tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post9054070929088482431..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Winning In AfghanistanFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-45713548597999179752009-02-05T16:50:00.000-08:002009-02-05T16:50:00.000-08:00Again, had he done a declaration of war from 9/12/...<B><BR/>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/><B>You have to be VERY careful to not lump all of NATO together.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>To do otherwise, to somehow pick and choose, that doesn't do anyone any favors. Especially the Danes, the Canadians, and etc.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-81600303350336493252009-02-05T14:59:00.000-08:002009-02-05T14:59:00.000-08:00I think, with the Iranian munitions supply line t...<I> I think, with the Iranian munitions supply line to Palestine, that they would be wiser to hand off a nuke to the Hamas boyos. </I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Given our border situation, setting off a nuke in NY or Chicago might actually be easier.<BR/><BR/><I> 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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>And yes, I realize we disagree on this one.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The Afghan troops have also fought extremely well, all things considered.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The rest of NATO, I would have to concur with your assessment.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RobFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-24138365096340071912009-02-05T09:30:00.000-08:002009-02-05T09:30:00.000-08:00When they brought NATO into Afghanistan, I was lik...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.<BR/><BR/>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.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-82655434373903805132009-02-05T09:23:00.000-08:002009-02-05T09:23:00.000-08:00Give them market access for high value crops and t...<B><BR/>Give them market access for high value crops and they stop growing opium.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>That's the lesson learned, fixed, and applied.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-30605794466355702822009-02-05T09:17:00.000-08:002009-02-05T09:17:00.000-08:00But exactly entirely.Correction, not exactly entir...<B>But exactly entirely.</B><BR/><BR/>Correction, not exactly entirely in agreement.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Israel would have no target to retaliate, because the world would have assumed they had launched the first strike.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>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.</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>The frustrating thing is that dealing with Iran now would be relatively easy and cheap if Bush had possesed the gonads</B><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-64601158286931115402009-02-04T20:07:00.000-08:002009-02-04T20:07:00.000-08:00Ah well, Dr. North ( EU Referendum) is an old frie...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 <A HREF="http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/operation-mullah-stomp-military-option.html" REL="nofollow">entire piece</A> 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. <BR/><BR/>As you'll see, Iran <I> needs </I> 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.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RobFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-5280747361285426422009-02-04T18:37:00.000-08:002009-02-04T18:37:00.000-08:00Check out this link, Rob.LinkI haven't verified th...Check out this link, Rob.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/02/collision-course.html" REL="nofollow">Link</A><BR/><BR/>I haven't verified the detail or the sources yet, but it is an interesting trend for Obama.<BR/><BR/>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?Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-63464990241465366672009-02-04T18:30:00.000-08:002009-02-04T18:30:00.000-08:00Jimbo, former SF operator and experienced dealing ...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.<BR/><BR/>With him on your side, what do you need Richard for, except as cannon fodder?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>you see, we have a score to settle with the Iranians and it is high time we got to it.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-63015450273932215942009-02-04T18:25:00.000-08:002009-02-04T18:25:00.000-08:00Rob, I'm with you on this aspect. But exactly enti...Rob, I'm with you on this aspect. But exactly entirely.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The corridor can go from the West of Afghanistan through to the Gulf of Persia or just across and into Iran.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-25243221212483260962008-08-05T18:27:00.000-07:002008-08-05T18:27:00.000-07:00My goodness Richard..such waspishness and bad feel...My goodness Richard..such waspishness and bad feeling!<BR/><BR/>For starters, I did read your links..<I> I picked soybeans myself out of the ozone</I>, and I never mentioned it as one of your examples, now did I?<BR/><BR/>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 <I> today </I>, if you don't mind.<BR/><BR/>I'll repeat this, since I think it's a key point - <B>our target is not the farmers but the warlords and tribal chiefs who control them.</B><BR/><BR/>The <I>reality</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>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 <I>exactly</I> that.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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 <I>guarantees</I> it will continue and expand. Simple capitalism, Richard.<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>Would you?<BR/><BR/>I fail to see a downside.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.Ok?<BR/><BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-39967228128498960222008-08-05T17:02:00.000-07:002008-08-05T17:02:00.000-07:00You don't even begin to know what you are talking ...You don't even begin to know what you are talking about.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>And, if you had read my pieces, you would not have used soya as an example ... I didn't.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561483930556493363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-21983113055542061572008-08-05T16:08:00.000-07:002008-08-05T16:08:00.000-07:00Hello again Richard,With all respect, I find your ...Hello again Richard,<BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>If cotton or 'pomegranites' (sic)were more profitable, the warlords<BR/>would be growing them, no? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I'm frankly surprised you don't see it that way.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Quod Et Demonstradum, sir. Thank you for dropping by, and for your interest.<BR/><BR/>All Best,<BR/><BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-64900264167650157982008-08-05T14:34:00.000-07:002008-08-05T14:34:00.000-07:00It would help if you actually took the time out to...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Conventional crops (such as cotton, pomegranits) are more profitable than drugs, for the farmers. And it is the farmers that are your target.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561483930556493363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-29542390619068154392008-08-05T10:49:00.000-07:002008-08-05T10:49:00.000-07:00Hello Richard,We disagree on this little matter, I...Hello Richard,<BR/>We disagree on this little matter, I'm afraid.<BR/><BR/><B>The poppy trade is a fact of life,</B> and it's what funds the Taliban as well as a number of NATO friendly tribal chiefs. <BR/><BR/>Co-opting it is a key to winning the war and stabilizing Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>And wouldn't you take up arms to defend your livelyhood against anyone whom threatened it?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Unless we defeat the Taliban, all the high minded notions of suppressing the trade are simply hot air, IMO.<BR/><BR/>I prefer a more practical approach, thank you.<BR/><BR/>All Best,<BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-91466586927801360752008-08-05T09:30:00.000-07:002008-08-05T09:30:00.000-07:00"...We should offer to buy the crops from friendly..."...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."<BR/><BR/>Not a very impressive solution.<BR/><BR/>Try <A HREF="http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2008/06/winning-war-part-iii-defining-need.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2008/06/winning-war-part-vi-only-priority.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561483930556493363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-78034687211511444372008-08-05T06:18:00.000-07:002008-08-05T06:18:00.000-07:00One of their quaint tribal traditions, is to take ...One of their quaint tribal traditions, is to take potshots at any outsider who dares to enter any of their valleys.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com