Time magazine cover - What happens when we leave

This weeks Time magazine. Very disturbing.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html

Will you condemn an entire people for this, or just the idiots responsible?

What happens to Koba?

The story of Aisha is, indeed, disturbing. I don't have a simple answer.
Maybe a tiny price we parents in the US,
have to pay is being forced to explain to our kids how
it comes to be that young girls can be so mistreated.

But it seems to me that the American public has been mislead for a very long time,
in that we were first told it was a war against Al Queda because of 9/11.
But the current fighting has come to be with the Taliban.
This makes it a religious war, and one that a "Christian" nation can not win.

So using every event as an excuse to criticize Obama will not be profitable,
nor is saying something like "My President, Right or Wrong".
I find myself putting my hope in the likes of Ambassador Holbrook,
to actually negotiate with the Afghan government
and with the Taliban for post-war civility.
Public calls for negotiations with the Taliban will be more useful than
playing towards the politics of our coming elections.

Maybe a tiny price we parents in the US, have to pay is being forced to explain to our kids how it comes to be that young girls can be so mistreated.

The same as explaining the same thing happens in many other places.

But the current fighting has come to be with the Taliban.
This makes it a religious war, and one that a "Christian" nation can not win.

I disagree. It does not make it a religious war, unless you are saying Afghans who don't support the Taliban are not really Muslims.
Indeed the rest of the people in the world, that don't agree with the Taliban, can't be Muslims.
It's a culture war... we, and the Taliban, wish to impose our culture on the Afghans.
Both say it's to save the Afghans from the other.

xoxoxoBruce;673451 wrote:

The same as explaining the same thing happens in many other places.

I disagree. It does not make it a religious war, unless you are saying Afghans who don't support the Taliban are not really Muslims.
Indeed the rest of the people in the world, that don't agree with the Taliban, can't be Muslims.
It's a culture war... we, and the Taliban, wish to impose our culture on the Afghans.
Both say it's to save the Afghans from the other.

No, I did not mean to say that at all.

I said that Americans have been mislead for a long time. I think most Americans now believe that if the Taliban returns to power, only their version of Islamic law will be tolerated, and that is the reason we are fighting them. It is that belief that makes it a religious war... certainly the Al Queda in Afghanistan is no longer a viable reason.

But it is exactly that aspect of tribal custom and religious practice that I believe is negotiable... other areas in the world governed by Islamic law do not necessarily harbor Al Queda, cut off the nose / ears of young girls because they flee abusive in-laws, stone women for adultery, prohibit education of women, and the other (abhorrent) practices that have been portrayed in the US media.

But if the US cannot tolerate that country being governed by Islamic law, we will either be there militarily for years to come with still no guarantee of "success", or whatever government we set up there will fail soon after our military leaves.

Lamplighter;673457 wrote:

I said that Americans have been mislead for a long time. I think most Americans now believe that if the Taliban returns to power, only their version of Islamic law will be tolerated, and that is the reason we are fighting them. It is that belief that makes it a religious war... certainly the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is no longer a viable reason.

Al Qaeda in general, and bin Laden in particular, are the reasons #1 we are back. After having been essentially defeated the first time.

Taliban is a target only because they remain protecting Al Qaeda.

For a while, negotiations caused the Taliban to reassess their association with Al Qaeda. It’s not entirely clear why those negotiation terminated. Some reasons point to Pakistan (not the big wigs - the littler power brokers) helping to subvert those negotiations. But the bottom line remains the #1 target - bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Never forget that.

If we so hated Islamic law, well, why is it practiced in countries we call friends - ie Saudi Arabia?

It's not about Islamic law. That picture is only incendiary. Its only purpose is to make everyone emotional. That picture says why the first Afghan war could have been so easily won. But now those advantages are lost. We abandoned those same people to the Taliban because our leaders (and their wacko supporters) were that dumb.

Now we have a problem. We no longer have trust necessary to defeat the Taliban. No longer have trust that was necessary to get bin Laden. Another legacy of George Jr.

Do not for one minute forget what is enemy number one. bin Laden in particular. And Al Qaeda in general.

Al Qaeda that only existed in Indonesia and Iraq because wackos love to lie. bin Laden who was trapped in Torra Borra with the 10th Mountain Division just down the road. And the 10th was denied permission to go after bin Laden. Thank you George Jr. That is why our problems are so complicated now. Stupidity at the highest levels of government where an extemist party agenda was more important than America.

Having essentially made bin Laden into a martyr, we have now provided he and his organization with supporters. Even in some parts of the Pakistani government that regards the Afghan government as an enemy and ally of India. What a mess. Our target is now embedded in and camouflaged by numerous peripheral entities.

Once upon a time, it was easy to see the enemy. Most all opposed him. Today, due to one of this nation's dumbest presidents, that problem is extremely complex. George Jr all but surrendered to the Taliban. What a mess a dumb leader can make.

Even now, many still confuse that Time Magazine picture with why we are there. Picture is for silly emotions. And not relevant to America's strategic objectives. Ignore silly emotions. Never forget who and what is enemy #1.

Pete Zicato;673440 wrote:

This weeks Time magazine. Very disturbing.

Will you condemn an entire people for this, or just the idiots responsible?

Not disturbing to me.

No, I would not condemn "an entire people" for this, but I would actively condemn any element of the religion that supports such acts. Just as I would condemn the people who target abortion doctors or protest soldiers funerals. They are all just the same extremists of different organizations.

It is suspected that enemy #1 is already dead...

classicman;673533 wrote:

It is suspected that enemy #1 is already dead...

Only when extremist spin a, "Don't blame us. He is dead." myth. bin Laden runs free because the political agenda is always more important than America. He is dead only when we have his body - no matter what the latest wacko extremist myth may be.

bin Laden's movement - Al Qaeda - lives on also thanks to extremist Americans who decided to blame Saddam. Cast blame on Saddam so that mistakes by Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al in 1991 could be corrected. Another political agenda at the expense of 5000 good American soldiers.

bin Laden is only dead because extremists need him to be - so that we do not blame wackos for all but protecting bin Laden.

We were discussing his fate a few weeks ago - perhaps you missed it.
So what you are saying is that even though you may agree that he is dead, he lives on through Al Qaeda. This gives you the ability to blame those whom you disagree with forever. How convenient. :eyebrow:


[COLOR="Yellow"]FTR - I was being civil and you chose to be an asshole AGAIN.
Your passive-aggressive crap won't fly anymore. I'm not interested in the "writing style" argument either. You've played those cards too many times with too many people.

... Oh and Saddam is definitely dead - we have video proof.
However Iraq lives on ... for now.[/COLOR]

There is a stripe of -- yes, wacko; yes, extremist -- American opinion that just can't live with our doing anything at all with any branch of America's military.

These wacko defeatists are fascist-lovers: "Oh, don't bother those woman-stoning anti-democrats...".

Guess who I don't like. Guess what I don't love. Guess who objects to me and my values. Guess who's a walking pustulent shame thereby. Guess who's also a facist fellow-traveler, a sputnik. Buncha goddamn oppressors, unfree, slaveminded, as brutal a set of troglodytes as ever dragged a knuckle.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever.
- George Orwell

Or do we cut these maniacs off now and not tomorrow?

Think about it, UG, you can't stomp on a nose that has already been cut off.

Aside from the necessity of redirecting the boot to something cartilaginous on the linoleum of Room 101 -- which I think rather falsifies your statement there -- I'm not sure I see your point.

A point I occasionally raise is that if we were to do something that were to annoy them further -- please God that we might get the chance, and use it to the fullest -- we're not going to be able to tell if they are more annoyed. It's all the same old War on Terrorism to us, for we think clearly.

And since the "they" in question are more and more engaged in blowing their coreligionists up for not being loyal to *their* tenets of unfreedom and disliberty, "they" are inevitably going to lose this war by pissing off the folks they would convert. Who are going to take them and hang them, and very good riddance, don't you agree? Perhaps with a side order of trimming off a few things that aren't noses with hedge clippers, so they couldn't even think about breeding anything else like them.

Urbane Guerrilla;674603 wrote:

And since the "they" in question are more and more engaged in blowing their coreligionists up for not being loyal to *their* tenets of unfreedom and disliberty, "they" are inevitably going to lose this war by pissing off the folks they would convert. Who are going to take them and hang them, and very good riddance, don't you agree?

Guess who voted for George Jr.

UG, I was just being a smart ass.

ZenGum;675101 wrote:

UG, I was just being a smart ass.

Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopaedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from the future defined smart asses as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came.":D

BTW, have you heard the rhetoric from some of our supposedly 'religious' conservatives? At the extreme end, the only thing that seems to be keeping them away from the explosives is a strong government, rule of law, and a firm belief that when Judgment Day comes, all of the people they disapprove of will be screwed. This doesn't seem to stop them in spending an inordinate time messing around in other people's business.

Not sure if this is apropos of what's gone before -- until I reread some of the thread -- but it seems to me a fine remark nonetheless:

‘Heroes understand the vast moral gulf between those who target the innocent and those who target those who target the innocent.’ — John Nolte

ZenGum;675101 wrote:

UG, I was just being a smart ass.

Fruitful, tho'. :D Giggles aside, my thanks for the chance...

Neither those who target the innocent, nor those who target those who target the innocent, are innocent.

And that one sentence, Bruce, tells the world why you aren't a hero, and never will be. You don't understand the difference, neither in your forebrain nor in your heart. You may not be a stupid man, but tell me: is it intelligent not to have any values?

So heroes, by definition, never consider repercussions? That requires a certain lack of values doesn't it?

No, that is not so. And you're trying too hard to find evil in my heart. Maybe you should look in my pancreas, I dunno.

UG, I don't think you're evil. Certainly you're on the opposite end of the spectrum from me, politically, but you seem a good sort (with qualities I insist upon like honesty and conviction and forthrightness.)

But to say things like someone doesn't have "values" and would never be a "hero" is ludicrous. Your definition of values and hero surely differ from mine, but that doesn't make my definition any less worthwhile. I know you believe that my definition is less worthwhile, and your way is the only way. That, I can't agree with...whether it's me or him or her or it or them or they or who.


And, I'll have you know, bruce threw himself in front of a bus to save my dawdling ass just last week!

Which of course would be heroic, albeit rather crushing if the bus didn't stop soon enough. Oooch eech ouch.

Don't try moral relativism with me either, Shawnee. Not only is it an altogether hopeless tool for assessing moral merit -- it's designed not to, in point of fact -- it's used to disguise shameful evils, not to remove them. I gave it up decades ago and haven't missed it even once since.

I hew to the worthwhile, and get hollered at for it. Some folks are willing to stay happy with the less-than-worthwhile, and they loudly express a preference that I join them in this.

Eh, I'm not telling you who to be, UG, dear. I wouldn't expect you to come down to my level, but if you ever did, I daresay you might enjoy yourself. ;)

Come on in, the mediocre waters are fine.

Now now, cutes (I looked at your profile, cute pic. Not bad a-tall...), "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent. . ." Well, check up on it yourself and see the rest of the quote. (Mwahahaha)

"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." -
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Like.

Shouldn't the Afghan people be more upset about this image than us?

Reaction to such disfigurement probably knows no political boundaries.

I heard about Petraeus' forthcoming press meetings last week, but I did not expect him to be so explicit about continuing the military effort in Afghanistan beyond next July.

Maybe someone needs to remind Petraeus about what happened to McArthur a few years back, and to McCrystal just a few weeks ago.
By next summer, the public may be even less supportive of US involvement in Afghanistan.

THE GUARDIAN article

General Petraeus insists he will not be bound by Obama's Afghan exit date
New commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan says July 2011 deadline may not be possible

General David Petraeus says he can foresee circumstances where it becomes impossible for him to recommend a reduction in forces.
The US army general, David Petraeus, made clear today that he would not be bound by Barack Obama's promise to start withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan by July next year.

One published account of Obama's discussions on the drawdown date with Petraeus and his other top generals paints a very different picture.
According to US journalist Jonathan Alter, whose book The Promise gives an account of the Afghan war led by Obama in November last year, the US president went to great efforts not to be "boxed in" by the US military establishment that supported long-term engagement in Afghanistan.

It may be that Petraeus' honesty is not what the administration, nor the public wanted to hear, but I respect the man for telling the truth.

Perhaps Petraeus won't let himself be boxed in by an unreasonable timetable set perhaps for political reasons.

The timetable was set on McCrystal's claims of what he could do, in what time frame, with more men. That may be moot, now.

Obama doesn't want to get boxed in with anything except his own ego.

xoxoxoBruce;676805 wrote:

The timetable was set on McCrystal's claims of what he could do, in what time frame, with more men. That may be moot, now.

First off, the amount of men he asked for was not what he got.

I'm wondering about McCrystal's claims. Was he full of crap and just told them what they wanted to hear at the time? I find that hard to believe, given his history, but in light of what happened more recently - that whole episode did provide him an immediate "out".

classicman;676801 wrote:

It may be that Petraeus' honesty is not what the administration, nor the public wanted to hear, but I respect the man for telling the truth.

Perhaps Petraeus won't let himself be boxed in by an unreasonable timetable set perhaps for political reasons.

I agree with both... that's what you want from a military leader.
But I'm concerned about his words being made public.

I got the feeling he was saying he already knew his task was impossible, and so he was either giving himself a way out come next July, or publicly challenging Obama now.

McArthur and McCrystal are examples of what happens with military leaders when they challenge POTUS publically, and Obama has already shown he can follow that precedent.

Lamplighter;676831 wrote:

McArthur and McCrystal are examples of what happens with military leaders when they challenge POTUS publically, and Obama has already shown he can follow that precedent.

When will people realize Obama owns this "plan?" The last Admin's Afghan plan was a failure. Very few would doubt that. [COLOR="Yellow"]<Que long posts by tw & UG>[/COLOR]

This one seems quite similar. The military is being asked to do something which it may not be able to do period, but in a timetable that is, according to Petraeus, obviously not militarily possible. This latest round is a clear message that he will not be the scapegoat.

classicman;676801 wrote:

It may be that Petraeus' honesty is not what the administration, nor the public wanted to hear, but I respect the man for telling the truth.

Perhaps Petraeus won't let himself be boxed in by an unreasonable timetable set perhaps for political reasons.

I don't think so. Petraeus is nothing if not politically aware. He is the administration's point man on this, floating what will become policy and giving the politicians cover on the right flank as they lose the left.

Stay the course ? NOT

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looking to retire in 2011
By Michael Sheridan &#8232;DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, August 16th 2010, 11:18 AM

The Secretary of Defense is looking for an exit strategy of his own.

"It seems like somewhere there in 2011 is a logical opportunity to hand off," he told Foreign Policy magazine.

The 66-year-old indicated that would be the best time for him to step down to make things easier on President Obama during the 2012 election.

Yeah sure I believe that !

I think we finally have an exit strategy for Afghanistan... All of DOD will resign before July 2011.

classicman;676822 wrote:

I'm wondering about McCrystal's claims. Was he full of crap and just told them what they wanted to hear at the time? I find that hard to believe, given his history, but in light of what happened more recently - that whole episode did provide him an immediate "out".

Things also don't always go as expected. I'm assuming much of what went into McCrystal's claims was the experience in Iraq. Afghanistan is much different, and from what I believe I remember, the similar counterinsurgency strategies of Iraq and Afghanistan are producing different results.

Lamplighter;676755 wrote:

I heard about Petraeus' forthcoming press meetings last week, but I did not expect him to be so explicit about continuing the military effort in Afghanistan beyond next July.

Remember where we are in an ongoing and unresolved war started in 2002. We literally surrendered on the battlefield when we did no phase four planning, did nothing to take out the enemy (bin Laden), and are now refighting a war from scratch. Because we all but surrendered on the battlefield on and after 2003.

Very unusual is to be defeated due to no phase four planning - no planning for the peace. And then going back into combat. Very little military precedent to base conclusions on. Petraeus is discussing that.

At some point, we may have to admit to defeat and pull out. The destruction to the American economy alone is massive. Being discussed by Petraeus (and others) are benchmarks that define a military victory or a military defeat. Too many are discussing only what they understand - a timetable. Petraeus is discussing something far more serious. At what point do we finally admit we are defeated.

To have an exit strategy based upon the strategic objective means we must define conditions necessary to admit defeat. What is our exit strategy? Not our timetable. View the bigger picture. What is our exit strategy?

And do not for one minute assume America cannot be defeated by Afghanistan. We are already suffering serious economic malaise imposed on the American people by "Mission Accomplished". Even America has limits that are more than just military.
Defeat remains a real possibility.

What benchmark would you use to define defeat? It is not rhetorical. Every lurker in this board should be asking themselves that question. If for no other reason, to be listening for a answer.

tw;673467 wrote:

Having essentially made bin Laden into a martyr, we have now provided he and his organization with supporters. Even in some parts of the Pakistani government that regards the Afghan government as an enemy and ally of India. What a mess. Our target is now embedded in and camouflaged by numerous peripheral entities.

Agreed.

wanderer;677260 wrote:

Agreed.

He's a smart cookie!

Or was -- there is increasing doubt that UBL is still alive. Some in the SpecOps community figure he got pulverized in Tora Bora after all.