad luck, you meet Taliban on the road to the polls. They cut off your nose and ears because of the voting ballot on your pocket. It is inappropriate to conduct elections under these circumstances. I have to wonder about the judgment of those who decided to go forward with these elections, as well as the others who complained about voter fraud. Good grief !! Afghanistan was supposed to be a NATO project...not a coalition of the willing. So far President Obama is nor more effective than Bush was. Token participation by other NATO members is the real problem. The debate should not be about more or less American troops, but whether a genuine, collective effort is worth obtaining concrete objectives. Maybe it is not. At least Michael and Judah stressed the importance of the international response. Very good.

jharonfe writes...[...] Thanks again for your sensible insights and commentary. The distinctions you make are important and speak as much to the need for a certain level of consensus and co-ordination among those who find progress and safety in stabilizing and improving states such as Afghanistan as they do for a more clearly formulated policy towards the use of trade, diplomacy and force in general. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld was right: shit happens and nations go to war with the resources they have, both hard and soft. Failure in Iraq, I'd argue, resulted more from US efforts to control the allocation of post-conflict reconstruction contracts than any other factor. Had nations that sat out the conflict been given the opportunity to win big-bucks they'd have been much more likely to pony up troops for Phase IV. So, on the question of the US independently attempting to stabilize Afghanistan I agree. The problem is that the history of hands-off isolationism is not a happy one. Pakistani intelligence and the madrasas stepped in to fill the vacuum created by the absence of any real UN aid policy to support the refugees of the

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

-- NY Times

Quoting Wonderment: -- NY Times

C'mon Wonderment -- link it, man.

C'mon Wonderment -- link it, man.

Smtmes my lzinss srprzes evn me.

You mean the NY Times has finally gotten it's head out of it's ass on this issue. What opther stories are they so behind the curve on?

They seem to be pitching COIN as a hearts and minds approach. Isolate the disaffected, guerrillas, insurgents, or whatever name is in fashion from the mass of the population, and convince the latter to like the a government preferred by the COINers. At a reported cost of $1 million per US soldier per year to send more troops to a country with a per capita GDP of less than $1 thousand per year, its hard not to wonder if a little creative thinking wouldn't lead to a more cost effective way to influence people than surrounding them with foreign troops.

How else can you keep the Taliban from returning to power without boots on the ground?

Howabout letting the people of Afghanistan decide whether they want the Taliban in power? The Taliban didn't attack us on Sept 11... Saudis living in Afghanistan instructed Saudis living in the US and Europe attacked us. It's the mindset that the United States should be dictating who should be running other peoples' countries that makes us hated throughout the world--and is the recipe for endless conflict. Bring the troops home. We can win hearts and minds by not being there.

And if the Taliban had surrendered the planers and organizers of the attacks they might still be in power in Afghanistan today. But I guess that one little detail is not germane to your argument so is conveniently overlooked by you.

no I didn't overlook the fact the Taliban didn't turn them over.... you think it was possible for them to turn Bin Laden et al in? The simple truth you are overlooking with that argument is that we've been there eight years with the most powerful military in the world and still haven't gotten Bin Laden....

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, the Dems. conveniently blamed all this on a stupid president, his evil cohort Darth Vader and a cabal of crazed neo-con hawks (the "right-wing conspiracy"). There would be a new "mindset" when Dems. got to power.

But that's not how it's playing out so far. On the contrary, militarism is enjoying renewed prestige, and -- as the speakers pointed out -- the lines are being blurred between humanitarian aid and shock and awe.

We are in Afghanistan and Iraq to "protect" not to kill. It just looks like killing if you happen to be the person killed. To everyone else, however, it's supposed to look like "spreading human rights, democratization and emerging global values."

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation (1960):

Thanks for the Eisenhower quote. Curious, isn't it, that a true soldier like Ike saw the writing on the wall so early? But then Eisenhower really knew something about war, unlike the ignorant and pretentious Pentagon technocrats who now run the show. Killing in the name of protecting and promoting human rights---what colossal hypocrisy!

Quoting bjkeefe: Sounded at one point like they (or at least Michael) wanted to have that conversation. I'd be delighted to hear an hour on that, for sure..

So would I.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think you and I are not only on the same page, but in the same paragraph, on this one.

One quibble: I'd say the "constant drumbeat" extends back well more than eight years. What we've heard since the neocons installed their ersatz-cowboy puppet is just the latest edition of the drumbeat. We've had, previously, The Red Menace, The Yellow Peril, The Domino Theory, The Missile Gap (many times), and The Evil Empire, just to name a few. I think the hysteria from the Bushies was so immediately obvious as hysteria because most of us (and most of them, deep down) knew that there actually wasn't nearly as much of a large-scale threat as were available for bludgeoning purposes earlier.

No need to quibble. I agree entirely. What is amazing to me is that so many Americans born, say, after 1970 are such fearful little sissies.

so you wish us to invade Pakistan as well. Aren't you the dove?

not sure how you made the leap in logic from my last post that I wanted to invade Pakistan... but in fact, the policies that (you?) support: continuing the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan would also support invading any country that had terrorists on their soil.... it's just a global whack-a-mole at that point. I am the son of a Navy officer (30 years) and if not wanting to send men and women like him off to stupid, ill-conceived conflicts makes me a "dove", then I'm a dove.

No need to quibble. I agree entirely. What is amazing to me is that so many Americans born, say, after 1970 are such fearful little sissies.

It's not so much that they are sissies. It's more that post-Vietnam the military embarked on a gazillion dollar propaganda campaign to improve its image. Several billion dollars are spent annually on propaganda, which includes massive efforts in child recruitment on high school campuses, malls and other areas where kids hang out, as well as targeted spots on television, radio and Internet to package the military as heroic, sexy and character-building. This has intensified since 2000. The bi-partisan "No Child Left Behind" Act required all high schools in the nation (public and private) to give up the names, addresses and phone numbers of all students for recruitment purposes. Families can opt-out if they fill out a form, but most kids and parents don't know that. My kids DID opt out, but they still received trinkets and recruitment propaganda in the mail,as well as regualr visits from uniformed soldiers to their schools.

Quoting Wonderment: It's not so much that they are sissies. It's more that post-Vietnam the military embarked on a gazillion dollar propaganda campaign to improve its image. Several billion dollars are spent annually on propaganda, which includes massive efforts in child recruitment on high school campuses, malls and other areas where kids hang out, as well as targeted spots on television, radio and Internet to package the military as heroic, sexy and character-building.

This has intensified since 2000. The bi-partisan "No Child Left Behind" Act required all high schools in the nation (public and private) to give up the names, addresses and phone numbers of all students for recruitment purposes.

Families can opt-out if they fill out a form, but most kids and parents don't know that. My kids DID opt out, but they still received trinkets and recruitment propaganda in the mail,as well as regualr visits from uniformed soldiers to their schools.

I have read that the kids the military recruits are among the poorest and least well-educated Americans. Military service for them is a form of social mobility----if they are lucky enough to return alive and unscathed from places like

9/11 was propaganda? The Soviet Union wasn't a communist totalitarian state with nukes? North Korea and the Taliban really aren't that bad?

How could the Afghans determine they wanted the Taliban in power when the Taliban just took power through force and then didn't hold elections?

The Taliban took power... and if the people of Afghanistan don't want them in power, then they need to fight to take it back.... or in the current situation, defend themselves against the Taliban from taking over again. Why the hell should a US Soldier from Atlanta or Kansas City fight the Taliban if a citizen of Afghanistan won't? With your logic, we would be fighting every country's civil war...

Quoting Francoamerican: [...] What is amazing to me is that so many Americans born, say, after 1970 are such fearful little sissies.

Ahhhh, I suspect we Americans are not alone in possessing this susceptibility to fear-mongering from those in power. Seems to me a lot of mileage is gained, say, among Iranian citizens by waving the Israeli threat flag, and vice versa. I'm sure there is no shortage of other examples one could name.

Aaaah... we're in Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden and cohorts had the protection of the Taliban government. The Taliban refused to give him and his cohorts up, so we attacked the Taliban and occupied Afghanistan to get at those responsible for 9/11. The Afghans were fighting the Taliban and the were losing very badly, so much so they only controlled about (if I'm not mistaken) 7% of the country by the time we decided to help the Northern Alliance run over the Taliban by bombing the Taliban to smithereens on their northern front. We remain there because we don't want al Qaeda coming back and openly re-establishing themselves in Afghanistan. We don't want a return to the status quo in Afghanistan that existed on 9/11. Unfortunately that means keeping forces in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ahhhh, I suspect we Americans are not alone in possessing this susceptibility to fear-mongering from those in power. Seems to me a lot of mileage is gained, say, among Iranian citizens by waving the Israeli threat flag, and vice versa. I'm sure there is no shortage of other examples one could name.

Certainly. Nothing cements national unity so thoroughly as fear of real or imagined enemies. History is full of examples of elected and unelected leaders using fear to consolidate their power. But what is extraordinary about the United States---a country that has never been invaded (well there was that little episode in 1812 with the British...)--is that ever since it became the dominant world power it has lived in terror of war and built up a military establishment and arsenal that have no equivalent in world history.

Quoting Lyle: 9/11 was propaganda? The Soviet Union wasn't a communist totalitarian state with nukes? North Korea and the Taliban really aren't that bad?

That's not the question. Bad or not, they aren't serious threats to American national security. The Soviet Union was a threat---at least on paper and according to the wildly inaccurate assessments of the CIA and assorted cold warriors---but the Soviet Union never posed a direct military threat to American national security, i.e. to its existence and its territorial integrity. Nuclear weapons, as everyone has understood since the 1960s, were never a credible threat. If both sides can annihilate one another, neither side can defeat the other. No one in his right mind ever thought that a total nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union would have resulted in a victor. And what is the point of war if there is no winner? But the fear of the Russian enemy fed the very profitable military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about.

yeah, I know the history Lyle. What I am saying and which we will never agree on is that it makes no f*cking sense to me to expend over 5,000 US soldiers lives (in Iraq and Afghanistan), untold billions of dollars, kill tens of thousands of innocent (and not so innocent) people just because 3000+ people were killed on 9/11. Seems to me we are out another 5000 people, plus all of the injured soldiers...
So 9/11 has cost us 8000 american lives... how many more are you willing to continue to sacrifice? 10,000? 50,000? 500,000? Enough is enough. But clearly, you are hell bent on this foolish endeavor and I'm afraid our political, financial and military elites agree with you.

We'll keep on sacrificing our soldiers as long as it takes to keep us safe or protect our interests. Leaving Afghanistan won't mean American soldiers are going to stop dying. They'll just be sent somewhere else in the world to die in due course because the world has lots of problems and America is the only country that can do something about it, and there will always be political pressure on us to involve ourselves, either out of our own self interest or out of altruism (like in Somalia). I don't want our soldiers dying and being mutilated anymore than you do, but I'm not going to pretend we can ignore the harsh world we live in and pretend we can just stay uninvolved and unhurt.

No, instead you pretend that the history of the United States' meddlesome involvement in the various governments of the world is NOT the cause of our problems. You keep wanting to treat the symptoms (terrorism) with more invasion and occupation. I want to treat the disease: US militarism and occupation which denies people of the world their own self-seeking destiny if it happens to not coincide with the wishes of America's political elite. Every argument you make is the essentially same one for the continuation of the Vietnam war...history has proven you wrong there and will prove you wrong here. I'd have more respect for your opinions if you were willing to wear a uniform to back up your requirement that we will need to continue to send American sons and daughters to die in order to bring about your wish to spread Pax Americana. But I suspect you and most of the other pro-war posters on this forum are only hawks when it comes to typing on computers.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. We won't ever not meddle in other peoples' affairs as long as we are the lone military superpower in the world. We can try and try and try to live by George Washington's words and avoid any and all foreign involvements, but we will fail. Liberals may not have wanted the U.S. in Iraq, but they certainly want the U.S. in Sudan (and years ago Rwanda). In the Balkans we got dragged in because the Europeans couldn't stop what was going on and because they were at threat of having to deal with a mass refugee crisis, so we stepped in and bombed the European Christians who were killing, mutilating, and raping Muslim Europeans. Then there is oil and other natural resources we and everyone else need. We can't abide the likes of Saddam Hussein or Muslim extremists disrupting the use of such resources, so we have to involve ourselves are face some dire economic consequences. The world is complicated and too complicated for us to believe we can just stick our heads in the sand, and pretend it all work

As the child of an Army veteran of both WWII and Korea I can fully appreciate your concern for your father, and others like him, having to do there duty where the country orders them to go. While I was just a gleam in his eye for WWII and a mere child for his duty in Korea, I was fully aware of his pending orders to The Republic of Vietnam in the mid 60's and the consternation it created within the Family. Primarily it was between my mother and father but we kids were not unheard from. While my father was not thrilled about serving in a third war, even though it was to have been in a strictly advisory position, he saw it as his duty and his responsibility. This is the only time I am consciously aware of that our parents came close to being divorced. Fortunately a special forces unit was sent instead so the issue resolved itself and we celebrated their 63rd anniversary this year. Once Bin Laden slipped out of box we supposedly had him in at Tora Bora and into Pakistan, where

1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry of the 1st Air Cavalry Division, at least that was what I knew it by in Vietnam, and until 1985 or 86 when it was deactivated. But I guess that makes me one of the acceptations to your crude attempt at mud-slinging.

Emph. added:

Quoting Lyle: We'll keep on sacrificing our soldiers as long as it takes to keep us safe or protect our interests. Leaving Afghanistan won't mean American soldiers are going to stop dying. They'll just be sent somewhere else in the world to die in due course because the world has lots of problems and America is the only country that can do something about it ...

My lower jaw hurts. From bouncing off the floor.

Quoting Lyle: .....the world has lots of problems and America is the only country that can do something about it

How true. Instead of meddling in the Middle East, where the United States is manifestly incompetent and has done more harm than good, it could reduce its oil consumption. On average Europeans consume only 25% per capita of what Americans consume. I know, I know, a country with such grandiose ambitions can hardly be expected to live modestly within its means.

Quoting Francoamerican: How true. Instead of meddling in the Middle East, where the United States is manifestly incompetent and has done more harm than good,...

I wounder if the 20 million or so Iraqis that have a shot at creating one of the first real Arabic democracies would agree with their french brethren that breath free thanks to American meddling back in the 40s. Perhaps if we had insisted that all countries that were occupied by the then European hegemony, Germany, had to set their former colonies on the path to freedom, how much better the world would be today. I mean after all isn't the ME of today what resulted from the drawing of irrelevant lines in the dirt by European powers?

Quoting piscivorous: I wounder if the 20 million or so Iraqis that have a shot at creating one of the first real Arabic democracies would agree with their french brethren that breath free thanks to American meddling back in the 40s. Perhaps if we had insisted that all countries that were occupied by the then European hegemony, Germany, had to set their former colonies on the path to freedom, how much better the world would be today. I mean after all isn't the ME of today what resulted from the drawing of irrelevant lines in the dirt by European powers?

In what sense does any of this have something to do with the charge that American policy in the ME has been incompetent? (Cheerleading for the travesty in Iraq notwithstanding.)

Quoting piscivorous: I wounder if the 20 million or so Iraqis that have a shot at creating one of the first real Arabic democracies would agree with their french brethren that breath free thanks to American meddling back in the 40s. Perhaps if we had insisted that all countries that were occupied by the then European hegemony, Germany, had to set their former colonies on the path to freedom, how much better the world would be today. I mean after all isn't the ME of today what resulted from the drawing of irrelevant lines in the dirt by European powers?

I dispute your claim about Iraq, but there is no point arguing it with you. The US entered WW II late and reluctantly, and only after Pearl Harbor. WW II is not even remotely comparable to Iraq. It is time for Americans to stop congratulating themselves for their noble deeds in WW I and II and start thinking of all the pain and misery they have caused since then.

Yea and all the shit the world has been put through by the European's imperialist powers don't count because history only starts in 1945 or is it 1989 when the soviets collapse. You European robed and plundered the world, kept it's people in subjugation, and the residual fallout from that period of enlightened European rule benevolence is in no way responsible for the state of the world today. What planet do you live on?

Quoting piscivorous: Yea and all the shit the world has been put through by the European's imperialist powers don't count because history only starts in 1945 or is it 1989 when the soviets collapse. You European robed and plundered the world, kept it's people in subjugation, and the residual fallout from that period of enlightened European rule benevolence is in no way responsible for the state of the world today. What planet do you live on?

You know as little about history as you do about English.

Insult and invective are such effective rebuttal tools!

Quoting piscivorous: Insult and invective are such an effective rebuttal tools!

What is there to rebut in your childish, barely literate outburst? Like most Americans you know no more about the history of your own country than you do about the history of rest of the world. History for you consists in one long song of self-praise repeated ad nauseam.

Quoting Francoamerican: What is there to rebut in your childish, barely literate outburst? Like most Americans you know no more about the history of your own country than you do about the history of rest of the world. History for you consists in one long song of self-praise repeated ad nauseam.

You're right about what pisc is attempting here -- but why toss in an insult to Americans, in general? The fisheater is no more representative of all Americans than, say, your average American with a PhD. in History. The insult is pointless and doesn't help your case.

Quoting nikkibong: You're right about what pisc is attempting here -- but why toss in an insult to Americans, in general? The fisheater is no more representative of all Americans than, say, your average American with a PhD. in History. The insult is pointless and doesn't help your case.

Correct, but I wasn't born yesterday. I taught for a while at Harvard and I remember how uninformed about history were many of "the best and the brightest" (their own self-description, not mine). And there have been many surveys of Americans of all levels of education that indicate an appalling lack of knowledge of the basic facts of history and geography. But you are right, the insult was unjustified but alas the facts are the facts.

Quoting Francoamerican: Correct, but I wasn't born yesterday. I taught for a while at Harvard and I remember how uninformed about history were many of "the best and the brightest" (their own self-description, not mine). And there have been many surveys of Americans of all levels of education that indicate an appalling lack of knowledge of the basic facts of history and geography.

But you are right, the insult was unjustified but alas the facts are the facts.

I wonder of France is beset with similar problems? I don't say this to provoke - I'm genuinely curious. My French friends did not rave about their respective high schools - they seemed to learn considerably more in the two year programs between high school and entering university. (I've forgotten what those optional years are called - you probably know to what I'm referring to.) In some sense, it's, to dabble in cliche, the "price of freedom." Incredibly draconian education systems - Japan, South Korea, China - tend to produce very high levels of "historical knowledge," as well as math, language skills etc. But at what cost? Misery, from what I could tell.

Need I say more!

Quoting piscivorous: Insult and invective are such effective rebuttal tools!

From the same commenter, two posts later, full text:

Quoting piscivorous: Wow what an impressive recital of the Democratic talking points.

In fairness, perhaps the first quote isn't sarcastic, but a compliment?

Quoting nikkibong: I wonder of France is beset with similar problems? I don't say this to provoke - I'm genuinely curious. My French friends did not rave about their respective high schools - they seemed to learn considerably more in the two year programs between high school and entering university. (I've forgotten what those optional years are called - you probably know to what I'm referring to.)

In some sense, it's, to dabble in cliche, the "price of freedom." Incredibly draconian education systems - Japan, South Korea, China - tend to produce very high levels of "historical knowledge," as well as math, language skills etc. But at what cost? Misery, from what I could tell.

French lycées are uneven in quality, so it is difficult to generalize. But history teachers are top-notch because they have to pass through the same system as university history teachers before they are allowed to teach. The two-year period you are referring to (khâgne) is only for the best students preparing for the "grandes écoles" (the French equivalent of élite universities). It is equivalent to the first two years of an undergraduate education in the US. History requires a lot of reading and a kind of intelligence that

Talk about context challenged?

Quoting piscivorous: Talk about context challenged?

What is this context of which you speak? That it's okay when it's you dismissing with insults and invective, but not okay when it's anyone else?

Franco 1

You know as little about history as you do about English

Franco II

What is there to rebut in your childish, barely literate outburst? Like most Americans you know no more about the history of your own country than you do about the history of rest of the world. History for you consists in one long song of self-praise repeated ad nauseam.

I would adopt one of your favorite tactics Shorter Franco "You're a dumb ignorant American rube. How dare you contest what I say. Now how does "Wow what an impressive recital of the Democratic talking points." personally attack the commenter. That context.

Quoting piscivorous: [...]

Now how does "Wow what an impressive recital of the Democratic talking points." personally attack the commenter.

I presume that is a question, even though you did not punctuate it as such, and so my answer is as follows. You attached your comment as a response to another commenter's post, which, by the way, I found to be impressive and far more articulate and thoughtful than 99% of what else is posted on this forum. That you used an indirect phrasing does not change your clear intent -- to insult. That FA is better at dishing out insults than you are, and chooses to speak more directly than you did, also changes nothing. The bottom line is the hilarity of the juxtaposition stands. [Added] I'll also say that though one or two of your responses to FA can be said to contain some substantive points (whether I agree with them or not), the tone of voice you adopted in making them was guaranteed to provoke the same, if not harsher, in response. You also have been on this board long enough to know the personalities of the regulars, so if you're going to be by turns sarcastic

Quoting Francoamerican: History requires a lot of reading and a kind of intelligence that is probably rarer than scientific intelligence. Is it a subject that is even suitable to the young? I doubt it.

Best to start early, I'd think. If nothing else, it's a lot easier for kids than adults to memorize a framework of names, dates, and places upon which later learning can be built. I'd draw the analogy to drilling children on the times tables, or teaching them reading and other language skills without demanding that they immediately be able to absorb literature. It is true that in practice, history as taught to the young has too many easy to digest narratives, too much depiction as good versus evil, too nationalistic or tribal a spin, poor choices made in what to emphasize, ninety-seven other things, and most of all, a depressing tendency to gloss over how complicated and ambiguous so much of it is. Nonetheless, you have to start somewhere, and I wouldn't recommend forbidding the teaching of history to kids as a solution, any more than I'd say we shouldn't teach them science just because too much of our current approach (in

No it was intended as a statement of fact which none of your dancing deflects or changes.

What other country could have stopped the genocide in the Balkans? What country could have stopped the genocide in Dafur? What other country in the world could have removed Saddam Hussein from power in 3 weeks time?

True, but even Europe has to get almost all of its oil from somewhere other than Europe. Not to mention all the other resources you guys import to keep your standard of living so high.

The world was a better place with Saddam Hussein in it?

You should write stuff like this more often. I don't disagree that our government and people can over hype our enemies or world problems. I don't disagree with that. However, the Cold War arms race wasn't just an American fear thing, but a Russian fear thing. Just like the World Wars were a European fear thing, and not just a Germany is bad thing (France's fear). The Soviet Union had a large military it was going to maintain after the war and the United States had to keep up with it at the very least, which meant an arms race ensued as each country tried to stay equal or ahead of the other. Sometimes its not just fear, but common sense intelligence. And thankfully it all helped to undermine the Soviet Union in the long run and peacefully (at least in Europe).

You mean this speech. We all have heard that part but this might be new to you

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
* and is gravely to be regarded.

and this

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Why is it the only warning of that speech to be repeated is the one about the dangers of the military/industrial complex.

Quoting piscivorous: No it was intended as a statement of fact which none of your dancing deflects or changes.

If you say so. But I'd say you have a lot to learn about the concept of fact.

Quoting Francoamerican: What is amazing to me is that so many Americans born, say, after 1970 are such fearful little sissies.

alright, I'll bite. I don't think of myself as a fearful sissy. In fact, when i think about the "fearful" people that sustain the military-industrial complex, i generally think of Republicans, and when i think of Republicans, i think of people born before 1970. it is just a quibble, your general point is well taken, but it really doesn't jibe with my observations. what makes you think its the under-40 crowd that are perpetuating this nonsense?

Quoting Lyle: The Afghans were fighting the Taliban and the were losing very badly, so much so they only controlled about (if I'm not mistaken) 7% of the country by the time we decided to help the Northern Alliance run over the Taliban by bombing the Taliban to smithereens on their northern front.

The Afghans were fighting the Afghans and they were losing very badly, so much so they only controlled about (if I'm not mistaken) 7% of the country by the time we decided to help the Afghans run over the Afghans by bombing the Afghans to smithereens on their northern front. fixed that for you. see if that helps in understanding other perspectives.

Ah... okay. Were not the Afghans fighting the Taliban at the time referred to as the Northern Alliance? Why be less specific when one can be more specific?

Quoting Lyle: Ah... okay. Were not the Afghans fighting the Taliban at the time referred to as the Northern Alliance? Why be less specific when one can be more specific?

(Emph. added) You mean, as in not using the word invasion to include everything from a single commando mission to a full-scale armored and air-supported assault on another country?

Ah... sending ground troops over the border to kill Afghani and Pakistani Taliban would constitute an invasion (international borders actually mean something under the law). You just want to pretend invasion means something broader like, taking over the whole country. You'd be wrong though.

Quoting Lyle: Ah... okay. Were not the Afghans fighting the Taliban at the time referred to as the Northern Alliance? Why be less specific when one can be more specific?

yes the afghans were fighting the afghans. why don't you say that "the afghans were fighting the northern alliance"?
Your specificity obscures the fact that they are all Afghans. if you want to say "northern alliance vs. taliban" - ok, that is specificity. Your formulations seem designed to obscure the actual situation to make moralizing easier.

... cause it was the Taliban Afghans fighting the Northern Alliance Afghans. I think everyone is intelligent enough to realize that both groups were "Afghani" (although from a whole bunch of different ethnic groups or different tribes). You just stated the obvious that was already understood. I don't even understand the point you're trying to make. I simply stated a set of facts, i.e., the situation in Afghanistan before we invaded in late 2001. edit:aah, I see where I erred. I should have written our Afghans or the Afghans fighting against Taliban rule. Of course I meant the Northern Alliance and whoever else in Afghanistan was working against the Taliban. That should have been understood once I referenced the Northern Alliance, but I see how that first sentence is imprecise.

Quoting Lyle: I think everyone is intelligent enough to realize that both groups were "Afghani"

Yeah, we're all that "intelligent."

Kommissar Keefe strikes again... Afghans. Oh. My. God.

Shorter Equivalent Lyle:

How dare you point out a basic mistake when I am telling you how knowledgeable I am.

Intelligent people don't ever make mistakes? edit: and hilariously you're shorter is actually longer than what I wrote.

Quoting Lyle: Intelligent people don't ever make mistakes?

Changed my post while you were posting yours, evidently. Try again.

Knowledgeable people know everything? Or don't ever make mistakes?

Quoting Lyle: Knowledgeable people know everything? Or don't ever make mistakes?

Knowledgeable people generally make a point of understanding the basic nomenclature regarding the topics on which they claim to be knowledgeable .

Really, you've never seen an academic teaching a class about whatever they're expert in and drop the ball on something? Oh no, Afghanis.

Quoting Lyle: Really, you've never seen an academic teaching a class about whatever they're expert in and drop the ball on something?

Lyle was a chemist
Lyle is no more
'Cause what he said was aitch two oh
Was aitch two ess oh four

Reminds me of a European history professor I had who made sure to let us know that intelligentsia is pronounced with a hard g and not a soft g. Apparently he made the mistake of pronouncing it with a soft g at cocktail party full of other academics. I wonder who the cocktail party was more embarrassed for... my professor or the douche-bag who called him out on it.

Quoting Lyle: Reminds me of a European history professor I had who made sure to let us know that intelligentsia is pronounced with a hard g and not a soft g. Apparently he made the mistake of pronouncing it with a soft g at cocktail party full of other academics.

Sounds like someone got his leg pulled. (Perhaps a variation on "thusly?") In fact, both pronunciations are accepted, or are in common use, as you prefer (though the soft G version is usually listed first). (cf., cf., cf., cf.)

Actually, it was originally pronounced with a hard g in Russian, which is where the word comes from, and so should be pronounced with a hard g in English as well... or that is what my professor argued after being publicly admonished by a colleague about it. Here's what Google found: the Russian "g" is hard. Snobbery perhaps, but a compelling rational.

Quoting Lyle: Actually, it was originally pronounced with a hard g in Russian, which is where the word comes from, and so should be pronounced with a hard g in English as well... or that is what my professor argued after being publicly admonished by a colleague about it.

Here's what Google found: the Russian "g" is hard.

Snobbery perhaps, but a compelling rational.

Wow, Lyle, you really ought to read your own sources before you hold them up (supposedly) to buttress your claims. As my links -- and yours -- indicate, the word ultimately stems from Latin, not Russian. Further, as the Russian neologism entered the English language, your own source says it "has become completely Americanized and the soft 'g' prevails." Now, pronounce it however you like -- as I already acknowledged, it appears that standard dictionaries recognize both -- but don't keep digging in this same hole. [Added] And I'd still bet either that your professor was the butt of a joke, or if he was aware of that, he told you the story and you missed the humor.

I understand all that, but the word came into English from Russian not Latin (which is the point). Saying it the non-Americanized way not only sounds more educated, but it is a genuflection to the creators of the modern word. So telling you for the second time, admittedly it is intellectual snobbery, but arguably correct.

Quoting Lyle: I understand all that, but ...

Classic Lyle.