Pages

Monday, August 04, 2008

Winning In Afghanistan


With Iraq stabilizing and the defeat of al-Qaeda there, Afghanistan is starting to heat up and get a lot more attention.

This is natural..as our enemies are defeated on one front, they're becoming increasingly active on another, especially since they have a failed nation-state next door in Pakistan as a haven for training, recruiting and funding.

The often repeated partisan political line that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al-Qaeda will go down in history (depending on who writes it) as one of the stupidest fallacies ever foisted on a gullible public. Things are heating up in Afghanistan and Pakistan not because we were concentrating too much on Iraq but because al Qaeda has been driven from the place it proclaimed as the central front for victory over the Americans, the home of its new caliphate.

Instead, they've been roundly defeated and forced back to their final redoubt, the mountain villages and caves in Waziristan and Pakistan's North West Frontier Province(NWFP) on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. That means Pakistan/Afghanistan's going to remain a difficult problem for some time, unless we take decisive action.

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are barely countries as we understand them. They are tribal societies rife with ethnic strife and unstable, corrupt and ineffective governments. To be blunt about it, at present I don't think we're winning in Afghanistan for a lot of reasons. But I think with a few changes, we could, especially if we redefine our goals and get serious about it. To begin with, while Afghanistan and Pakistan are two different countries, they're part of the same strategic problem.

The main reason given for our involvement in Afghanistan is to prevent the place from being an incubator for Islamic terrorism that could lead to strikes against our country. All well and good, but Pakistan has exactly the same potential..even more in fact, because it has a functioning military armed with ICBMs and nuclear weapons, a whole host of Saudi funded hardline madrassahs to turn out new generations of dedicated jihadis and a population largely supportive, or at least sympathetic to Islamism.The London tube bombers trained in Pakistan, and so did the trans-Atlantic airline bombers. By any measurement, far more Islamist terrorism has originated from Pakistan than Afghanistan.

They're supposedly an ally, but apparently one with bi-polar disorder claiming that they are fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda one day and making treaties with them and threatening the West about their `sovereignty' if we try to get rid of the jihadis and stop them attacking us the next. Considering what Pakistan as an ally has cost the United States in dollars and cents versus their overall effectiveness, so far it's been a pretty lousy investment. I say that full well realizing the idiocy of the oafish attempts of Condi Rice and the US State Department to 'democratize' Pakistan by forcing the corrupt Benazhir Bhutto and her entourage on Pervez Masharraf as a governing partner. The result of that nonsense was to weaken a dictator who was at least nominally pro-western and bring to power a coalition of anti-American Leftist plutocrats and Islamists who are either unwilling or incapable of dealing with the Taliban and the mess in the NWFP.

The first step in winning in Afghanistan/Pakistan is to figure out what winning means.There are three ways to approach this, and they're related, but quite different as far as their ultimate objectives.

If winning means establishing a reasonably stable situation in Afghanistan that isn't a cesspool of jihadism, we have a fighting chance of success provided we also deal with the problem of Pakistan. But if we're talking, as Barack Obama and others are of merely "defeating al-Qaeda and capturing bin-Laden" we will be stuck in a never-ending war of attrition - since it's obvious to me that a President Obama would neither understand or be willing to take the steps that would accomplish that.

Of course, in my mind, the best thing would be the third way, to accomplish both. That's also possible if we take a larger view, although it might be unlikely right now given our present political paralysis.

In many ways, Iraq was a model for this, although it was incredibly bungled for the first few years and thus cost us a great deal more in blood and treasure then it needed to.

One interesting similarity between Iraq and Afghanistan is their strategic location. Iraq is the central gateway to the Middle East, with one end pointing towards the Arab states of the Levant and the other pointing towards the gateway to the oil riches of the Persian Gulf.Similarly, Afghanistan sits perched at the gateway to the so-called `stans, the oil and gas rich regions of Central Asia that were once part of the Soviet Union...and a nexus of no less than three countries with imperial ambitions, Iran, Russia and Pakistan.

To my mind, if we are going to take the time and put in the effort towards stabilizing Afghanistan there are three main objectives: changing our entire view of the situation, dealing with the poppy trade, and entirely changing the dynamic with Pakistan.

Afghanistan is different then Iraq in that it is, officially at least, a NATO operation. Unfortunately, most of NATO hasn't seen fit to send combat troops to the country. The vast majority of forces there are Americans, especially in the eastern part of the country and the Danes, British, Canadian, Australian and Dutch forces all play key combat roles in southern Afghanistan. But most of the rest of NATO has either failed to send any forces at all or limited their troops to logistical support only and forbidden them to engage in combat.

The Canadians in particular have been quite vocal about this, and PM Harper has actually threatened to remove Canada's troops unless the other members of the EU step up to the plate.They actually showed some signs of doing so until Barack Obama came along pledging to remove US troops from Iraq and send extra US troops to Afghanistan - thus taking the heat off of countries like France, Italy and Germany, who will now, of course be prepared to wait until after the election and see if the Americans and others do the heavy lifting under an Obama administration.

More troops are indeed necessary,and the US and others ought to be adamant about insisting that NATO's members live up to their commitments to the degree that this is possible.In addition, the Afghan army needs more boots on the ground. They actually have fought pretty well in combat for the most part, but there are only 80,000 of them. More are needed, and they need to be trained and equipped.

Another thing that's absolutely imperative is some form of unified command of the NATO forces, ideally an American. That sort of unified command doesn't exist at present, and it's imperative.

The next step is dealing with the poppy trade.

Afghanistan is by far one of the largest source of opium poppies in the world, and the trade not only plays a major role in the finances of the Taliban but is the primary source of income for a number of US-friendly warlords as well...which is one reason that efforts to curtail the trade have been sporadic at best. It's estimated that the trade nets $100 billion US plus per year.To simply burn the fields would deprive a number of Afghans of their livelihood, not to mention turning a great many tribal chiefs against us.

My solution involves classic capitalism,combined with a bit of Mafia-like intransigence. We should offer to buy the crops from friendly warlords, with the proviso that anyone caught selling and delivering to anyone other than the US is going to have his fields destroyed without delay.

A portion of the crop could be resold legitimately to pharmaceutical companies to manufacture prescription opiates - the rest could be destroyed. The tribal chiefs would mostly be happy with this arrangement, because they would be receiving money for their usual product without the risk of smuggling or the cost of paying 'taxes' to the Taliban, and the US could then command their loyalty as their chief economic benefactor. It would also have the benefit of having the US government controlling the market on these substances rather than, say, the Mafia or the Union Corse' or some other group of drug lords.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda, on the other hand would find themselves increasingly dependent on foreign handouts as opium poppy producers loyal to them have their fields burned out, and would suffer a cash crunch. One of the things they've invested heavily in is the processing labs and the distribution centers to turn out heroin, which are located in Pakistan. Exerting some force to get the Afghan growers to sell to us while destroying the Pakistani fields at the same time would make that investment worthless. And among other things, squeezing al-Qaeda and the Taliban would have a disasterous effect on their ability to bribe Pakistani politicians and local tribal chiefs. For that matter, it would be interesting to see what would happen if we gave the Pakistani Pashtun tribes an ultimatum...turn over Zawahiri and the other Taliban and Al Qaeda top brass to us for a hefty reward or watch as we destroy your drug fields and your livelihood. I have a feeling we might just end up with a few jihadi special deliveries if we did, and it amazes me that it's apparently never been tried.

Lastly - and here's the most difficult part - we need to change the dynamic with Pakistan, and we need to do it very carefully, unless we simply want to give up Afghanistan as a bad job.

There's no other area Barack Hussein Obama reveals his total lack of understanding of military and strategic matters more than in his proposal to pull troops out of Iraq and if the Pakistanis can't or won't do it themselves, invade Pakistan's North West Frontier provinces and Waziristan with a couple of brigades to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He also expects the EU to send more combat troops to take up the slack.

First, there's the military stupidity of sending 6,000 men to invade a hostile area only a little smaller than Texas, with some of the highest mountains and the ruggedest terrain on earth. Joshua's Army member Captain Jimmy, late of the 10th Mountain, gave me a thumbnail estimate for doing the job calling for close to 150,000+ troops and support units minimum to do the job properly. And after Obama's well-publicized sound bites about pulling American troops out of Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan, the idea of certain EU nations sending more combat troops there instead of laying back and watching the Americans do the heavy lifting is optimistic in the extreme, to say the least.

And then, there's the little matter of keeping these troops supplied.

Obama, who is supposedly bright has apparently never looked at a map of the region.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country and the major lifeline for NATO's forces in Afghanistan flows through the Pakistani port of Karachi...which explains why we're giving them 'aid' and why we've been putting up with their nonsense of giving the jihadis in Waziristan and the NWFP a haven.

If we invade a piece of Pakistan and turn them into an even more hostile nation than they are already, the only other practical overland route to resupply our troops would involve going through the Black Sea through Georgia and Azerbaijan and then crossing the Caspian Sea and shipping the stuff through Turkmenistan and then over rough, mountainous country into Afghanistan from the Northwest. It could be done, but it would be much more difficult and time consuming.

Not to mention that with Pakistan we're talking about a very unstable country with nukes and ICBMs.

Unless we're going to pull our troops out of Afghanistan first or take physical control of a Pakistani port and a supply corridor to Afghanistan ,we unfortunately had better give up the idea of confronting Pakistan forcefully for now. Or find another way to supply our armies in the field efficiently.

So...how to deal with the problem of Pakistan, the final piece in a nasty puzzle?

The first step,obviously is to secure the borders to the degree that it's possible.

India was able to cut down considerably on the jihadis crossing from Pakistan into Kashmir by utilizing mine fields, and there's no reason a similar solution wouldn't have a similar effect in parts of Afghanistan. We could likewise simply enforce a security zone across the border with armed drones, after publicizing the fact to the locals that anything or anybody crossing except at designated checkpoints is going to wind up very dead. Our role as poppy purchaser would likewise cut down on border traffic and make it easier to secure.

We also need a much more ruthless attitude towards our enemies, especially the ones we capture. A few executions followed by pigskin burials could do a great deal to interfere with the Taliban's recruiting efforts. So could propaganda in Pashtun ridiculing them and reminding the locals of what it was like to live under them.

We also need to continue targeted strikes within Pakistan whenever we find Taliban or Al-Qaeda bases or personnel. The Pakistanis will fume over this,but they're unlikely to erupt into outright hostilities as long as we're not talking about a land invasion. They need our bribes aid money too badly.

I personally would provide them with economic aid rather than military aid as long as they continue to earn their baksheesh by putting up a reasonable effort against Al Qaeda and the Taliban and safeguarding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

The idea that Pakistan is going to evolve into a Western-style democracy is the same sort of crack pipe thinking that brought us the Islamic Revolution in Iran. I wouldn't count on it, to put it mildly.That said, our main criterion in our dealings with them has to be to what extent they are willing to meet us halfway in exchange for all that aid money. In other words, it's a relationship of mutual convenience.

In the event there are significant failures on the part of Pakistan, we should have contingency plans to perform a targeted strike and destroy Pakistan's nuclear facilities...another reason why the Bush Administration's wanting to spend $226 million of our tax dollars to upgrade the Pakistani airforce's F-16's based on the flimsy excuse they'll be used for 'counterterror operations' is such an exercise in stupidity.

Ideally, this would happen once Afghanistan is stable enough to stand on its own and is a US ally.

As I said, dealing with Pakistan right now is like dealing with someone with bi-polar disorder, frankly. We will either have to step carefully and take our time about things if we feel like taking things slowly or we will have to decisively invade Pakistan and end things decisively..and from the coast, where it makes sense and we can supply our troops easily, not from Waziristan where we can't, Senator Hope N' Change.

Ideally, invading Pakistan won't be necessary, provided we can secure the Pakistani-Afghan border adequately and cut off the Taliban's money supply at the knees by becoming the only risk free purchaser for the poppy trade in the area.

Afghanistan/Pakistan is a solvable problem. But we're going to need to revamp our approach and decide exactly what we're trying to achieve there in order to win.

A hat tip,by the way to Dave at Glittering Eye, who's pieces on Afghanistan got me interested in doing some in-depth thinking about it...


16 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:18 AM

    One of their quaint tribal traditions, is to take potshots at any outsider who dares to enter any of their valleys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...We should offer to buy the crops from friendly warlords, with the proviso that anyone caught selling and delivering to anyone other than the US is going to have his fields destroyed without delay."

    Not a very impressive solution.

    Try here and here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Richard,
    We disagree on this little matter, I'm afraid.

    The poppy trade is a fact of life, and it's what funds the Taliban as well as a number of NATO friendly tribal chiefs.

    Co-opting it is a key to winning the war and stabilizing Afghanistan.

    Use yer loaf...If you're a tribal warlord making 5 million pounds a year smuggling poppies over to Pakistan for processing, are you seriously going to cut your income voluntarily to grow say, soybeans?

    And wouldn't you take up arms to defend your livelyhood against anyone whom threatened it?

    It's cheaper and infinitely preferable to buy the stuff from them and resell/process/destroy it as we see fit, especially if we make it our business to destroy the fields of anyone not cooperating ( and ideally, the processing plants in Pakistan as well)..call it an offer they can't refuse, if you like.

    Once the country is stabilized and the Taliban's defeated, we can gradually wean them over to other forms of enterprise, especially since at that point we will have control and a monopoly on the trade.

    Unless we defeat the Taliban, all the high minded notions of suppressing the trade are simply hot air, IMO.

    I prefer a more practical approach, thank you.

    All Best,
    ff

    ReplyDelete
  4. It would help if you actually took the time out to read what I had written before dissing it. Your comments display a profound ignorance of the issues and the economics of drug production.

    If you had read the linked pieces, you would have learned that the farmers only get 10 percent of the opium export price, which in turn is only a fraction of the street price.

    Conventional crops (such as cotton, pomegranits) are more profitable than drugs, for the farmers. And it is the farmers that are your target.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello again Richard,
    With all respect, I find your claim that I did not trouble to read the links you enclosed simply because I disagree with you to be a bit disingenuous.

    Our target is NOT the farmers, but the warlords who control the farmers and whom mandate the cultivation of poppies because it is profitable for them.

    If cotton or 'pomegranites' (sic)were more profitable, the warlords
    would be growing them, no?

    In fact, they are still growing poppies, hemp and marijuana because the finances work for them..which is why the pro-US warlords keep doing so and are being left to do so.

    The retail price of heroin or other opiates versus the wholesale price of the poppies, etc. really doesn't enter into this discussion regardless, since the growers don't share in the processing or retail end of the trade anyway.

    However, the Taliban does...at least in the processing and distribution end of things. And that's whom we have to cut the money flow to in order to win.

    I'm frankly surprised you don't see it that way.

    Our purchasing the crops in Afghanistan, destroying the fields of anyone not selling to us and destroying the processing factories in Pakistan accomplishes this admirably.

    It also, as I mentioned, puts a major source of the raw material for some controlled substances under our control rather than the Mafia, the Union Corse or similar drug cartels, a not inconsiderable side benefit.

    Quod Et Demonstradum, sir. Thank you for dropping by, and for your interest.

    All Best,

    ff

    ReplyDelete
  6. You don't even begin to know what you are talking about.

    The main drug producing area in Afhganistan is now Helmand, an area which has no tradition of drug production. In 1986, it was a major cotton producer with a healthy export trade and a high level of prosperity.

    Currently, in the areas of Helmand where there is a good infrastructure and access to export markets - particularly high value products like pomegranate (which is a major, high value crop), there is no drug production ... and without official intervention. Farmers make more money growing these crops than they do growing opium.

    Where farmers cannot market their crops easily, they tend to grow opium, not least because the drug lords offer a marketing package and ready cash.

    Give them market access for high value crops and they stop growing opium. Buy their opium and they will simply grow more, some for you and some for the drug lords - and double their money ... QED.

    And, if you had read my pieces, you would not have used soya as an example ... I didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My goodness Richard..such waspishness and bad feeling!

    For starters, I did read your links.. I picked soybeans myself out of the ozone, and I never mentioned it as one of your examples, now did I?

    You're an intelligent guy, so I'm reasonably certain you're correct about what was happening in 1986 but this is 2008, and I prefer to deal with the reality today , if you don't mind.

    I'll repeat this, since I think it's a key point - our target is not the farmers but the warlords and tribal chiefs who control them.

    The reality is that opium production is now centered in Afghanistan because of policy adopted by Pakistan ( probably under US and Brit arm twisting) to pay people in Pakistan to grow other things, so that now the distribution and processing are centered in Waziristan and the NWFP, while the growing is mostly done in Aghanistan.We won't eliminate the cash generated for the Taliban by the trade simply by attempting to pay farmers to grow other things now. We simply don't have enough control of the country at this point even if we wanted to do so.

    To extend your example, should we try your suggestion, there's nothing to stop the farmers from growing some cotton while raising some opium on the side, is there? For that matter, the happy farmers you mention in Helmand who are now growing cotton could be doing exactly that.

    Better by far to acknowledge that reality, cut the Taliban's cash flow and control the trade..perhaps weaning the farmers ( and more importantly the war lords) over to other crops as the country stabilizes and the situation warrants.

    And, if you remember from the rest of the article, I suggested some rather harsh penalties for anyone selling opium to anyone but us,and increased control of the borders as well as destruction of the drug processing centers over the border as we find them.

    The opium trade isn't going away..especially using the method you suggest, which would raise the price and thus the price for smuggled goods, which guarantees it will continue and expand. Simple capitalism, Richard.

    Instead, to use your terminology, we provide market access and a fair value for their crop (as well as the benefit of not having to assume the risk of smuggling) and there's no need for the war lords to risk selling opium to the Taliban.If they can sell it safely to us, why would they bother?

    Would you?

    I fail to see a downside.

    And BTW...You're a guest here, I have a fair amount of respect for other things you've written and I've tried to conduct this little discussion in a polite fashion, which is how I normally do things here.

    I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.Ok?

    ff

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rob, I'm with you on this aspect. But exactly entirely.

    First we need a logistics corridor. Then we need to make Afghanistan in our Nepal/Gurkhas. Then we need use the warlords, villagers, ANA soldiers, and Afghan nationalism to build an army to annex and hold our logistics corridor.

    The corridor can go from the West of Afghanistan through to the Gulf of Persia or just across and into Iran.

    Afghans want to fight? They like their warlords? We'll give them 3 times their territory in recompense, in addition to US benefits, medicine, and support.

    Of course, totally unacceptable under an Obama or even a Bush. Too imperialistic. Too effective. Too scary. People don't like scary, Rob. They like it safe and neat. In the box. No risk. Life fat happy lives in front of the boob tube and talk about high falutin deeds.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jimbo, former SF operator and experienced dealing with drug cartels, doesn't like our current policy in the Stans and probably will prefer something like your strategy, Rob.

    With him on your side, what do you need Richard for, except as cannon fodder?

    Alexander the Great knew what was going on up in the Stans. The tribes of Afghanistan understand feudal oaths first and foremost. Karzai, because he made a promise to oust the Taliban and then did so with the help of SF forces (that were WITH Him when they engaged the enemy) was what allowed Karzai to hold the loyalty of the Afghans.

    You need dead bodies stacked up to the moon before the Afghans will pay you a damn of attention. And there's plenty of bodies in Iran to get that accomplished, Rob. And we do need a sea logistics corridor to Afghanistan, that doesn't go through Pakistan.

    When Iran goes nuclear, that corridor will cease to exist, because then we might as well carve ourselves a corridor through Pakistan and then into India's mumbai ports. But, Iran would probably still constitute the more likely target, even if both of them are armed with nukes.

    you see, we have a score to settle with the Iranians and it is high time we got to it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Check out this link, Rob.

    Link

    I haven't verified the detail or the sources yet, but it is an interesting trend for Obama.

    Petraeus is to COIN as MacArthur was to Total War. Will both receive the same fate for being born half way in one age and half way in the other?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah well, Dr. North ( EU Referendum) is an old friend, an dI'd always had a good relationship with him before but for some reason this particular subject made him bats and incredibly ill-mannered.He's simply wrong on this one,but I don't take it personally.

    I've always agreed with Cicero's injunction that the sinews of war are unlimited money. Cut off the money, you almost always win the war.

    I doubt we will deal with Iran during an Obama administration short of them passing a nuke on to one of the Hezbollah cells here in America, taking out a city and being linked to it.

    However,I would not be surprised if the Israelis took matters into their own hands here,even if it involves using nukes. I would if I were in their place, and I think the new govrnment coming in will be a lot less solicitous of America's foreign policy goals and much more concerned with their own survival.

    The frustrating thing is that dealing with Iran now would be relatively easy and cheap if Bush had possesed the gonads,and I wrote an entire piece about this,based on my ideas and the ideas of a couple of other members of Joshua's Army who's profession it is or was to plan out these things.

    As you'll see, Iran needs a war for the regime to stay in power,an d you're quite right, the match up between us has merely been postponed. it iwll simply be more costly when we get around to it.

    Regards,
    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  12. But exactly entirely.

    Correction, not exactly entirely in agreement.

    I think, with the Iranian munitions supply line to Palestine, that they would be wiser to hand off a nuke to the Hamas boyos. That way, no retribution will come to Iran and Israel will get a nuke detonated from a "rocket attack". A rocket attack using Iranian guidance technology but utilizing Hamas trained crews.

    Now if the Iranians were really devious, they would do this. They would send the nuke to Hamas and then prematurely detonate it when Hamas was moving the nuke through Gaza or the West Bank. Can you imagine the propaganda value of this? They could blame it all on the Jews and celebrate thousands of Palestinian "martyrs". Iran could be sitting pretty at the back with allies Syria and paramilitary Hizbollah waiting in the wings to milk it for all it is worth.

    Israel would have no target to retaliate, because the world would have assumed they had launched the first strike.

    That's what I would do if I was Iran and had a nuclear package ready for delivery. As for the technical aspects, I'm sure they will figure it out, now that they can launch satellites.

    I would if I were in their place, and I think the new govrnment coming in will be a lot less solicitous of America's foreign policy goals and much more concerned with their own survival.

    I don't have a solid read on Netanyahu. I've heard his comments and respect him for his patriotism (his resignation being part of it). But as for the use of nuclear weapons, we'll know when it happens.

    I've always agreed with Cicero's injunction that the sinews of war are unlimited money. Cut off the money, you almost always win the war.

    it is the logistics, not necessarily the money. Even guerilla fighters need logistics. Money buys stuff. But there are cases where you can eradicate their logistics without eradicating their wealth levels. Or rather, their wealth will decrease as a byproduct of their decrease in logistics and infrastructure, rather than a vice a versa.

    The frustrating thing is that dealing with Iran now would be relatively easy and cheap if Bush had possesed the gonads

    Bush had the balls; he just didn't have a national security pretext to justify invading or attacking Iran and he didn't have the public's support.

    A lot of America's wars were due to the fact that the public just demanded it be done. They wouldn't tolerate getting hit and not responding. Iran never did anything great enough of a threat for Bush to take unilateral actions. And that was by design.

    ReplyDelete

  13. Give them market access for high value crops and they stop growing opium.


    This is similar to the tunnel vision American forces ran into Iraq when they started rebuilding things there in 2003. You Cannot Rebuild Without Security and Political Alliances.

    That's the lesson learned, fixed, and applied.

    There is no such thing as "prosperity" without a clear political chain of command and clear military loyalties (that aren't pitting neighbor against neighbor, Shia vs Sunni, central gov vs local gov/tribe).

    Until you reach this state of being, it doesn't matter what you do with the poppies. Since the poppies exist, we might as well use them to consolidate the loyalty of the Afghans to us.

    People tend to forget that the Sunnis didn't start making deals with the central Shia government. They made deals with us first, when they wanted to get rid of AQ. Then we brokered a deal, as honest middle men they could trust, between Sunni and Shias.

    This is how it works. It doesn't work any other way. Except well, if you want the empire building option. But for a democracy that ain't expanding its 50 state territory, this is as good as it gets. Especially with the military tools at our disposal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When they brought NATO into Afghanistan, I was like, "Does our politicians want us to lose in Afghanistan?" Cause that is what is going to happen when you rely upon NATO to do anything. Evidence of their fecklessness and purposeful stone walling has proven this position out.

    The US military, probably Marines more than anyone else, especially despise NATO and other orgs like them (UN). The mentality behind training a soldier and warrior is diametrically opposed to the kind of things NATO and the UN does.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think, with the Iranian munitions supply line to Palestine, that they would be wiser to hand off a nuke to the Hamas boyos.

    Well maybe. Israel's been trying to watch that end pretty closely, so I think Hezbollah migh tbe more likely if they're after Israel.

    Given our border situation, setting off a nuke in NY or Chicago might actually be easier.

    I don't have a solid read on Netanyahu. I've heard his comments and respect him for his patriotism (his resignation being part of it). But as for the use of nuclear weapons, we'll know when it happens.

    IMO, Bibi is not quite so right wing as he's painted, but he will be in a coalition with others like Avigdor Lieberman and the religious parties who definitely are. At that, I think Bibi is smart enough to know that what needs doing needs doing.Especially as the Obama Administration appears to be even worse than I feared.

    Bush had the balls; he just didn't have a national security pretext to justify invading or attacking Iran and he didn't have the public's support.

    Again, had he done a declaration of war from 9/12/01 and actually identified who we were fighting, he wouldn't have had to 'sell' Iran. Or Iraq, or wireless surveillance, or a whole host of other things for that matter.

    And yes, I realize we disagree on this one.

    When they brought NATO into Afghanistan, I was like, "Does our politicians want us to lose in Afghanistan?" Cause that is what is going to happen when you rely upon NATO to do anything. Evidence of their fecklessness and purposeful stone walling has proven this position out.

    You have to be VERY careful to not lump all of NATO together. That does a grave injustice to the Danes, the Canadians, and the Dutch, ( not to mention the Ozzies, who aren't part of NATO but are there because we are and because they're dinkum friends as opposed to a lot of the rest) all of whom have sent combat contingents into the hot parts of the country and who have performed heroically. Ask anyone who's been, they'll tell you the same.

    The Afghan troops have also fought extremely well, all things considered.

    Even the French ( mostly air units) and the Brits have had their moments, although both forces are handicapped by defeatist commanders, a public that doesn't support them and a major curtailment in logistical support. Especially the Brits.

    The rest of NATO, I would have to concur with your assessment.

    Regards,
    Rob

    ReplyDelete

  16. Again, had he done a declaration of war from 9/12/01 and actually identified who we were fighting, he wouldn't have had to 'sell' Iran.


    It wasn't about selling Iran. It was about the fact that Bush's personality and style of leadership de facto X ed out this option. You could only change his actions by either changing the external threat/stimulus or changing his personality. SInce you couldn't change his personality, that leaves external factors like 9/11.

    That is the only thing that has proven to motivate Bush into being unilateral and taking action without consulting anybody else (except those loyal to America's national interests).

    That does a grave injustice to the Danes, the Canadians, and the Dutch, ( not to mention the Ozzies, who aren't part of NATO but are there because we are and because they're dinkum friends as opposed to a lot of the rest) all of whom have sent combat contingents into the hot parts of the country and who have performed heroically. Ask anyone who's been, they'll tell you the same.

    No, it doesn't do a grave injustice. When an alliance has this bad a record, the fact that there are good guys pulling their weight in that alliance actually makes it worse. It allows nations like France or other nations, that don't pull their weight, to be able to put a veto on admitting new allies, like Georgia, which would strengthen and diversify NATO's reach.

    So the people that pull the weight, don't have much weight in the alliance, not even the US (we adopted the NATO round partially because it was logistically better with our Euro allies).

    You have to be VERY careful to not lump all of NATO together.

    The point of an alliance is to aggregate the risk and pool the resources, strategic and otherwise. There is no point to having an alliance at all if you are reduced to the argument that "some" of the members are good while the rest of useless or worse than useless.

    Alliances are based upon mutual interest and when there is no mutual interest going on, that alliance needs to be dissolved so that those who have interests in common can forge a stronger and more beneficial alliance.

    To do otherwise, to somehow pick and choose, that doesn't do anyone any favors. Especially the Danes, the Canadians, and etc.

    ReplyDelete