The Afghan Disaster
In the private sector, there is always a test of success. The business must make a profit. It can sustain some losses, but the clock is always running on those. At some point, after all cuts have been made and costs are trimmed to a minimum, the business has to close shop. The summer of losses must become the autumn of profits, or else it's all over.
Not so in government. Failing projects can go on forever. There is no profit and loss test. There is no test at all, in fact. Agencies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can blast away at a particularly egregious case of government waste, but hardly anyone pays attention. Congress has no reason to scrap it. No one does. Taxpayers have no means to pull the plug, because the whole thing is run outside their purview.
Now, with an intro like that, you might think I'm about to talk about Medicare or public schools or the post office. It would be easy enough. But let us never forget that foreign policy constitutes another sector of government management, central planning, and bureaucratic-driven missions that are no more or less successful than anything else a government does. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (57)
Christopher
"Never mind that the precise relationship between 9-Eleven and Afghanistan was fuzzy at best."
- Are you serious? Fuzzy?
Published: September 22, 2009 9:06 AM
David Janello
Llewellyn Rockwell writes:
>> The basis of the attack was not that different from the attack on Iraq: it was something that the Bush administration wanted and 9-Eleven furnished the pretext.
Not true. Bush and Obama most certainly did NOT want wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Both men are skilled political operatives. Close to 100% of presidential incumbents in war or near-war situations have been voted from office -- Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and George H.W. Bush.
Bush and Obama know this and would be loath to do anything that might jeopardize re-election.
US presidents only embarked on dangerous wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan because they feared that the political cost of inaction was greater than the cost of action.
Truman feared that Korea would be 'another China' and that he would be blamed politically and historically for the loss of another nation to communism. Johnson and Nixon had similar fears in Vietnam. George H.W. Bush feared that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia, get access to its oil supplies and use the oil revenue to finance regional military operations similar to, but greater in scope, than the Iran-Iraq war which cost over 1 million casualties over 10 years. George W. Bush feared that a loose network of nation-states and non-state actors would expand and extend the military success of the 9/11 attacks. In a nuclear 9-11 scenario, unless he is in a bomb shelter 24/7, the US President is actually in greater danger of losing his life than the average US citizen.
Published: September 22, 2009 9:13 AM
MariusAureus
How stable will be democracy brought on bayonets?
And after all... Democracy imposed by coercion???
Isn't it a ludicrously crazy concept?
Let's read about Afghan latest election...
:-(
And if not "democracy" - what is the real case???
Published: September 22, 2009 9:13 AM
Christopher
MariusAureus,
I agree wholeheartedly that the idea of an Afghan invasion was, from a historical perspective, the wrong move, but I'm more than offended by the author's suggestion that the 9/11 link to AQ in Afghanistan was "fuzzy".
Published: September 22, 2009 9:27 AM
mpolzkill
Christopher,
"AQ" is fuzzy. "Cutting off the head" in these cases is fuzzy. There's whole lotta fuzzy, says Sibel Edmonds.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David,
You don't think LBJ got where he was and his only or even main motivation all along regarding Vietnam was his fear of being blamed for it going Commie, do you?
Published: September 22, 2009 9:46 AM
(8?»
Christopher, what is "Afghanistan" but a mental abstraction that has no existence in reality?
Only individuals have the capacity to be responsible (or to think, or act). To blame anything on an arbitrary collection of people (voluntary or not) is to deflect blame away from the individuals responsible.
Were there individuals in Afghanistan involved? Seems likely. To label them as "Afghanistan" though, is to make the same error that "America" (as in the federal gov.) was also culpable in this event.
It always comes down to the actions of individuals, never the abstractions they hide behind.
Published: September 22, 2009 10:18 AM
Ohhh Henry
Fear of "losing" a country may be a factor, but it's the military-industrial-legislative complex which really brings home the bacon. Once those contracts get signed for weapons, transportation, security, base construction, etc. you might as well give up war resistance and peacemaking. Nothing is going to happen until either the contracts expire or the government conducting the war goes bankrupt.
I believe you will find that this explains the long-term marriage of the US and NATO countries to the pointless quagmire that is Afghanistan. The military-industrial complex has contracts that say that the war will continue at least for another several years, and it darn well is going to continue no matter what politics, public opinion, reason or common sense have to say about it.
Published: September 22, 2009 10:18 AM
danny
Christopher -- for the thousands of Afghans who have been killed and the countless thousands that are homeless or orphaned because of the war, virtually none of whom had absolutely anything to do with 9-11, the relationship is quite fuzzy, unless guilt by geography is what you are refering to. 9-11 was planned and committed by specific individuals -- some of whom died that day, some of whom we may have killed since, some of whom we don't know. The only justifiable action would have been one that targeted only those responsible.
David -- "Not true. Bush and Obama most certainly did NOT want wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Both men are skilled political operatives. Close to 100% of presidential incumbents in war or near-war situations have been voted from office -- Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and George H.W. Bush."
I must have learned a different history. We glorify Lincoln and Roosevelt precisely because of the wars they led the country into. Johnson was elected in 1964 with the war accelerating. Nixon won in a landslide despite not getting the US out of Vietnam as he previously said he would. I don't know what war Carter was invloved in -- frankly, if he nuked Iran as payback for the hostages, he probably would have been re-elected. And Bush, as I recall, lost on the economy (meanwhile, his son won re-election while being in two losing wars simultaneously). Bush did not want war in Iraq? I don't even know where to start on this. The French didn't want war in Iraq. You know what they did? They did not go to war in Iraq...
The only example you cite that holds some water is Johnson in 1968. The exception that proves the rule, I guess.
As to Obama, his heroes are Lincoln and Roosevelt -- refer to my comment on these two above. War was used before as the only way to distract the population from a horrendous economy caused by government policies.
Published: September 22, 2009 10:19 AM
Ohhh Henry
I'm more than offended by the author's suggestion that the 9/11 link to AQ in Afghanistan was "fuzzy".
About as fuzzy as the links between AQ and CIA.
Published: September 22, 2009 10:21 AM
Christopher
Danny,
My arguement isn't whether or not the Afghan campaign was executed correctly or whether it's a success or failure. My arguement is over the author's incorrect assertion that the link between 9/11 and Afghanistan is fuzzy. AQ was given safe haven by the Taliban who at the time ran Afghanistan. I'm also not suggesting the AQ was the ONLY player involved in 9/11.
Ohh Henry,
Surely you're joking. The link it hard and fast. It is but one of many.
Published: September 22, 2009 10:41 AM
david janello
>> You don't think LBJ got where he was and his only or even main motivation all along regarding Vietnam was his fear of being blamed for it going Commie, do you?
LBJs motives were 100% political. Many liberals and (unfortunately) libertarians blame 'war profits' as a primary motivation for entering a war. This implies that an LBJ, a Bush or an Obama would compromise their political careers in exchange for profits going to their 'friends' in the military industrial complex. The reality is of course that the politicians will sell out their 'friends' in favor of their careers every time.
Appeasement is (usually) good politics, until it isn't. Typically a democratic state will carry the appeasement policy for a long time period, then abandon it when overwhelming popular opinion forces it to change -- often at a time of great military disadvantage.
When LBJ entered Vietnam the collective memory of appeasement at Munich and the loss of China were fresh enough to engender genuine fear of losing an election. Once the war started, fear of a state falling to Communism was replaced by a fear of losing national and personal prestige in a failed military action.
One can argue that the most disastrous military adventures post WWII arise from 'Appeasers at War', that is, Presidents of a pacifist bent who are forced by public opinion into doing things they ordinarily would not be inclined to do.
Such leaders are quick to commit resources but lack the will to successfully carry out the military operations they instigated.
Published: September 22, 2009 11:07 AM
danny
Christopher
My point is it shouldn't have been a "campaign" -- the idea of a "link" to entire country, making all who happen to reside there live in fear for their lives, is wrong -- it is also fuzzy. Specific individuals committed the crime. Get them. To link the crime to the guilt of all people who happen to share a zip code with the criminal is fuzzy.
By the same token, all people who lived in the former USSR are fair game because they happened to live where Stalin ruled. There are many in Iraq and Afghanistan who would hold me as guilty because I happen to live in the US. For this reason, I always wear my Groucho Marx glasses and nose.
Published: September 22, 2009 11:12 AM
mpolzkill
david,
"pacifist bent". Thanks for the laugh. I'm sure grateful for Kruschev's "pacifist" leanings.
"100% political." Let me guess what that means exactly. He 100% only cared about what the majority of the electorate wanted. You sound as if you're saying that all these foolish liberals believe it's all about money and that it only flows in one direction. What is the mechanism for politicians to get the word out that they are the man to get the job (satisfying the desires of the majority) done?
"appeasment"
Was that a long "appeasment" that left millions of dead Vietnamese. Maybe it was. Should have nuked 'em all, eh?
"When LBJ entered Vietnam"
?!?
I do agree with you in part though: half assed war-mongers stink too.
Published: September 22, 2009 11:32 AM
USA Today
@Marius Aureus,
"And after all... Democracy imposed by coercion???"
Not at all, after all try to refuse democracy in the USA and try to keep your taxes for yourself and try not paying taxes and claiming a libertarian government.
You will learn that democracy in the USA is maintained by bayonnets.
What is really ludicrous is to think that democracy means peace and prosperity, it doesn't. Democracy is mob rule and it's dangerous.
Published: September 22, 2009 12:32 PM
MariusAureus
USA Today
I realize this, nevertheless no one can say,
that democracy was imposed on Americans
in any coercive manner - maybe except
utopian anarchists.
Consider also this...
Democracy or any other model of ruling
becomes "mob rule" if and only if normal
citizens let them rule - for any reason.
Yes! You're right! It is ludicrous to think
that democracy is oh-so wonderful,
but in exactly this manner it is presented.
Like libertarianism here and there...
Therefore I do support libertarian movement,
but I do believe in myself only - not any "ism".
Published: September 22, 2009 2:42 PM
Christopher
Danny,
The link wasn't to an entire country. The author is being disengenious or simply lying. The US never linked Afghanistan the country to 9/11. The link was to people within the country and some of the rogue elements who were "running" the country. You have to remember that at the time of 9/11 there was a civil war going on in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance vs. Taliban. AQ was given safe haven by the Taliban.
War is hell, civilians always die. It's just the way it is. Never forget it.
Published: September 22, 2009 2:59 PM
USA Today
@Marius Aureus
"but I do believe in myself only - not any "ism"."
Is that Individualism ?
I think that is the only legitimate "ism".
Published: September 22, 2009 3:01 PM
USA Today
Christopher,
"The link was to people within the country and some of the rogue elements who were "running" the country."
I believe we have plenty of rogue elements in our own country. So we should start here in our own country before we go after foreign rogues.
Franks, Pelosi, Holder, Obama looks like the worst bunch of rogues any nation can get.
Published: September 22, 2009 3:43 PM
Bruce Koerber
Apolitical Political Commentary!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Afghanistan Is Not A Place For Playground Bullies!
Here is how it works. The unConstitutional coup in the United States is the big player in international monetary hegemony. As such it receives requests for favors from special groups like the military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex (including pharmaceuticals), to mention two of the biggest.
It would be too revealing of a corruption to just funnel money directly to these sycophants. Also these economic terrorists who compose the membership of the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup are ego-driven interventionists. In other words they are ignorant of economic reality and so they believe that they can use the economy to serve their needs just like Keynesianism proclaims!
The bigger the playground the more they can spend! In Afghanistan the military industrial complex thought that it could easily be the playground bully. But the big, burly bully cannot find its victims. While looking to the left his shoe laces are tied together. When he looks to his right he sees his victim and with arrogance and aggressiveness he begins to pursue! After falling on his face he begins to cry and McChrystal runs to get help!
It is very important that we END THE FED so the unConstitutional coup is cut off and exposed as a traitorous band of economic terrorists.
Published: September 22, 2009 3:45 PM
Thinker
The true travesty of the Afghan war has been its length more than its justification. We invaded Afghanistan to capture/kill those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, specifically Osama bin Laden. Eight years later...no Osama. If the point of the invasion was to get Osama, why have we been taking our jolly good time about it?
Government interventions will be a fact of life until anarchists take over the government, something that isn't going to happen any time soon. With that in mind, they should be kept as short as possible and focused on destroying things rather than trying to build them. Unfortunately, that never seems to happen.
Published: September 22, 2009 3:52 PM
Russ
Thinker,
You are laboring under a misconception. The war on Afghanistan was not started to capture bin Laden (although they probably wouldn't have minded that outcome). The military know that they cannot fight the kind of war they know how to fight against Al Quaeda. But they can fight the kind of war they know how to fight against Afghanistan. And since Afghanistan was sponsoring Al Quaeda, that gave them a reason to invade, and send a message to any other state that might try sponsoring terrorist acts against us. That's the same reason they went after Iraq, because they thought they had WMDs and would give them to terrorist groups.
"With that in mind, they should be kept as short as possible and focused on destroying things rather than trying to build them. Unfortunately, that never seems to happen."
If the US just goes in and destroys everything in sight, that creates the insurgency that it took so long to fight in Iraq. Building is part of a counter-insurgency strategy. It's no coincidence that when the military started following a counter-insurgency strategy, combined with a more conventional troop-heavy approach (the Surge), they started winning in Iraq.
Published: September 22, 2009 4:38 PM
Thinker
Russ,
I'll give you that the military prefers fighting conventional war to asymmetrical, but that doesn't explain why military action was taken, merely why it took the form that it did. The stated objective of the invasion (and of the GWOT as a whole, I might add) was "to bring our enemies to justice, or [to] bring justice to our enemies," bin Laden being the principal target. The same goes for the invasion of Iraq-WMDs explain "why attack Iraq?", but do not answer the question "why attack?" That answer is a bit more complicated.
"If the US just goes in and destroys everything in sight, that creates the insurgency that it took so long to fight in Iraq. Building is part of a counter-insurgency strategy. It's no coincidence that when the military started following a counter-insurgency strategy, combined with a more conventional troop-heavy approach (the Surge), they started winning in Iraq."
I understand counter-insurgency, but if there is no occupation, then there is no need to combat an insurgency. I'll admit that my word choice was less than perfect, so let me try to rephrase: When government attempts to intervene (in any form) constructively, it fails to adequately meet demand for that constructive service. Therefore, government should restrict its interventions to destruction-which is, after all, its purpose.
Published: September 22, 2009 5:23 PM
Clayton
@Christopher: "War is hell, civilians always die. It's just the way it is. Never forget it."
Those responsible for civilian deaths should be brought to trial for their crimes. Deaths of innocent civilians from bombings are criminal acts and those responsible, all the way up the chain of command, should be tried for the crimes committed. "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for battlefield atrocities. When you grant police or soldiers immunity for their actions under the doctrine of "collateral damage" or "continuum of force", they will become more aggressive and less targeted in their employment of violence. In other words, "civilians die in war" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Published: September 22, 2009 10:25 PM
newson
maybe the us could have offered several hundred million dollars for bin laden "dead or alive"?
bin laden might have remained in afghanistan and been an easier target for bounty-hunters, had the invasion not taken place.
anyone got any other solutions to the problem of extradition, where no treaty exists?
politically, "cash-for-terrorists" would have played out like crap, that much i acknowledge.
Published: September 22, 2009 10:51 PM
newson
to russ:
regarding your "winning in Iraq" - what definition? what benchmarks? what objectives?
Published: September 22, 2009 11:00 PM
newson
i'm curious as to how "hearts and minds" can be quantified!
Published: September 22, 2009 11:08 PM
mpolzkill
Ah, "war is hell", mating call of the psychopath.
Published: September 22, 2009 11:09 PM
Luke
Russ
I should remind you that the American government was still sending financial aid to Afganistan (Taliban Government) in 2001 before 9/11 to combat the opium production, so we didn't seem to have a problem with them at all. Not to mention that the CIA helped create the Taliban and muhajaden forces to combat the soviets. What kind of signal are we sending? After 8 years the American body count is higher than ever, Afganistan is a bottomless pit, many past empires such as the British and Soviets tryed and failed in their attemptes to impose their will on the Afgan people.
Osama wanted to draw America into a middle east quagmire so that we could be bled dry financially and guess what its working. Continually bombing and killing civilians will only create more resentment and blowback in the future.
This whole idea of pre-emptive war, or the ability of our political masters to make accusations that some country might possibly give terrorists WMD's that probably don't exist is very dangerous, it gives them carte blanche for perpetual warfare against any perceived foe, its really a state of paranoia. We've simply paid off the sunni's so they won't kill our troop, people are still getting blown up, the Iraqi government is close with Iran, I have no doubt that we will be at war with them soon, again justified under bogus claims.
Published: September 22, 2009 11:31 PM
pravin
christopher,
since afghanistan deserved to be bombed because the taliban hosted osama a similar absurd argument can be made for bombing the US since it hosts the CIA who created,nurtured and encouraged osama in the first place.
Published: September 22, 2009 11:37 PM
HayeksHeroes
Rockwell, please stick to economics. Foreign Policy is not your bag.
Published: September 23, 2009 1:59 AM
K Ackermann
It is so much worse than what the author outlined. It's so bad, they can't even really string up a good cover story, and they are so used to getting their way, and have so much contempt for us, that they don't even try.
We are supposed to be going after Al Qaida. Is AQ in Afghanistan? No. Once again, we are in the wrong country making enemies and bringing misery to whatever people happen to be under our bombs.
The new enemy is the Taliban. They are the bad guys because they might allow another 100 people to plan an operation against America. This is not a valid argument even under the most insane notion of logic.
We are running drug interdiction's there now. Any general who would allow such a sizable force structure to be used for drug interdiction is a colossal coward and traitor to the flag. They would have been blindfolded and shot in WWII for such a loathsome act. If Gates had any hint of a spine, he would bust Petraeus back to private, and give him a dishonorable discharge. No real general grinds down troops for truly useless reasons. Soldiers are dying so a few junkies have 10% less drugs available to purchase. How many Afghan farmers and families are added to that?
An now for McCrackhead to file a report that every soldier should spit in his face for is treasonous.
You want more troops or we will lose? How insane are you?
Let's look at the conditions on the ground: does the 'enemy' have tanks? No.
Attack aircraft? No.
Standing armies? No.
Uniforms? No.
Established supply lines? Well, they don't really need supplies in the traditional sense...
What do you mean? Well, everyone has a gun, and there are some rockets and grenades, but they really don't emphasize weapons all that much. It's more like if you turn your back, someone will take a shot, or someone will place a bomb right where we drive... it's kind of like 1776, except the British probably had much smarter command and control than we have.
Well, maybe that's the problem. Maybe we don't need more troops; maybe we need new command and control, and maybe we should come home and think about how to fight people in their own backyard who do not wear uniforms, and who shoot us when we are not looking, because even a pinhead would fail to see how 30, 40, 50,000 more troops would somehow make things different.
Even the "surge" was deployed with a new strategy, and that strategy was to pay people to stop shooting at us.
Has anyone mentioned that to the jeniuses running the war?
The execution, and indeed basis for this war is an embarrassment to this nation. It disgusting.
Published: September 23, 2009 3:24 AM
Joe O.
I'm not going to re-hash over the who did what, why, and when aspects of the war in Afghanistan.
What I'd like to know is have the politcal, military, and other objectives been achieved thus far? My answer is, no.
True, the Taliban regime was toppled but even that was only a half victory at best. The Taliban were already in a civil war with the Northern Alliance at the time and controlled as I recall, mostly southern portions of Afghanistan and nothing more. Faced with that and a American invasion the Taliban along with their Al Qaeda allies simply conducted a tactical retreat, went to ground, regrouped, rearmed, and have been carrying out insurgency operations throughout most of Afghanistan ever since. They've been so effective at this strategy that they give the impression, be it true or not, that they control an estimated 80% of Afghanistan.
Next, once the Taliban were toppled a Karzai regime that really never could project its power or spread its influence outside of Kabul without American help is what has been and is currently in place. I doubt any Afghan outside of Kabul really takes that government seriously. Their government is more than likely who is locally in control of their area at the time.
True, Al Qaeda operations were disrupted but at what cost? The Al Qaeda core leadership simply shifted position to mostly Pakistan and spawned smaller groups each with new, and experienced commanders to lead them. Al Qaeda's core leadership apparently cannot carry out operations that they once did but they still remain a viable symbol of motivation and experience for all other fighters.
For the Afghan people, the only thing that really has changed since before the American invasion is the primary combatants. Outside of Kabul and maybe even in Kabul itself and other cities, reconstruction remains a failure, corruption is high, autrocities are constant and the only real economic activity is from running guns or growing and selling narcotics.
Published: September 23, 2009 4:04 AM
Hayek's Caricature
one liners get the attention they deserve.
Published: September 23, 2009 4:37 AM
P.M.Lawrence
MariusAureus wrote "...nevertheless no one can say, that democracy was imposed on Americans in any coercive manner - maybe except utopian anarchists".
No? How about the United Empire Loyalists? Were they not Americans, and was not the will of the revolting Americans imposed on them?
Luke wrote "...many past empires such as the British and Soviets tryed [sic] and failed in their attemptes to impose their will on the Afgan [sic] people".
Actually, the British succeeded, in both of the Second and Third Afghan Wars (and also earlier, before the First Afghan War, when driving them out of India - they had seized Rohilcund).
Published: September 23, 2009 5:09 AM
P.M.Lawrence
I see I was doing Luke an injustice in thinking that was his own error. He was merely echoing Rockwell's error "The British tried and failed" - after all, "Anyone with a sense of history knows the answer to that".
Published: September 23, 2009 5:22 AM
Gil
"Since Afghanistan deserved to be bombed because the Taliban hosted Osama a similar absurd argument can be made for bombing the U.S. since it hosts the C.I.A. who created, nurtured and encouraged Osama in the first place." - pravin
Isn't that what Libertarians have been saying about Sept. 11 all along what with their meddling in the Middle East? Similarly with Pearl Harbor . . .
Published: September 23, 2009 6:10 AM
Samuel
The paragraph I quote below is so completely wrong it raises question to the value of anything else said in the article, and hurts Lew's credibility in other areas. I hate to see that.
Samuel
"Never mind that the precise relationship between 9-11 and Afghanistan was fuzzy at best. Never mind that the secret hideouts of the alleged terrorists there were built by the United States itself during the days of the Soviet occupation. The basis of the attack was not that different from the attack on Iraq: it was something that the Bush administration wanted and 9-11 furnished the pretext."
Published: September 23, 2009 6:31 AM
Gil
"Those responsible for civilian deaths should be brought to trial for their crimes. Deaths of innocent civilians from bombings are criminal acts and those responsible, all the way up the chain of command, should be tried for the crimes committed." - Clayton.
Why? Besides what exactly constitutes a 'civilian' let alone an 'innocent civilian'? A truly 'innocent civilian' is someone who is totally unrelated to the war effort. Women and children working in an armaments factory making bombs and bullet for their soldiers are hardly innocent and unrelated to the war. International law obliges the military to minimise civilian deaths and condemns attacking purely civilian targets.
"Ah, 'war is hell', mating call of the psychopath." - mpolzkill
Er, wouldn't "war is fun" make more sense for the psychpathic?
Published: September 23, 2009 7:22 AM
mpolzkill
Well see, Gil, you're a psychopath, so that's exactly what you'd think.
Interesting, I finally agree with Ackerman on something.
The lefty: constitutionally unable to leave Americans alone.
The righty: constitutionally unable to leave everyone else alone.
Published: September 23, 2009 7:42 AM
Gil
What do you base that on mpol?
Published: September 23, 2009 8:12 AM
mpolzkill
Which part, Gil? That you're a psychopath; that psychopaths say "war is hell" a lot; or are you asking about my little idiot's guide to the coercive obsessions of lefties and righties?
1. Don't get me wrong, I'm a nut too: trying to describe the violent monomania (obsessed with power and its self-justification) to THE anonymous psychopath online...but...I base it on said monomania which you compulsively share with us day and night. This may be further answered on the other forum you addressed me on.
2. This is the standard response from the destroyers of countries and the creators of GREAT piles of women's and children's corpses (and their sycophants ridiculously believe it is a conversation stopper to echo it. It may well be, but for a different reason than you think. See 1.)
3. I base this on the reports from my functioning ears and eyes.
Published: September 23, 2009 9:11 AM
Gil
"psychopaths say 'war is hell' a lot."
In which movie? Apocalyse Now? Hot Shots? Up? The voices in your head?
Published: September 23, 2009 9:20 AM
mpolzkill
Gil, it's on THIS forum; used by a warmonger in exactly the fashion I described it (exactly as I've heard it a thousand times, by hundreds of fools).
Come on, Gil, can't you do better than that? Try to keep up.
Published: September 23, 2009 9:28 AM
Gil
Christopher? Or could it be, * drum roll *, General Sherman? Yes, you are a nut.
Published: September 23, 2009 9:56 AM
mpolzkill
Who doesn't know it was Sherman? You think that was a gotcha? I think I see now the source of your terror of weakness. I was clearly speaking of his progeny, Gil.
I take your "nut" comment as a badge of honor, "Mr. Gimme My Nuke, I'm Righteous!"
Goodbye, Gil.
Published: September 23, 2009 10:09 AM
Martin OB
I think it would be helpful to discuss how a libertarian society would respond to aggression from another country. Forget the easy answers like "it wouldn't happen" or " it would respond without killing civilians". I agree that the state uses war as an excuse to expand its power and all that, but the radical anti-war position may be interpreted as a self-sacrificing position of always giving the other cheek, which I don't think is implied by libertarianism.
If your neighbor is throwing stones at you, you have the right to strike back, even invading his property. If someone was dining at your neighbor's and you hit them by accident, you owe them reparations, but it's not morally equivalent as if you target them just for being there.
I think the same applies to war. Let's suppose America were a peaceful libertarian country when the 9-11 attacks happened (it's a thought experiment!). If the taliban were helping Osama Bin Laden, they should be captured and tried. In order to do that, Afghanistan would have to be invaded. No, I don't agree that whatever goes beyond offering money, protesting and trying to reach an agreement is a criminal action.Granted, a serious effort should be done to avoid civilian deaths. Maybe a good rule of thumb is to think of Afghan civilians as if they were American hostages. My point is that even in that case, civilians may die, even though the numbers would be, one might expect, spectacularly lower than those of government war.
Every action has its risks, especially if it involves the use of force. Libertarians accept the defensive use of force.
Published: September 23, 2009 12:00 PM
Russ
I was not saying that the actions taken by the government were the best ones possible, only explaining what I think was the rationale behind the actions that were taken. I was also not saying that the government's actions were all consistent with one another, or that the government had any definite goals or definitions of "winning" or an exit strategy. There is certainly much about the government's handling of the situation to complain about.
Thinker wrote:
"I'll give you that the military prefers fighting conventional war to asymmetrical, but that doesn't explain why military action was taken..."
Military action was taken so that the government could be seen as doing something to protect US citizens from more terrrorist attacks in the future, which is supposed to be part of their job. In other words, military action was taken to justify the government's continued existence.
Published: September 23, 2009 4:03 PM
newson
to russ:
i agree that inaction would have been unthinkable, in the then political climate.
to martin ob:
would military action be justified against countries with no extradition treaty with the us, who refuse to surrender criminals? what about cuba invading america to prosecute their state "criminals", hiding in miami?
Published: September 23, 2009 7:10 PM
newson
if the us had offered $10 billion dollars reward for bin laden's head, maybe war could have been avoided. privateers might have had more success, they certainly would have used more creativity than the armed forces.
paying for delivery of a criminal creates no diplomatic issues, and the fate of the bounty-hunters (should they fail in their intent) is not the us' concern. indeed, it's more likely the hunters would be locals, not us nationals.
Published: September 23, 2009 8:21 PM
Baten
War in Afganistan was just a pretext.
Before the american invasion, there were no poppies growing in Afganistan, since the talibans did not allow them.
The following year after the invasion, Afganistan was responsible for 45% of world morphine production, and today, this has raised to 95%, under the closed supervision of the american army, and the new state structure put in place by them.
War on terror is really a war FOR drugs. So it is going to be here for a while, ad least until they will find another place to move their operations.
Please note that I have nothing against the use of drugs - it should be a matter of individual choice what you want to intoxicate yourself with, as long as you dont hurt somebody else (as with alcohol).
Published: September 24, 2009 1:27 AM
Gil
"Before the American invasion, there were no poppies growing in Afganistan, since the Taliban did not allow them." - Baten.
So prohibition worked then?
Published: September 24, 2009 1:34 AM
Baten
Well, poppies do not grow in USA - so I guess prohibition works there also.
Published: September 24, 2009 1:41 AM
Martin OB
newson:
If some people are considered refugees by the country who hosts them, and criminals by the country from where they fled, then there's a problem between the two countries. Hopefully they can sort it out by peaceful means, but maybe they can't. It depends on how deep their disagreement is about the nature of the alleged crimes, how different their views about their relative strengths (if each one of them feels stronger than the other one, that's a bad thing), and many other factors.
I don't think there's an absolute moral answer about which of the two is in the right, without getting into the details of the alleged crimes, previous agreements and so on.
So, peaceful political protesters who are called "criminals" by the Cuban government are one thing; murderous, blood-thirsty terrorists who are planning yet more attacks are another matter.
Published: September 24, 2009 6:44 AM
newson
to martin ob:
...and luis posada carriles?
http://www.brookesnews.com/050606coultanetal_print.html
one nation's freedom fighter is another nation's terrorist. i think your suggestion ends up in today's "might is right". the us is able to plan incursions in other countries (noriega in panama), but i'd like to see the reaction if the converse were tried.
Published: September 24, 2009 8:48 PM
Martin OB
newson:
I think the idea that terrorists are the same as freedom fighters is much more dangerous than the idea that sometimes intervention is justified. Killing innocents is always wrong. No country has the right to serve as a refuge for murderers. Of course, this includes the USA.
Published: September 25, 2009 6:43 AM
newson
to martin ob:
but you can't presume to judge someone a murderer without due legal process, and if the country hosting these individuals refuses to cooperate with the aggrieved nation in extradition or the "terrorists" are found not guilty by local courts, then by your logic, invasion is legitimate.
it's just a matter of cost/benefit analysis, where the more powerful country gets to impose its justice on other nations if it's expedient to do so.
Published: September 25, 2009 11:26 PM
Martin OB
newson:
I'm not saying it's always legitimate, just that it's not always, categorically, illegitimate. In those cases, there's an international conflict, which hopefully can be sorted out, but maybe it can't. I agree that no country has a right to impose its legal system on others, but no country has a right to cooperate with aggressors in acts of aggression, even from its own territory.
It's the same problem you may have in an ancap society when two agencies have different legal systems.
In practice, yes, I guess it can be described as a cost-benefit analysis. In a peaceful society, the "cost" you assign to the fact that someone says you are an aggressor should be very high, but not infinite.
Otherwise, for instance, a person A could steal from person B all the time, as long as A hires a "judge" who will always say "no, you are mistaken. A is innocent, it must have been someone who looks like A" or something to the effect, whenever B accuses A.
Published: September 26, 2009 10:53 AM