Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Another quote from that link:

It remains the only plausible answer—changing the culture of that area, no matter how slow and how difficult the process. It starts in Iraq and Lebanon, and must be allowed to proceed and not precipitate an early and premature surrender. That idea remains the only conceivable one for ultimately prevailing over the Arab Islamic radicalism that exploded upon us 9/11. Every other is a policy of retreat and defeat that would ultimately bring ruin not only on the U.S. but on the very idea of freedom.

I agree with this but assert we need to use termites, not elephants. And if we are to infect Arab minds with Anglopshere memes we need thousands and thousands of US military officers who speak fluent Arabic and wear mustaches.

Captain Travis Patriquin was on the right track. Alos, read about Victor Joppolo in the novel "A Bell for Adano" -- that novel demonstrates how we win in Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at December 16, 2006 10:30 AM

Krauthammer is wrong on Afghanistan.

It didn't take teh russians very long to overthrow
the Amin regime in Kabul and seize the country.

Afghanistan has been invaded many times,
each invaderhas left in shame and rage.

Posted by anonymous at December 16, 2006 07:02 PM

"Afghanistan has been invaded many times,
each invaderhas left in shame and rage."

I guess it is a good thing the overwhelming majority of Afghanis see us as liberators then.

Current resistance is microscopically trivial compared to the Soviet experience.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 16, 2006 07:58 PM

If you're honest about the Taliban themselves being foreign invaders or pawns of the same (i.e. Pakistan's ISI) they came extremely close to pulling off a successful invasion and permanent occupation of Afghanistan.

Only letting Al Qaeda drag the Americans into the equation screwed things up.

Posted by Phil Fraering at December 16, 2006 08:17 PM

The taliban may be a foreign idea, but, they aren't
foreigners to Afghanistan.

The Taliban were mostly Pashtun natives, which
is why they did well. They knew the terrain, they
knew the people.

As for Puckett's idea of Micro-scopic resistance?
I have no idea how he measures that,

Is it car bombs per day,
Attacks?
riots?

The british have been in some amazingly nasty
battles and damn near came close to the
3rd Para's being over-run this fall.
NATO is freaking out, and the USAF is
bombing like hell over there.

Now, to the armchair warrior, afghanistan is
just dandy. However, it's always been so dangerous
that Bush and Rumsfeld have never dared to go
visit the troops there.

Posted by anonymous at December 16, 2006 10:33 PM

With 2 sons of military age, one currently active, the other waiting to see who the Marines recall in 2007, I watch this stuff daily. I am continually amazed at the negative things said about the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The overwhelming theme centers on death and money. Too many and too much is all I hear from the nay sayers. Unless of course you listen to the overwhelming number of supporters of the war who serve in the military.

They don't set policy, they don't write editorials or make speeches, they go to the small towns and the cities of Afghanistan and Iraq and they see the differences we have made in just those two countries. They see the validity of giving their lives for something important.

But who gets all the press? Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry and the rest of the media darlings who agree withe the medias ideas of foreign policy. Yes there are military people who say we should pull out, but again it's always the same arguments, too much money and too many lives.

The war is still going on so people will in fact die. The war is still going on so the money will continue to be spent. For how long? I don't know and neither does anyone else, including all of you who write here. Will we be successful? Again my crystal ball, and yours, will appear murky on this. But there is one thing for sure, if we walk away or cut a deal with Tehran and Damascus, we create the same situation in Iraq NOW, we caused in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Tons of weapons, thousands of trained factional fighters willing to fight to push their agenda and another generation of kids being raised to hate and distrust the United States. That scenario bit us on the a$$ twice at the WTC alone. Not to mention the U.S.S. Cole and our embassies.

We may have to spend plenty more money to defeat these murdering thugs, how much did we spend to defeat the U.S.S.R.? That wasn't always a shooting war, but plenty of us died to win the Cold War. It takes lives and money to win wars. Always has always will.

You can't negotiate with murdering idealouges, they will say one thing and then do another. Isn't that precisely what Saddam Husein did for years? We need to kill the radical leaders, teach the children of Iraq and Afghanistan about peace and prosperity and continue to show the average Muslim over there that there is a better way.

I started off by saying that both my sons are, and have been involved over there. I've said so here before. No brag, just fact. I don't want my grandsons to grow up without fathers. But if that's what it takes to secure their future, and their sons futures and our countries future, in the face of Islamofascism, them so be it. Here's what I've heard my sons say, and their fellow Sailors and Marines, it's a job worth doing and dying for and it is working over there.

This isn't Viet Nam, but we can damn sure make it one if we walk away. It's only if you capitulate that the money and lives are a waste.

Posted by Steve at December 17, 2006 05:40 AM

Yeah, anon, let's see some numbers:

295 American dead in Afghanistan as of 12/13/06. Admittedly I got this from Wikipedia, but it's probably not far off.

That's one KIA every 6 days since the autumn of '01. Gosh, it's a regular Belleau Wood over there!

Why are antiwar people so innumerate?

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 17, 2006 08:01 AM

They also don't seem to get the concept of microscopic. I am sure its some phallic insufficiency denial syndrome.

Something has to be responsible for their perpetual anger againt the universe and the hate that eats them inside.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 17, 2006 10:12 AM

"Afghanistan has been invaded many times,
each invaderhas left in shame and rage."

Like the Achaemenid and Sassanid Persians? Or Alexander the Great and the Yavanas (Indo-Greeks)? Or the Yueh-chih and the Kushans? Or the Ummayad Arabs? Or the Genghisid and Timurid Mongols? Or Nadir Shah's Turks?

It is more accurate to say, "Afghanistan has been invaded times, each invader has subjected the Afghans to shame and rage".

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at December 17, 2006 11:31 AM

Manifold

Try counting the NATO casualties.

Then get back to it.

Posted by anonymous at December 17, 2006 12:25 PM

"Now, to the armchair warrior, afghanistan is
just dandy. However, it's always been so dangerous
that Bush and Rumsfeld have never dared to go
visit the troops there."

anon - may want to take a second to check your assertions via Google before making them:

Cheney, Rumsfeld visit Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, Dec. 7, 2004
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/Dec2004/a120704e.html

Rumsfeld visits Bagram Air Field, 22 December 2005
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/ec374449-0e99-424b-bdab-40578da11ac3.html

Rumsfeld visits Kabul - Wednesday, July 12, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100107.html

Bush visits Afghanistan, March 1, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1720702,00.html

Posted by tagryn at December 17, 2006 04:01 PM

In the brief time between the destruction of the World Trade Center by al-Qa'ida and the destruction of the Taliban regime by America, gloating fascists like the anonymous foobarista eagerly advanced speculations that the soft, stupid, impoverished mercenaries of color that, in Kerry's and Rangel's fantasies, make up the U.S. armed forces would be handed their fast-food-swollen asses by the invincible Pushtun warrior, not to mention the brutal Afghan winter. Stunned by being proven wrong in 75 days, instead of the 75 years it took to show that the CPUSSR had no clothes but was malnourished and homeless as well, they retreated, only deciding that it was safe to scuttle into the light again now.

As a reminder of how thoroughly their darlings were whacked, let me quote from a blog entry now nearly five years old"

"In late September [2001], news agencies all over the world printed this concise cultural analysis made by Afghan mujahedin fighter Maulana Inyadullah, the Ricky Carmichael of eXtreme Musliming:

The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death.

Well, it's January [2002] and I'm drinking a Pepsi and Mr. Inyadullah is probably dead. So, contrary to the dire predictions of the clerk at the food coop, the war had a happy ending for everyone. Stuff that in the hole of your two dollar spelt donut, hippy.

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at December 17, 2006 05:59 PM

"I am sure its some phallic insufficiency denial syndrome."

Mike, based on your posts, you seem to be really obsessed with phalluses and anuses...

Posted by Bob Kannon at December 17, 2006 07:34 PM

tagryn

thank you for the correction.
I was under the impression Bush never went to
afghanistan. I wonder if he stayed over night
and how many troops he needed to protect him.

Posted by anonymous at December 17, 2006 08:22 PM

"Mike, based on your posts, you seem to be really obsessed with phalluses and anuses...

Bob Kannon "

And yet it is your ilk who seem to have totally cornered the market in projection so I have little to fear in this regard. It enables me to call the spade black without fear of being interperted as projecting by the normal, sane intelligent psoters on this board. I suppose we normals owe you and AC a microscopic measure of thanks in that regard.

You seem to be another in a list of those who shows up to defend our poor lil' Anonomous Coward when he getting his ass handed to him on a silver platter never to be heard from hence. I wonder why that is? Are you just an alternate personality or an actual lickspittle all your own?

Perhaps AC is just flummoxed at how his worm has turned this time and maximizing his IP.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 17, 2006 09:30 PM

Ah yes, anonymous. Get him roiled and he'll start babbling about how Capricorn One proved that the moon landing was faked.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 18, 2006 08:15 AM

"I was under the impression Bush never went to
afghanistan. I wonder if he stayed over night
and how many troops he needed to protect him."

Typical leftist goal post moving. They make the assertion "Bush is a coward, he didn't go to Afganistan" and when presented with facts it morphs into "Yeah, but he didn't stand out in the desert alone, clutching a sword, calling out the Taliban to come and fight him, the coward".

Weak. But what can you expect from lefty losers?

Posted by at December 18, 2006 08:41 AM

That last comment wasn't from just anyone, it was from none other than, me, nobody important.

Posted by nobody important at December 18, 2006 08:42 AM

"We need to kill the radical leaders, teach the children of Iraq and Afghanistan about peace and prosperity and continue to show the average Muslim over there that there is a better way."

Er, seems a bit ironic. While I'm not in disagreement with the suggestion to eliminate the radical f*#kers, I wonder how the "average muslim" (who probably doesn't need convincing anyway) views the lesson you propose. To whit:

Us: Look, there is a better way... killing in pursuit of your ideological/political/theological agenda is wrong! To get you started on the Correct Path, we've killed all of your radical leaders!

Them: Huh?

Posted by Andy at December 18, 2006 09:26 AM

Anon's an innumerate loser. I've nailed his ass to the floor on this one.

NATO casualties? I'll guess that it means coalition casualties. A whopping 438.

Did I mention that Anon's an innumerate loser?

That's, gosh, one KIA every 4 days. Yep, we better surrender now.

I-N-N-U-M-E-R-A-T-E L-O-S-E-R

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 18, 2006 06:53 PM

manifold

I don't see you volunteering for duty in afghanistan.

What they don't make foxholes in XXL?

if it's so safe, you just go over there, and clean up the
taliban.

Take Freeman over to polish your slippers too.

Posted by anonymous at December 18, 2006 09:00 PM

manifold

I don't see you volunteering for duty in afghanistan.

What they don't make foxholes in XXL?

if it's so safe, you just go over there, and clean up the
taliban.

Take Freeman over to polish your slippers too.

Posted by anonymous at December 18, 2006 09:00 PM

Does anonymous really want to argue that the military should decide US military policy? I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't like what my relatives want to do. Or, is he of the "lose their ballots" persuasion?

Speaking of double-standards, I'll bet that he advocates some social policies that he doesn't actually work on.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 19, 2006 06:21 AM

Anonymous Moron is too dim to realize just how stupid his chickenhawk comments come off as. He (or she) is the non-stop laughing st0ck of this blog, and doesn't even realize it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2006 06:35 AM

He is proabally somewhere crying like a little girl right now.

Apparently 'Chickenhawk' is the last refuge of the terminally retarded.

The short bus moron is demonstrably dumber than a decent bot. He is as predictable as snow in Alaska.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 19, 2006 07:04 AM

I think a form of Godwin's law can apply to anyone who trots out the lame chickenhawk accusation.

Posted by B.Brewer at December 19, 2006 08:58 AM

freeman

ever so daring. It's easy to suggest a war
when you aren't participating or haven't participated.

Simberg and the other armchair warriors find it much
easier to start these things then to see that they are
won. It's about leadership, it's about shared sacrifice,
it's about commitment.

The chickenhawks lack the commitment to see
change happen.

There are lots of ways to be committed without
joining the military. Puckett can teach
english to girls in Kabul. Freeman can drive
a taxi to the BIAP. Trotter can serve as a translator
in Ramadi and Simberg can teach civics in Fallujah.

What, is it too dangerous for Simberg to go
teach a seminar class over there?

Posted by anonymous at December 19, 2006 05:08 PM

I note that the anonymous coward ducked my questions.

He still hasn't told us what he participates in, other than mouthing off. Since that's all he does, he doesn't get to advocate anything.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 19, 2006 09:19 PM

"Puckett can teach
english to girls in Kabul"

Considering I don't speak Farsi and already have a career might hinder that somewhat. Are you volunteering to pay for my lingustics traning and lifestyle maintainence during said training?

Uncle had my ass on call for eight years, I did my bit. Your 'Chickenhawk' belatings will not stick to me no matter what weak intellectual adhesive you might try and apply them with.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 20, 2006 08:07 AM

Puckett

Stop-Lossmeans never getting to say good-bye

Posted by anonymous at December 21, 2006 11:16 AM

Anonymous,

If someone signs their contract and does not read it first, it is their own damn fault. They will find sympathy somewhere between shit and syphllus as far as I am concerned.

Once your contract ends, you cannot be stop-lossed. You have to be stop-lossed before your contract expires.

Again, are you going to pay my expenses to learn Farsi and Pashtun and become a linguist? Time to put up or shut up.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 22, 2006 07:51 AM

Puckett

Most of the Afghan's don't speak Farsi.

You dpon't need to know the native language to teach English.

So are you willing to go teach english in Kabul to Girls?

Posted by anonymous at December 22, 2006 04:53 PM

No, they speak Pashtun. Reading is fundamental.

"You dpon't need to know the native language to teach English"

And how exactly does that work?

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 22, 2006 06:57 PM

Post a comment