Trent Telenko has what is, in my opinion, a must-read post about military transformation and rebuilding Iraq (and other places as well). He speaks truth to the amorphous power of tranzi mushheads.

Here are the nut grafs (the emphasis is his, but I certainly agree with it):

Let's face facts - the US Army has a far better track record than NGO's in reforming national cultures. American vital interests and the vital interests of the Wilsonian style multilateral non- government organizations, like the U.N., that make up much of the international system today are fundamentally at odds. One or the other will survive the War on Terrorism and America isn't going anywhere.

These international NGO leaders are going to force their replacement with American military draftees in the nation- building role. America can build lots of military police, signals, medical, quartermaster, civil engineering and civil affairs battalions for occupation duties very quickly, given the political will.

America is in the chaos elimination business because tyranny anywhere is a threat to Americans everywhere, even at home. That is the searing lesson of 9/11. There is no such thing as defense in this war - only the complete elimination of our enemies. This means killing terrorists and reforming at gun point the societies that breed them. This is why Democrats are dead and damned on issues of national security - the kind of naked military and cultural imperialism necessary to win is against the party's secular religious creed.

NGO's, on the other hand, are parasites. They thrive on the open wounds of chaos and disorder in the international system.

But read the whole thing.

"..and reforming at gun point the societies that breed them."

Hell, I had thought the Imperialist party had only borrowed ideas from Democrats (central planning, social engineering, government paternalism, etc.) and Woodrow Wilson (messianic nationlism, I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men!). Now I find they're stealing from communists as well.

And then bragging about it.

I wonder what our chances of recruiting Afghan troops as peacekeepers would be, and whether they would be useful in that role.

It would give us more manpower, and alleviate the Afghans' problem of too many ex-soldiers with nothing to do.

I think if we offered some equivalent of a GI bill that would allow them to attend a local university, they would leap at the opportunity.

"...stealing from the communists..."

Gee, I'm straining my brain trying to recall when communists thought that reforming tyrannies was a good idea...

Gee, I'm straining my brain trying to recall when communists thought that reforming tyrannies was a good idea...

They had the habit of "reforming" society at gunpoint though. And how hard would it be to find some Soviet propagandist in the 20's or 30's ranting about eliminating "tyranny" as one of many excuses for requiring military occupation in a newly conquered territory?

America is in the chaos elimination business because tyranny anywhere is a threat to Americans everywhere, even at home. That is the searing lesson of 9/11. There is no such thing as defense in this war - only the complete elimination of our enemies. This means killing terrorists and reforming at gun point the societies that breed them. This is why Democrats are dead and damned on issues of national security - the kind of naked military and cultural imperialism necessary to win is against the party's secular religious creed.

I see so many things wrong with this paragraph. The key one is the talk about tyranny. Ie, if tyranny exists somewhere in the world (other than the US) how is it a threat to the US? FYI, the US is a prime example that a country doesn't require the presence of tyranny to be a threat to other countries. Just look at the US's assistance in overthrowing a democratically elected government in Chile in 1973. Or US support for the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia (1975-1979) and perhaps later after his overthrow.

Also, this characterization ignores the fact that the US doesn't have (and never did have) a policy of intervening in countries merely because they are ruled by tyrannies. While I can't determine for sure what the US's purposes were in invading Afghanistan and Iraq, they were long term threats to US security.

Finally, you fail to address how to deal with homebrew terrorists. Ie, if some group in Montana (a US state) starts blowing up federal buildings (presumably an act of terrorism), will the US reform Montana society at gunpoint?

Karl, I guess the point is that the U.S. or Montana, wouldn't require "reform," because presumably both the federal government and the state government would be willing to crack down on the militia members. Our problem is states that not only don't crack down on terrorism, but actively nurture it. It happens that they're generally tyrannies as well.