Blogs and Stories
Of Course More Troops Are Needed
Dima Gavrysh / AP Photo
Of course we need more troops in Afghanistan. Patrick Hennessey, a British veteran of the war, on the frustrations soldiers feel while politicians debate and delay.
I can still remember one of the worst moments of my time in Afghanistan. Ambushed deep in Helmand Province’s Green Zone, we’d clambered onto the roof of a tiny compound to gain a vantage point to direct fire at the enemy. Four of us, ten foot high on the dusty flat roof, fought for the next twelve hours, taking turns carrying out the suicidal dashes to huts where the rest of the platoon had taken up positions, resupplying precious water and ammunition—and hoping that the “danger close” airstrikes, 1000-pound bombs landing so close you felt rather than heard them, would keep the enemy at bay. Through the night the eerie phosphorous glow of illumination rounds threw nightmare shadows of the enemy creeping forward through the dense crops and firefly tracer rounds ripped through the undergrowth. And then, just when things couldn’t get worse, we ran out of cigarettes. This was “war.”
I thought of that firefight early this fall, as I listened to the British Prime Minister solemnly to read out the names of all the British servicemen who had lost their lives over the summer. The list was long—some 37 names in total—which is perhaps why, as the public and the media have belatedly realized its importance and its cost, the conflict in Afghanistan has become one of, if not the, issue of national concern. A minute of silence was observed in the House of Commons before the partisan squabbling and inconsequential point-scoring resumed, and the politicians returned to business as usual.
I had friends who had no idea what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan while London boomed and busted and everyone was more excited by who was being voted off Big Brother. It was incredibly frustrating realizing that people weren’t engaged. But it is similarly frustrating now that everyone is an armchair expert.
Is war too serious a matter to entrust to military men? Across the Channel nearly a century ago, that was the view of George Clemenceau, President of France at the end of the First World War. And I suspect the British politicians returning to governing the country after their long summer recess would whole-heartedly concur. The conflict in Afghanistan has barely been off the front pages all summer and if successive batterings over inadequate kit and ignored strategic advice have bloodied the already wounded Labour government, so, too, has the Conservative opposition recently been bruised by some well-intentioned but naive political maneuvering, which has seen the outgoing head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, announced as a potential future government adviser with what many consider unseemly haste.
• Elise Jordan: Why Afghans Are Turning on America
• Thomas E. Ricks: The Generals Aren’t Necessarily Right
• Peter Beinart: Is Biden the New Rumsfeld?Watching the PM on the BBC website, I was reminded of being pulled off that roof for my R&R and suddenly finding myself back in London, gun-oil and Helmand dust still gritty under my fingernails. Barely 48 hours after being pulled out, I found myself taking afternoon tea in the same Houses of Parliament; the Earl Grey and scones and gothic splendor could not have been further from the carnage I’d just escaped. I would return ten days later—and the well-meaning questions of curious MPs just underscored how far apart the fighting trenches and the corridors of power actually are. After an unprecedented torrent of what soldiers call “ground truth,” it seems small steps are being taken in the right direction.
Every man, woman and bomb disposal dog in Helmand could have told the government more troops are needed. It seems that the former head of the Army did precisely that—yet it has taken a summer of denials that anything needed to change, and the vocal and persuasive performance of American General McChrystal, to bring about the announcement late last week that 500 further combat troops would be sent to support the UK contribution to the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) mission.
The other debacle has been over helicopters—the sort of debate that would almost have been amusing to watch if it wasn’t the sort of thing that was costing lives. Again, absolutely everyone who’d ever so much as visited Helmand on a day trip could see that the Task Force needs more lift capacity. But the politicians insisted, bewilderingly, that on the one hand we had enough helicopters and on the other hand, every effort to get the extra helicopters we didn’t need out to Afghanistan was being made.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
With all respect for the author's service and sacrifice, I think it's safe to say if anyone could credibly see a military solution to what is wrong in Afghanistan, there would be no question (and no controversy) as to whether to send more troops, or how many.
The writer, however moving, does not claim to have a solution but that more troops are required. I agree.
This is the Afghanistan Solution, the strategy we need, what we should do, how to do it, and why, when the dithering is done, and what I, an independent candidate for president am going to do upon election to our highest office.
That is a happenstance that cannot be ruled out, as the American people will find out when I wrote this essay, and how many places I posted it, and how it affected, or failed to affect our policy. The issue is wiping out the terrorist elements that have overrun Afghanistan, and saving lives, not who wins the election for president.
We either adopt this opium poppy strategy, explained below, or we risk another terrorist attack in America, rivalng the 9 / 11 attack. White House officials involved in the ongoing Afghanistan deliberations should carefully consider what "eye" say!
After the dithering is done, the key to winning Afghanistan and Pakistan, to dissolving al Qaeda and Taliban, is opium; world wide, the grand pappa of all opiates. That dirt-cheap heroin readily bought on the streets of Kabul, by the gates of all our military barracks, in the streets of Manhattan and Washington DC, began a sleepy Pashtun poppy, milked in Afghanistan, oceans away.
Cheney is on the television as i prepare this Afghanistan solution, talking about how Afghanistan cannot be allowed to become again a training ground for terrorists when that is not the issue at all. Afghanistan is the prime source for the world's opiates and high tonic chronic marijuana, a multi-billion dollar enterprise, feeding the underground economy and funding the world's terrorist activities. 'Big time."
That 17% pure heroin bag; available on select street corners in every major city in the western world, started out an opium poppy grown in Afghanistan. You first saw the rich Afghani poppy fields in The Wizard of Oz.
93% of the world's opium is grown and refined into heroin right on the Afghani farms! They are not such a backward unsophisticated country as rigid status quo bureaucrats are apt to paint them. 93% is an eggs-in- one-basket huge monopoly! The farmers grow the highest quality most potent opium that yields the most heroin, world wide!
Bill Gates must marvel at their opium / heroin market share. Monopoly! Irreplaceable, worldwide; a blessing for all sides, especially us, because controlling the opium poppy fields means we will have taken over the main source of income for all the barbarian Taliban, famishing the terrorist al Qaeda operations in all the neighboring countries, besides all of the Western Hemisphere cartels and subtle European drug dealerships.
The heroin lifeblood for terrorists and drug cartels is smuggled throughout Europe, with tons, tons going by plane and ship to South America where, repackaged, its origin is disguised so no one gets wise; and from there, routed to Mexican cartels, and from Mexico, into our country, to be sold in our ghettos, suburban streets and school yards every where.
For the cartels this wholesale heroin represents billions of dollars in retail business. Billions of underground criminal, and terrorist dollars!
The key to stuffing Taliban and al Qaeda, eradicating all of their corruption of Afghanistan, is to choke the opium supply the Afghan farmers are world wide famous for; choke the opium supply which would wipe out the opium / heroin smuggling trade; and choke their criminal customers on our side of the sea.
We don't have 68,000 troops in uniform, stationed in South America, chopping down the Columbian jungle to get at the cocaine plantations. That is not happening, and won't. But we do have 68,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, and the opium poppy stratgegy carefully explained here will SAVE MOST OF THEIR LIVES.
Surely, you, the reader, hopefully a White House official involved in the deliberations over what and how to proceed in Afghanistan do not want to see any more American blood shed.
The Taliban's and al Qaeda's end in the opium/heroin trade nets millions of dollars, peanuts in the big picture, falafel on the table for Taliban's "freedom fighters" over the border, in Pakistan; and money for the families of al Qaeda's suicide bombers throughout the region.
But without the opium / heroin trade, al Qaeda and Taliban would be financially decimated. The Western Hemisphere drug cartels would lose hundreds of millions of dollars and be facing their own recession. All of the illegal heroin in the United States would dry up as the monopoly pipeline for the heroin would be destroyed!
Do not suggest to me we don't want that! Of course that is exactly what we want.
In Iraq, whoever is running the roads, wins. In Afghanistan, the opium dollar is fueling both the war and the Taliban structure, enabling them to strike! Afghanistan is a poor country with a rich culture. Whoever controls the opium harvest will have battled for that right. The hardy farmers get only enough to live decently and plant their fresh poppy.
The Taliban "freedom fighters" would leave for home in a heartbeat, were they not getting fed and allowed to wile away the day smoking the black Afghani hashish. No food no money no fight. The newly chosen Taliban "leader" has a payroll he must meet. The opium proceeds cover that payroll!
Mr President Obama is our Commander-in-Chief, the civilian boss in charge of our ribbon shirts, but his military bureaucrats, and the retired cable news talking heads are all misreading and misleading the war.
The Wall Street Journal article: Top Troop Request Exceeds 60,000 by Peter Spiegal and Yochi Dreazen states,
"White House officials familiar with deliberations said that while some elements of the Taliban were inclined to harbor al Qaeda, which operated freely in Afghanistan through 2001, other members were focused on Afghanistan's internal politics and much less likely to support the international terror group."
Oh! Supposedly the Taliban is more interested in securing seats on the local school boards. Get reel!
The Taliban differs from al Qaeda in one respect. Taliban are criminal drug dealers hiding behind religion and oppressing the local people they believe is the key to their continuing success in controlling the opium / heroin, whereas Al Qaeda smuggles heroin to fund sensless political attacks throughout their region, and to plan another 9/11 which cannot be accomplished without millions of opium dollars swapped with Goldman Sachs.
A few years ago a Taliban leader came to Texas. The official reason for the "trip" that was to meet with oil executives about an oil pipeline. While in Texas, using throw away drugstore purchased cell phones, Taliban Mullah held lengthy conversations using a throw away drug store purchased cell phone with a Mexican Cartel person and a Columbian cartel dude about shipping refined heroin instead of tell tale smelly opium. The Mullah was visiting Texas to do the heroin pipe line deal, using the imagined oil pipe line as cover!
The Columbians got into the act because no one would suspect heroin originating in far off Afghanistan would be round-about smuggled into USA via South America, then to Mexico.
We don't need to build an Afghanistan army. The unalighned unofficial Afghani militias know how to fight.
With a little strucure and dollar support at the bottom, at the farm level, they will protect themselves. Abraham Lincoln established a sea embargo to win the Civil War. Without supplies by ship from Europe, the Confederate Army was doomed.
Our troops get killed on border patrols between Pakistan and Afghanistan to protect our way of life across the ocean. Yet a stone's throw away, Mother Nature's opium is grown for the criminal and international terrorist's gain? How can our military be so dumb as to allow this to go on, creating millions of terrorist jihad dollars?
The only thing going across that Pakistan / Afghanistan border are paid fighters and convoys of drug smugglers hauling their cargo. The Afghan opium is key to everything happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan!
We own the opium and the country is ours. Opium control means renegade Taliban, al Qaeda terrorists, and warlords are on the road again. Skedaddled or killed.
(I like the idea of not killing anybody.)
The White House failure to respond to this open letter will lead to loss of American lives, and seal the possibility of Barack Obama being reelected to a 2nd term in our Highest office. As the person who created the Vehicle for World Peace, I can promise you that much. But the author of this article is not the issue here, only the authority of what I say.
The opium production and our clear ability to control that opium, is the only issue that should be dithered!.
Our guys must begin digging foxholes in every opium field, making Cash In Advance deals CIA with the Afghanis we are purchasing their opium crop for top dollar, in raw opium form. The farmers don't have to brew the black sap into a dangerous snowy heroin powder, so they are poppy plentiful, an ounce or two for the house, compliments of us.
Raw opium isn't dangerous. You won't kill yourself smoking opium the way you can so easily overdose from a heroin syringe, so we want their whole crop raw, just like unefined brown sugar, and we will pay the refined opium heroin price which is similar to tacking on an additional 50 cents to a bushel of Iowa corn.
The war momentum will immediately shift!
Instead of Taliban's "freedom fighters" picking us off every other day as we patrol the dangerous Afghanistan border, we will occupy the opium poppy fields and wait for Taliban to show up, our invited guests.
The key to Afghan quality of life for Taliban, thugs without a country when we defeat them, to shipping their kids off to the Ivy League is based on who gets to stash the cash from Afghanistan's opium crop.
Karzai and his drug dealing family in Kabul are part of this. How could they not?
At the same time, on the diplomatic front we ought to push to reunite Pakistan with India. This will initiate an eviction of Taliban by the Pakistani people, going on as we speak! For Pakistan, rejoining India means freedom, food, jobs, education, and a better life. Only the Pak military bureaucrats are against this idea, and their minds could be changed with a passport, an SUV, and a forty acre guarantee in Montana.
Instead of knee jerk reactions to my Hunt For The Red October reference to 'Montana," just get creative and plant that idea above the fold in their newspapers! Now is the time for us to wag the Pakistan India dog!
Sad, these policies, purchasing Afghanistan's opium, piecing off the Pak military, and reuniting Pakistan with India may be too progressive for barky Obama, and for his Secretary of State Hillary Clintstone, too, but maybe not.
Certainly wagging this Pakistan-India dog will be incentive for the Paks to completely evict the Taliban and that is what we want! The Paks have nothing going for them under the Taliban gun.
Don't you know the Taliban bribed the Pak military for long-term safe journey with the opium money. That is how Taliban established their foothold in Pakistan! Opium money! Unfortunately our president is surrounded by bureaucrats who wouldn't know the scent of an opium house were they standing at the door.
Many Taliban soldiers will change colors of their turbans and meld into the crowd as soon as they understand the opium harvest has been taken away from them. It isn't about religion, or the neighbor hooded school board, or how many times a day you pray to Big Al (Allah to you), it is about the opium / heroin and millions of dollars in cash! Seeing as you can eat three hot meals a day in the streets of Mumbai for less than a dollar, one million dollars = one million days divided by x number of Taliban Kalishnekov slugs.
In Afghanistan, we need to get busy, prepare the fields, create comfortable foxholes on every poppy acre, booby trap the brush surrounding with a wide safe swath to the farmhouse, and make it clear to the farmers, by CIA shelling out Cash In Advance, we are purchasing their whole raw opium crop but paying top refined heroin price, so the farmers are with us! Super incentive for the farmers. Less work more money.
Taliban, Al Qaeda and warlords will have to exit their caves and cross the poppy fields instead of picking us off with their remotely detonated roadside attacks. Retired military will be opposed to this poppy war, but hard pressed to tell you why because they support that opium trade just the way it is.
We are purchasing their poppy crop, and negotiating fair and square and in advance how much sticky black sap can be extrapolated from each plant. Though I pun CIA as standing for Cash In Advance this is a job for our enlisted soldiers in the field to negotiate with the farms where they are dug in, not CIA officers who are from Kabul, not living on the farms in foxholes!
The plants, ripening by day, are the draw for Taliban, al Qaeda and warlords to show, the only way for them to go, taking on our troops in the poppy fields where we will defeat them!
When they come down the yellow brick Afghanistan road we can sting them from above. A couple drone attacks will turn them all around in their tracks. No opium no paychecks.
The extra virgin first milk is scheduled to start tomorrow. Our enemies know that. The farmers are out of the picture as they are already paid in advance. At 4:00 a.m. we begin snipping every plant two inches above ground with two handle bush trimmers, chop chop, just like that. At dawn, we start stuffing wood chippers and spread the soil with the chopped up results to fertilize next year's crop.
So good-bye Taliban grunt, and don't step on any land mines going home.
A couple million heroin addicts in Europe will be going cold turkey! The Mexican and Columbian drug cartels will be out of heroin, and lose hundreds of millions of criminal dollars in projected sales.
Regardless bureaucrats will be viciously against this operation. The status quo is how the rigid government's bureaucrats want to go.
But with a cash infusion at the farm level, Afghanistan will begin to flourish. The Afghani people will start rebuilding their own country, without corruption from above, roads and schools decided by tribal leaders in the farm districts, with a helping hand from us.
We must also purchase their whole marijuana and hashish crop, and either sell that to the shops in Amsterdam or bring each of the harvests to USA for medicinal purposes. or run the risk that that crop, too becomes an income for the terrorists. Afghani marijuana is the most potent in the world, best for relief of chemotherapy's side effects.
Regardless what your surrounding bureaucrats say, we occupy the opium fields, purchase the whole crop, and all the heroin sold every day in our country will dry up! Young kids in poor neighborhoods will not become addicted to heroin. Don't we want that? Don't you? The opium / heroin dry up is guaranteed because all of the other countries where opium grows, they only have planted enough for their own home land and neighboring clientele.
The opium pays al Qaeda's world salary. But who controls the opium wins the terrorist war, world wide! The above poppy strategy will accomplish our mission! Those opposed want things the way they are. Follow the money. In the event we ignore the terrorist's cash cow, and leave, al Qaeda, opium rich, will have the funds to execute all of their murderous plans. Wasn't the twin towers brought down and their Pentagon attack enough for you! The opium trade paid for the 9/11 tragedy! We cannot risk allowing that to repeat. We cannot!
Unless The white House wants it guaranteed before the end of his first year that Obama is a lame duck one term president, then ignore this assessment.
candidate for president
michaelslevinson.com
Can you please keep your comments to one or three paragrahs or break it up in your responses. I admire you ethusium, trust, because it takes passion to type that long about one subject, but this is the internet and people see things five pages long will just ignore the message.
I agree with that NewAmericanboy, your enthusiasm is excellent. And, I might add, by sticking to more normal wordage, rather than the punskis, it was easier to navigate.
One other thing, Lev, you have some original ideas, and the creativity rattling around in that head of yours is going to result in interesting stuff. Keep in mind, too, that blogs thrive on the "short and sweet". The more we can distill our thoughts the more potent the impact.
As one who can also tend to go on too long with the words, I struggle with this as well.
Another way to look at this is that on TDB, the poet is now the marketer of his product - words. By taking Neo's and Rita's adivic the Poet can turn his shotgun into a rifle, and take em down like a sniper.
I would love to agree or disagree, but I never read past the first sentence.
NeoAmerican is right. As the Bard wrote: Brevity is the soul of wit. George Patton
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
I believe I've said the same thing to his posts before.
Keep it short man, way too longwinded.
I think he / she / it just cuts and pastes....along with you, I just scroll down to the end.
What you write is correct. Unfortunately, a military solution is only a military solution. With Al Q'aida in 48 countries, what exactly would be winning in Afghanistan with only 100 of the enemy present there?
But how many will ever be enough? Will we extend the war on into Pakistan? And whither next?
I do not agree. Recent polls of the Afghan population show that a) the Afghan people overwhelmingly dislike the Taliban and see them in a negative light; and b) that the Afghan people feel like we have repeatedly used, lied to and let them down. There is hardly any outward show of the aid that was promised, or the importance of helping these people overcome the past 25 years of repression by the taliban, a group we helped to become the power they were.
What we know is that if we help the people directly, significant improvements can and are being made. I refer each of you to Davy Weaver Memorial Project as a way to support the troops, and the people, ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN, of Afghanistan directly. The median age in Afghanistan is 17 years. If we can help the children, give them the protection and the tools to prosper, THEY will grow to make Afghanistan better in the future.
Just food for thought....................And it really is that simple. And since it is directly given there is no corruption, no administrative costs, all benefit. It can be done, but it is like things here in the US, we are so used to contributions and corruption in our own sustem that we do not see that we support those same things there. The answers are there, we just need the gumption to do it. (Of course, Halliburton, Blackwater, et al would not see a dime so it isn't done)
PacificNWMark: Good post. I recommend Gideon Rachman's comments on this issue in today's Finacial Times. Adding more US (or UK) troops is putting gasoline on a fire.
Whoa there Mikey L, off the meds again. Sounds like you are jonesing for some Taliban White. Get your spoon and needle and enjoy.
Meanwhile, as a vet (USMC) I can appreciate your frustration, Mr Hennessey. The guys in the suits never understand, they can never understand unless they've been there , done that. The problem Patrick is that many of us in the West have grown complacent. We like our lives and our "morality". We sit from afar and go, tsk, tsk about the whole thing, comment how terrible it is and then worry about who's going to be on dancing with the Stars or American Idol.
We think we can win wars on the cheap and we can do it cleanly and any deviation from that cleanliness means that somehow we in the West are less. We fret over "collateral damage" tell me, when some asshole is shooting at you from a window of a hut, do you not fire back because you know there are women and children? Does it gall you to have to constantly evaluate whether or not there are noncombatants? I know it did me. It's war, it's ugly. What sucks is that the politicians tie the hands of the guys doing the fighting.
That being said, I always enjoyed working with you Brits, you boys were always a riot.
War is nasty business and will never be won by the U.S. in the age of television, on site reporters, blood with dinner. Politics and the next elections is rule one; me first, my party second and maybe my country third. LBJ was the first to understand this, war has passed the civilian control point when we no longer have leadership.
Never say "Never" jingle. Of course we could win in the TV age. Circumstances will drive whether we have the "will to fight". We have a history of verying degrees of liberality. Where midwesterners used to drag Indian babies off of prison wagon trains and dash their brains out on the road, they now are more concerned about how we wage war.
It all depends on how threatened they feel, and when our enemies get physically closer and closer to us, whether a prisoner has a pillow seems less important.
So, we'll see how things go with this globalism and immigration thing, and we'll so how threatened we perceive ourselves to be. It's always possible to loose the dogs of war, and then be really sorry 8 years later....after a ruthless and bloody victory. Countries are built on such circumstances...
Jinglebob,
I completely disagree with your assessment that this fiasco is a result of media coverage.
On the contrary, if people don't see burning babies with their breakfast and mothers crying over flag draped coffins at supper time will they will never really understand the sacrifice that their sons and daughters are making for the nation.
If people do not see the atrocities of War they become desensitized and loose their natural aversion to killing and maiming other humans unless it is absolutely necessary.
If people don't know the realities of War they allow their elected officials to engage war for immoral and unnecessary reasons.
As you say, War is nasty business and we are all complicit in every baby that gets killed and every family that gets bombed. That is why we must be absolutely certain and continuously committed that what we are doing is worth the cost.
The Founders specifically empowered Congress, and only Congress, with the authority to call the military into action. If the media is not present to report back to the people then there is no one to manage the actions of the Congress.
Greetings from Kuwait....finally headed home. Talking to my friends in Afghan, the rules of engagement have become so politically correct, that they are in more danger at times than the enemy. We call it "war" but it's more realistically "surgical political correctness." I understand protecting civilians as much as possible, but at times it is very difficult. The enemy exploits this.
Now, the Afghan's want to trust us, but until we can erradicate the Taliban, they can't act like they do. If they work with us at all, when we leave the villiage, they will drag the people out and excute them in front of the other villiagers....can't make that up. We can't be everywhere at once, but an increase in troop levels could help turn this tide.
bcaldwell,
Good piece!
This is what happens when Congress relinquishes its Constitutional authority to make war.
This is what happens when the Congress wants to pretend we are at war for political purposes but they don't have the courage to actually commit to being at war for political reasons.
This is what happens when the Congress is beholden to people who profit from war and allows the war profiteers to influence the strategies and decisions about committing men and material to war.
This is what happens when war is engaged nonchalantly by those who do not know the realities of war.
This is what happens when remove the realities of War from the national conscience.
This is what happens when we attempt to sterilize or civilize war.
This is what happens when we attempt to engage in limited war.
There is no such thing as a limited war or a civilized war when you are facing fire.
No offense "oliverckerr" i will sum your entire rant in a couple of sentences. Taliban are drug dealers, since we have troops there we should occupy their real source of money to fund their terror, burn it down or re-sell it to other countries and make our own profit. So America should become street drugs dealers to end the war on terror?
I believe part of what you said until you started talking about selling "weed" to amsterdam. It's probably true, thugs do gain a lot of power in rural areas, so in order to bring peace, that thugness must be made formal into cops and military. Goverment is easy to manipulate rather than renegades.
I also read the Britsh vetern article and I say, if the Brits would have thought out their strategy, they wouldn't have been defeated.
Being from the ghetto i know two things about poverty: poor people with no future cling harder to religion or crime than rich people. And without hope, life is meaningless that's why you got all those young suicide bombers anxious to get to the other side.
We were attacked on 9/11 by people with no formal country, then it was WMDs, never found, then it was about liberating Iraq, then it was on to Afganistan because Al-Queda moved, and next it will be Pakistan, then India, so I guess we are in a "Permanent War."
Damn Israel have been fighiting those people for centeries.
NeoAmericanboy - ' poor people with no future cling harder to religion or crime than rich people.'
Well said.
Religion gives poor people a future that cynics like whipmawhopma would deny them . George Patton
George - Guilty as charged. I can't say that I wear that label with any pride, but certainly in self-defense from humankind and with an acute pathological need to be in the right about how things actually work.
Even so, if people like Richard Dawkins and the rest of the Militant Atheist Church really wanted to utterly destroy religion, or at least the temple-church-mosque-television show kind, then the best way to go about it is to make everyone wealthy enough to be distracted by their material goods, be it a fishing boat, a convertible car with cheap gas, season tickets, holiday sales, a motorcycle, cheap PCs with absorbing games, free porn channels on cable, etc.
The more money and stuff a person has, the more likely he or she are to turn away from God and follow their own desires. And why not? Life is for the living of it.
The less money a person has, then I think NeoAmericanboy said it well.
GPatton,
History has proven that organized religion has done more to stifle religion than the cynics ever did.
NeoAmericanboy:
Your sumnation leaves much to be desired.
A "rant" connotes wild near incoherant shouting at length. Nothing wild or incoherant in the above post. To the issue of length, I try to stay within the 1200 word opposite editorial length which is respectable in print medium.
The Afghanistan opium / heroin trade resembles the economic reality of Windows operating system. Like Microsoft Windows the Afghanistan opium / heroin is world wide monopoly, worth tens upon tens of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Calling the Taliban "drug dealers" minimizes their role in the underworld criminal / terrorist economy. You wrote, "we should occupy their real source of money to fund their terror." You meant 'that' funds their (domestic) terrorist activities, not "to."
The Taliban have kalishnikov rifles, grenades with launchers and lots of bullets; also a loose full time / part time militia to pull the triggers. The weaponry costs money.
The Taliban fighters need to be fed, and paid. All of the required millions upon millions of dollars comes from the smuggling of heroin out of the country besides the sale of heroin to our troops and others in the country. Yes, the heroin sale funds their ability to make war.
You got that part right.
I did not say, "burn it down or re-sell it to other countries and make our own profit." making war is unprofitable. people are killed or maimed for life. How wasteful. How horrible. 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria more"
I stated we should pay the farmers top dollar for their cash crop, and leave it to grow as a bait to draw out the Taliban. (Strategy). Then hit the Taliban with our drones when we spot them filing down the mountain sides from their hide outs.
But I was creative and referred to Taliban as being visible coming down the Yellow Brick Road. I DID NOT say sell the opium / heroin to other countries and make a profit. That is your own twisted idea, not mine.
I say we pay for the opium and then when it is ready for milking we chop chop it down, not burn it, rather mulch it so the land is fertile for the next opium poppy planting. We want to give the semblence of maintaining and controllling that poppy monopoly.
The final sentence in your diatribe is also misleading. "So America should become street drugs dealers to end the war on terror?" You cannot deduct that from anything I wrote. I stated that we pay for the crop, chop it down and mulch it. Fertilize the land and starve the opium traders so the international heroin trade is at least temporarily demolished!
I stated we would let the farmers have a couple ounces for the house - for themselves, a wise move on our part. Someone can be addicted to opium and smoke one bowl every other day. We want the farmers on our side, not secretly working with Taliban to secure their own household habit!
But we do need to reverse our heroin laws so we can properly deal with the couple million heroin users we have in USA who are already hooked on the Afghanistan product. But I did not raise that issue, rather it stands to reason.
We need to provide the heroin for our users at one dollar a snort or needle shot so the hooked heroin users do not have to rob and steal to maintain their habits. Imagine a store front with pictures of Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendricks, and Lenny Bruce on the windows, with a sign above the front door, "NO EXIT."
You sign up and get a heroin maintainance master card look-a-like. You enter the store front facility, insert your card in the ATM look-a-like. You insert one dollar. The card pops out and when you get to the front of the line, the practical nurse and ex-junkie to help find your vein have your picture and usage history on their monitor screen.
You are in control of your habit. You were a waiter before you sucommed to shooting junk on a steady basis. Your girlfriend was a salad girl. The both of you have part time jobs and are using less and less. A neighborhood restaurant closes and the equipment is still there.
You meet the owner. he agrees to rent you the restaurant and front you the equipment with the first three months rent reduced. You don't have any credit or any spare money, but you shot up 900 hits and your girlfriend 800 hits so together you have $1700 dollars invested in The Junkies' Ideal Credit Union.
You can return to the program and borrow against what you put in your arm - get back into the stream of American life, at zero cost to the tax payer without a government bureaucracy. Creative. I guess with my heroin maintainance program in place we actually would be street corner drug dealers.
We would then be importing the whole poppy crop! The Afghanistan farmers would all have brand new pick up trucks. We would eliminate the underworld drug economy, and the millions of dollars a day coming in would pay for the drug maintainence. Drug abuse is a medical prob limb, not a crime. We need to reverse our heroin laws as the use of heroin is best for eliminating actual pain. much better than oxi-contin, etc.
I prefer importing the "weed" because it is best for treating side effects from chemo-therapy. I agree that poor people without a future in sight cling to what keeps them going: belief in God. 'Crime" for the poor is a way of getting by. They believe inGod but they don't trust God.
I will leave off the rest of your misdirected commentary as I don't want to eat up the whole unlimited page.
candidate for president
michaelslevinson.com
One of my rules for entrepreneurs that I share with college students is: "make informed decisions...but make them." Obama seems to be either paralyzed by indecision, or delaying an important decision for fear of the political consequences. Either is dangerous for the country and will come back to bite him. A president needs to have the courage to make decisions. Either get it or get out. People are dying while you are delaying. If he has time to attend fund raisers, he should have time for this.
The headline is all that needs to be said. Truth.
War is hell, soldier. No easy way around it. George Patton
So much methodist enthusiasm, so little truth. With regard to the Afghan poppy, methinks it would be wise to ponder the origins of the heroin trade there. To quote from an interview by Alfred McCoy:
[First] the Afghan operation: from 1979 to the present, the CIA's largest operation anywhere in the world, was to support the Afghan resistance forces fighting the Soviet occupation in their country. The CIA worked through Pakistan military intelligence and worked with the Afghan guerilla groups who were close to Pakistan military intelligence.
In 1979 Pakistan had a small localized opium trade and produced no heroin whatsoever. Yet by 1981, according to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith, Pakistan had emerged as the world's leading supplier of heroin. It became the supplier of 60% of U.S. heroin supply and it captured a comparable section of the European market. In Pakistan itself the results were even more disastrous.
In 1979 Pakistan had no heroin addicts, in 1980 Pakistan had 5,000 heroin addicts, and by 1985, according to official Pakistan government statistics, Pakistan had 1.2 million heroin addicts, the largest heroin addict population in the world.
Who were the manufacturers? They were all either military factions connected with Pakistan intelligence, CIA allies, or Afghan resistance groups connected with the CIA and Pakistan intelligence. In May of 1990, ten years after this began, the Washington Post finally ran a front page story saying high U.S. officials admit that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [leader of the Hezbi-i Islami guerilla group], and other leaders of the Afghan resistance are leading heroin manufacturers.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/mccoy1.htm
Just another example of blowback, and in this particular case, it would be extremely naive to think that US military and intelligence agencies are not attempting to gain control of the trade for their own benefit, much as they have so often in the past, and as McCoy's well-researched book on the subject clearly demonstrates.
Right! There are a whole lot of people (in the military and intelligence agencies) who are dragging out money as long as they maintain the status quo, which is why the military talking heads are opposed to my program.
Seize the crop! Pay the farmers well. The drug cartels will be in recession - their street corner dealers out of product to sell!
michaelslevinson.com
ps This page is super. Lots of well thought out coherant thought. Minimal rant. We owe it all to hockey doggie.
To all who are accusing Obama of not making a decision...it sounds like selective memory to me, given that in Feb Obama DID agree to a troop increase. However, a mere 5 months later he is asked for more.
Really, if the war is not being managed properly and the " enemy " is no where and everywhere, how many more troops is going to be enough ?
Once Obama agrees to these 40K more troops, I foresee 3 months later a call for more troops and it will just keep going on and on and on.
What is our objective in Afghanistan. I am sick of hearing this ridiculously general " we are going after the terrorist there so we don't have to here ". Does this mean that the Taliban is going to mobilize and send a huge force to our shores ? or will we just face the same exact threat we do today ( see NY terror plot recently thwarted ).
Who are we fighting for over there ? There isn't even a clear government in Afghanistan.
Our military didn't oust the Russians, the Afghanis did, with our stingers and money. If the Taliban is so despised why has there been no organized armed movement by the Afghanis themselves ?
Here are some figures, throughout Russia's attempted take over of Afghanistan a total of 620,000 Russian troops were deployed. In the end, Russia had around 14,000 dead and countless seriously injured. The Afghans lost 1 Million plus.
The statistics are staggering. What makes anyone think that things are going to turn out any differently for us ? How many more troops will be enough people ? At what point will the " Obama is dithering " crowd finally realize that enough is enough ?
What about AQ in Pakistan, Somalia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the list of locations goes on and on and on. ?
If Iraq never happened and Afghanistan had been handled properly.....but we must focus on the now and the only thing I see accomplished by sending in more troops is more caskets.
Obama did take posession of Afghanistan during his campaign but that was more than a year ago and war doesn't wait around, it evolves. The biggest change from then to now has been the only semblance of stability, the Karzai's govt, has evaporated. Who is our official local partner ?
There is only one way to save the lives of our troops there now, pull out ! Even Charlie Wilson says to get out. When will we ever learn ?
Take care of the concerns in your own backyards before you decide to go off and save a world that has not asked for your help.
The problem is not that heroin exists, or where it comes from.
The real problem is that your people are addicted and that addiction is ravaging cities around the world.
What are you doing to help people with those addictions? Not much. It is easier to say that someone else has a problem, to insist that the great societies of Europe and America are doing just fine, thank you very much.
They are not doing well. And part of the reason they are not doing well is that they have been abandoned for the sake of sending troops to foreign lands.
Dear King Harvest,
In a reply to neo American, above, I spell out a workable heroin maintainence program that could work quite well through out the western world. Have a look. I could expand my idea which, for the record, I first wrote down in 1971.
michaelslevinson.com
If it didn't "work" for the British or Soviets,
someone please explain how . . " the third time's the charm ? "
How is it "different" this time ?
Is it strictly about the Taliban ? The Heroin Trade ?
Just asking since so-called military "experts"
have opposing views on the issue, how can
the rest of us make sense of it all ?
All the armchair quarterbacking aside, a few things to consider: we are in this war right now, and we are up to our eyeballs in trouble. I buy the Pakistan/nukes domino theory. Wishing for the world as we want it to be, instead of dealing with the current situation is folly. Send all the troops that are necessary. Don't do things half arsed.
It all depends on having the right type of strategy, not just throwing more troops at the problem. If they don't put in at least as many resources on the civilian side, they are going to LOSE this war. It can't be won just by going out and shooting the enemy, which is often elusive and easily able to find sanctuaries in remote areas.
The military force is there to provide security, so political, social and economic development can take place in the years ahead. If that doesn't happen, the war is already lost and we'd better get out now instead of wasting the lives of our men in a futile effort.
If we cut and run, though, regimes are going to come to power in that part of teh world that WILL attack the Western countries. Count on it.
"Of Course More Troops Are Needed"
i understand that that's how it feels on the ground, when you are risking your life. 'get me some damn backup!'
but an imprudent decision now could well mean more lives later. for the broader good, this is an important decision to get right, and one that shouldn't be rushed if there is no overriding reason for it.
Of course; yet what the hell are we really doing?
At this point it is absurd for soldiers to carry out the strategy of convincing terrorized Afghan peasants to set up shop in a "protected" market, when the wolves are drooling over them at every turn. Pathetic to see a midwestern twenty-something getting frustrated that the peasants are hesitant to jump up and down with peace and security.
Damn, no one knows how long or how many troops will be there for them.
We need to cut to the chase and get to the bottom line; now. Whatever it is.
More troops are needed, but the troops needed to get the job done are not available. Lets stop the BS and admit we never had the resolve to get the job done. It's put up or shut up time and no one, not even the Republicans, can afford the cost. Excuse me do you have a half million troops we could borrow for five years? You cheap jerks can't even pay my pension properly.
Bottom line for COIN(COunter INsurgency) is 50 to 1 troop ratio. Afghanistan is at 441 to 1. 50 to 1 is 600,000 troops. WE ONLY HAVE 68,000 DEPLOYED. Half a million troops short.
As a vet myself I am thinking of another option.
Have the PR machine declare victory and come home.
As i read Patricks piece i found myself thinking what would i do if i had been put in charge.? I'D CUT OFF THEIR SUPPLY.! their supposed to be fighting in and around caves and mountains.? there's no 7-11 store were they can just walk in a top up surly.? who's their arms supplier.? cut that off and your home free-ish.? or is this a simplistic view.? and then there's Oliver K's piece, bang on the money me thinks.! but then there's the ''W'' equation, why did they go in in the first place.? i don't know how true the movie was but as the war started the view from some quarters was, its about OIL.! not freedom.? now if thats even partly true and its NOT about religion then we're screwed.?
Karzai's government, whose legitimacy is questionable, has proven to be corrupt and unable to mount a coherent defense of his country. We can't stay there forever as a barrier against the Taliban, engaged in a war of attrition.
Little Miss Oslobama is proving not to be a tiger, but a kitten when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. A total shame for those hard working brave troops whose lives are on the line and in danger on every minute of the day on the battlefield. In Iraq war they were without any body armor, in the Afghanistan war, they're without a real Commander in Chief. How sad!
since when do troops determine foreign policy and the path to be taken in war? they are there to serve. otherwise stick four stars on all of them and witness the meaning of "havoc." sorry chaps, but it really is not for you to reason why. just get it done when you're told to. it was the same when that other bunch of dullards determined policy. whatever that was.
Generals are to football coaches. DoD is like the general manager. The administration is like the owners. Don't like what the coach wants to do? Then fire him.
Putting more troops in Afghanistan would be like invading Iraq.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/77650.html
If you need any more proof read this.
Pakistan is the real problem.
Bomb hits outside suspected Pakistani nuclear-weapons site
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A suicide bomber attacked a suspected nuclear-weapons site Friday in Pakistan, raising fears about the security of the nuclear arsenal, while two other terrorist blasts made it another bloody day in the country's struggle against extremism.
Increasingly daring and sophisticated attacks by terrorists allied with al Qaida on some of Pakistan's most sensitive and best-protected installations have led to warnings that extremists could damage a nuclear facility or seize nuclear material.
Over the last year we have doubled the number of troops yet the violence has increased and the Taliban influence spread and more and more roads where I used to travel have become inaccessible.
The problem is we need many more troops to deal with this - we're talking about 200,000 or 300,000 not just 40,000 more. Given this is politically impossible, we need to find another solution otherwise we will just keep losing more soldiers lives.
If we truly want to destroy the Taliban, 40,000 more troops are not enough. Do away with the all volunteer military & bring back the draft. We all know that will not happen because the people who scream the most for war & an increase in the # of troops want to send someone else's sons but not theirs.
Our troops are dying in Afganistan because we have too few men posted to out lying areas where they can easily be overwhelmed by hordes of Taliban fighters. If McChrystal's goal is to just add more of the same, the war is definitely lost.
We should pull out of Afghanistan & leave it to the Taliban. . We went to war in Afghanistan on 10/07/01 to get the 9/11 killers. We know where they are, let's go after them, destroy them with every non-nuclear bomb we have in our arsenal & bring our guys home.
jojo12: Have you considered whether other countries, opposed to the Taliban, and located in the immediate area of Afghanistan, should be taking the lead in preventing a return to power in Kabul of the Taliban? Why the fixation on US military power?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.