US swaps 5 Gitmo prisoners for US soldiers release, but many questions remain

[GarfieldJL]

Are you suggesting that our soldiers aren't worth the boost to morale that our enemies get from the exchange? That it's "completely stupid" to trade prisoners?

1. He was a deserter in a time of war.
2. Those 5 Taliban were the worst of the worst, some of them are wanted by the United Nations for crimes against humanity.
3. This trade has painted a target on the back of every American worldwide.

Our soldiers aren't worth it?

Returning the enemy's military leaders while we are still at war, is essentially aiding the enemy which is classified as treasonous.

 

[Armoured]

Ask those who engineered Fast and Furious. However your point is moot. By admitting they are "illegals" you acknowledge they violated our laws in coming here. Where is the same disdain for and outrage over that as is being shown toward Tahmooressi?

Uh-huh.

 

[Armoured]

Well at least this comment brings us back on topic in the sense of putting into perspective how we switched gears to the Mexican border incident. Now, care to explain how party affiliation differentiates between people's stance here?

well, like this:

Next, the POW doesn't seem at all like the one jailed. The POW was high on hash according to those who saw him last before capture, after he deserted his post. He also took off on his own before; not so bad on your own time, but not so good when on military duty. He also had some psych problems before all this, which does raise the question how he was not screened out, at least before deployment.

How does this compare to the one jailed? Well, it doesn't. He was discharged before his arrest. I don't see anyone saying Berghdal should've been left to rot, only that its very fishy to trade the 5 most dangerous terrorists on the planet for him, and even worse to simply let them go, which is basically the final disposition of that case.

I think both these guys should be treated similarly, meaning do what we can to bring them back. It is the inequality in our approach to them that has me mad at Obama, and I think he rightfully deserves that.

 

[theophilus777]

If that was what some liberals consider thinking things through, it's no wonder Obama has been such a failure

I thought you were going to say if that's what's considered thinking things through, no wonder he could get elected

 

[TLK Valentine]

You also said the Talibs are neither crazy nor stupid. I find these 2 statements incompatible.

Well, that's your problem, isn't it?

Are they brutal? Certainly. Power-hungry? No doubt. Crazy? No. Stupid? Absolutely not.

Again, I find all this to be indications of stupidity and lunacy.

Well, you're going to have to get over that, and stop thinking of your enemies as caricatures.

And you said their only political goal was to hold Afghanistan.

I never said it was their only goal.

I pointed out they were training people to attack us when we weren't there, and you said of course. None of this is logically consistent. Clearly they have goals beyond merely holding AF, and do we have any reason to think they're content with the borders of AF?

I think they have connections to larger organizations that they're willing to assist -- including AQ, who are NOT content with the borders of Afghanistan.

"Axis of evil," if you please

I prefer not to think in soundbytes -- rots the brain, don't you know.

But we have to deny them nuclear (sorry, nukular) generated electricity

As much as I would like to believe that the Iranian government would ONLY use nuclear material for good, and would never ever think of doing anything unseemly with it, I just can't see myself trusting their government with it at this time.

And as much as I support a hands-off policy, a certain level of prudence is called for...

So you are in favor of Obama's latest statements, indicating a shift to non-interventionist policy. You are also in favor of learning from our past mistakes. Not only do I agree on both points, but this is the best thing I've ever seen come out of Barry, far and away ...

That's refreshing -- there are plenty of people in this country would would argue with Obama if he said the sky was blue...

I've pointed out weaknesses in it, and the impracticalities that I see.

What you see and what I've been saying have a few key differences, however...

Like I said, this is impractical. First, we already showed them their goal is unobtanium.

No, we haven't --as long as they think attaining their goal is worth the effort, they will keep trying... and they don't have a whole lot to lose from trying.

How long did it take us to get a military "win?" Any sane person would've caved, but not these guys.

Persistence =/= insanity, otherwise we're as crazy as they are.

This indicates they've got nothing to lose, to which you replied I don't understand them.

Because this is the first time that you've realized that we have a lot more to lose than they do... and they know it.

They don't need to beat us; they just need to wear us out.... they know that, too.

I understand the actions of a desperate militia, and you're not going to beat them w/o killing them. This is a stark contrast to the loyalty of Saddam's soldiers.

Saddam's soldiers had a lot more to lose -- which is why they surrendered a lot more readily than these guys.

This is guerrilla warfare, and the rules are a lot different.

How do we arrive at the place where we no longer need to be there? The closest we come to that is modernized warfare such that drones reduce our need for boots on the ground. This is progress, which does not mean I approve of the extent of Barry's reach on this one.

Well, in terms of our needing to be there, drones don't help -- they do minimize US casualties, which is always a good thing, but it's our political and cultural presence that they object to.

In terms of the psychology of warfare, the drones do send a useful message to our enemies -- "We can hurt you, but you can't hurt us." The Viet Cong sent that message loud and clear with their extensive use of boobytraps; nothing more frustrating that having your buddy's leg blown off right in front of you, and knowing there's nobody there to shoot at in retaliation.

But those drones are expensive, and the cost doesn't justify the message.

So neither of your (finally) stated strategies is tenable.

Only if I accept your premises -- but they haven't gotten the message that their cause is futile, simply because (as you're finally starting to see) they have nothing to lose by continuing.

Sun Tzu would help you here -- if you're interested in learning from him, let me know.

And here I was hoping you and I would achieve world peace? (Not really of course, just like my butter and blankets scenario was never realistic because it would never be implemented, even if it would actually work)

Except I showed you how the butter and blankets scenario wouldn't work -- which is why it wouldn't be implemented.

No Sir, my claim included quite a bit of subtlety you're willing to steamroll over. IF we had won in Nam, we'd have quite a lot of info to apply to both Middle Eastern fronts.

But they won in Vietnam, and we can learn form our mistakes -- are you suggesting otherwise?

Since they won, we don't have that BUT the means by which they won don't really give us useful info on how we could "win" either front. Unfortunately. The best it should tell us is how not to lose in the same way. Apparently we failed to learn that lesson, as well as the lesson of AF being the empire breaker.

And what's wrong with learning how not to lose? We can't afford to make the same mistakes we made the last time; we can at least agree on that.

You seem to have steamrollered over the subtlety, not me.

This is what I referred to as an "exit strategy." I actually saw 2; one being just start with the Nation building thing, since AF was already bombed to smithereens before we ever got there and there was no need.

Well, that's the problem -- when our nation builders go in and get shot at, we're back to a shooting war.

Yes, this would require the bravest "soldiers" to ever set foot on a battlefield, and maybe the Talibs really are so stupid and insane as to keep killing both aid workers and accompanying media, but you have failed to realize that the only string attached in this plan is to give people what they need so they aren't so desperate anymore.

The problem is that it requires two important things:

1: for us to give this aid with absolutely no strings attached.
2: For them to believe that we're giving this aid with absolutely no strings attached.

...and I don't see either of those conditions being met.

Would no fellow Muslims have challenged the Taliban had they responded that way? Would the Taliban be in control now? We will never know, but I seriously doubt both things. I think everybody would've mellowed out, as you describe Iran. I also think it would've been a lot cheaper, with a lot less bloodshed.

It looks nice on theory -- but I think you're grossly underestimating how much they hate and mistrust us.

The other one is simply to colonize the whole place. "Ride herd on the Middle East," as W said. Let them pay tribute. Not sea to shining sea, but oilfield to shining oilfield. It is our technology and our steel that we brought there to start the whole thing, we could take it back w/o a significant moral issue.

Now that's insane. No significant moral issue, you say?

I mean, the world is so convinced that's all we care about anyway, why not?

You mean become the monsters the world thinks we are?

You're a Christian; read Matthew 16:26 and get back to me on that one.

I say this is easily proven to be false because we haven't even secured a call for ourselves on their oil. What our true motive is is to extend the lifespan of the USD as global reserve currency. Once we lose that, we're sunk. So why not let the rest of the world hate us and use our military might before we lose it?

Because then the United States can't look at its collective self in the mirror and say we're the "good guys" anymore. "He who fights monsters," and all that.

As much as I think our foreign policy shouldn't be compromised by too much sentimentality, I do think there are lines we shouldn't cross. Torture is one of them -- calling it "enhanced interrogation" fools only those who need to be fooled in order to sleep at night.

What you're proposing is another one: it's no longer nation-building or liberation -- you're talking outright conquest. That's not who we are, and certainly not who we should aspire to be.

The chickenhawks tell us that the terrorists want to destroy America -- we do that, and they've succeeded.

Clearly that's a plan we weren't about to do either, just like we didn't take on Russia after WWII like Patton advised. Either one of these steps would improve our position greatly. Both? Might even have made us able to compete with China.

Because it wasn't worth it -- wiser heads prevailed.

Anyway, that would be a tenable goal for the region; easily met, difficult to maintain. I furnished 2. I've never seen anybody else come up with 1.

And you see the serious flaws with both of them, I hope.

So you say leave the Taliban to train terrorists at will. They were doing it before we got there, nothing would've made them stop. You say this is a self-correcting problem, I point out it is not. These are weaknesses in your position, the biggest of which is the claim they are not stupid or crazy.

You think the problems only started when we entered Afghanistan? We've been meddling in their affairs for the better part of the century -- and they have neither forgiven nor forgotten.

The biggest weakness in my plan is crazy people unafraid to die are harder to kill than anyone else, while the greatest strength is we have not been (successfully) attacked since 911. My position seems not to be as stupid as you claim.

They're not crazy -- they're devoted. Because their leaders are anything but stupid -- they have been smart enough to frame a political conflict as a religious one, disguising it as a fight for the preservation of their Islamic way of life... THAT's why their foot soldiers aren't afraid to die -- in their minds, they're fighting for their souls. And Christian or Muslim, who wouldn't want to be a martyr?

Now, if you want to call religious faith the same thing as being crazy, I may not want to argue with you -- but while they may exploit the stupid and unhinged, they themselves are not.

You'll notice you never see the leaders blowing themselves up, right?

Before attacking AF I made the mistake of actually trusting my Govt that such a goal was "of course" already decided.

Plenty of people made that mistake -- 9/11 hit the "off" switch on a lot of our critical thinking skills.

The person that said we never had an exit strategy because the plan was to never leave is not only a vet of Nam, but was special forces. Not just your typical crazy, but unable to have a guest overnight for fear of killing them while he himself slept, right up until 2009. I was unprepared to embrace his ideas, finding them a bit too extreme. Now I don't know, but if that was the plan, we went about it all wrong and forming colonies would be better. Alexander the Great style?

That's never been what we've claimed to be about -- you think it should be?

Again, Matthew 16:26.

Did Tzu actually cover my butter and blankets scenario Because you have it going in with an armed escort, which was not at all my idea.

And that's the flaw in your plan -- you assume that groups like the Taliban or AQ are actually going to LET your Butter and Blankets Brigades have free reign in "their" territory.

Your humanitarians are neither crazy nor stupid -- they're going to want you to guarantee their safety in hostile territory. How do you propose to do that?

Either way, defining a clear objective also covers the national pride thing. Nixon didn't furnish either peace OR honor.

He provided an excuse, which at that point, was what we needed. But we agree -- we need a clear objective and a way to attain it.

This one step might be enough to stop terrorism worldwide, but is not worth it.

Why? What makes Israel so valuable?

I have no moral issue with simply taking over Middle Eastern oil because we invented the technology as well as the things that create demand. "They" stole it from us, and we just let them have it, which was a huge mistake. So taking it back is no big deal.

We invented the technology, but that doesn't mean we own it. it's their land, and their oil. You have no moral problems with conquest?

OTOH, Israel was created in the wake of Holocaust sympathy, and any sane person who wasn't stupid could know Palestine was carved up in impossible fashion, designed to create unresolvable strife. We financed it. W/o US $, it could never have happened. The only moral way we could do what you suggest is to fix the dilemma, once and for all.

Fix it how? The only solution for us is to wash our hands of it, and the Israeli/Palestinian chips fall where they may.

Personally i really don't see why we didn't bring the Jews here for their homeland, we have plenty of room. Now? How do you fix it? I find your proposal morally reprehensible; it's totally irresponsible.

More so than conquering the entire Middle East and keeping them as vassal states to the Almighty US? And you think that solution will result in less violence?

Explain to me why keeping Israel as our ally is worth it. Explain to me why they can't take care of themselves.

The only bribe being actually meeting their needs so they aren't desperate. In that condition, they'd be much more likely to create a viable Gov't.

Even a viable government which may still hate us, and may still act against our interests? How many trillions of dollars are you willing to gamble on that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Part 2 continued



I have no idea about this, but I pointed out how your comparison to losing in Nam was invalid. Do you really think this comparison is valid?

Except you failed -- and without knowing anything about the history involved, how can you say this comparison is invalid?

The Shimabara Rebellion was, in part, due to foreign traders bringing Christian influences into Japan, and the resulting schism resulted in civil war which the Shogunate dealt with by outlawing not only Christianity, but in ALL foreign contact for the next 250 years.


And that was (for the most part) unintentional influence. You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that your humanitarians aren't going to try to slip in a few Bibles with the butter and blankets?

PROTIP: If I don't believe you, there's no way they will.

You have a desperate people, tyrannized by crazed gunmen, refusing basic humanitarian aid and preferring their status quo. I don't find that reasonable.

You have a government looking out for itself, living high off the hog while it leaves its people to rot. Sounds like Louis XVI to me, and we all know what happened to him.

Morally reprehensible, but not crazy.

My scenario was designed to get us out of there ASAP, leaving a stable Gov't in our wake. So the answer to your question is obvious; yes.

Billions, maybe hundreds of billions, spent in order to create a stable enemy? Forget the terrorists, your own constituents would hang you from a meathook for that.

Remember the rule about altruism in foreign policy -- there is none. Nobody is going to let you spend that much of taxpayer (read: THEIR) money without the promise of a return on their investment.

What possible benefit could they give us? We want their poppy plants now? We're saying leave us alone, stop attacking us, you have them saying leave them alone too. I'm saying if it were that simple things would never arrive at the present dilemma, something else must be involved. The only possible "benefit" to their stable Gov't., would be a non-terrorist State. Which is exactly what was stated.

To ally with us, as opposed to allying with our enemies. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they really wanted Pakistan -- which would've given them a warm-water port in the south. We armed the Afghan rebels who later became the Taliban -- as I said before -- KNOWING how bad they were, in order to confound the Soviets.

Remember foreign policy 101: Every war is a turf war. Sometimes the answer is as simple as "if we have it, it means they don't."

But our military operations did for all purposes end at that point. We reduced them to keeping peace within their borders, and facilitating elections. A horrible function for US military might! Its designed to kill people ...

Agreed -- so our military operations didn't end with Saddam after all. We had no choice but to use our military in this fashion -- a de facto police force -- precisely because we never thought that far ahead.

We were supposed to be "greeted as liberators," remember?

You're over simplifying it again. Our priority shifted due to 911, and their ability to continue attacking.

Which had nothing whatsoever to do with Hussein. So why in the name of the Devil's mother did we suddenly need to invade-- ahem, "liberate" Iraq?

A closer look showed oppression we didn't realize before, and after ground was captured we realized it was far worse yet.

Such as? Don't tell me we never knew this man was a tyrant-- worst case scenario, we didn't want to know; we turned a blind eye to him because he was useful to us.

And then... he stopped being useful. All we needed was an excuse to be done with him. And along came 9/11...

Our Gov't's pretty good at keeping this stuff secret, at least til long after the fact. The realm of Ian Fleming stuff is a truth far stranger than fiction.

Some secrets they're very good at keeping -- if only they put the effort into it.

December 20, 1983 -- the man on the left is then-special Envoy to President Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld... there's a name we all remember from the Gulf Wars.

Surely you recognize the man on the right?

You're over-simplifying again. We can't pretend all the people of either country were ever some monolithic block. Many did in fact greet us as liberators.

Not nearly as many as we were led to believe -- and as for the millions who didn't, how do we "liberate" them from themselves?

There are widely divergent reports, because people held widely divergent opinions. And no accurate polls exist to give us a good indication.

Agreed -- and Cheney should have considered that before putting his foot in his mouth on Meet the Press.

Yet another strawman. I'm not attempting to continue any conflict, neither have I seen anyone else come up with any (attainable) objective, just a fuzzy "help them form their own stable Govt," but w/o any realistic means to get from point A to point B.

You're the one talking about "winning" and "losing" -- don't say anther word until you tell me exactly what we stand to "win" or "lose."

Nope. I don't think it would've been hard at all to avoid that scenario. Apparently Mr Sunny Zoo didn't cover this

Do you think the Taliban would greet your humanitarians as liberators?

So what's your plan?

The point here is hearts and minds, right? If the entirety of the Muslim world sees Talibs killing those bringing humanitarian aid, at the very least they lose all support and sympathizers.

You're being naively optimistic. The Taliban can easily refuse admission, eject, or even open fire on your humanitarians, and justify it any way they please to their bretheren: "Those so-called 'humanitarians' were American agents sent to destroy our Muslim way of life!" or something similar.

And you know perfectly well that whatever their excuse is, the Middle East is far more likely to believe it over us -- our credibility in the region is more or less nil, remember?

And that's, of course, assuming that they're making up the story, and your so-called humanitarians really aren't trying to covertly oust them -- which they are.

There's also the chance that their geographical neighbors take up the armed part of the conflict, leaving us either out of it, or in a greatly diminished role. At worst, we wind up far better off than we are now. With fewer of our own dead, too.

Assuming their geographical neighbors believe us over them -- and what reason do they have to trust us?

 

[TLK Valentine]

He was a deserter in a time of war.

Alleged deserter, or are we not bothering with due process anymore?

Those 5 Taliban were the worst of the worst, some of them are wanted by the United Nations for crimes against humanity.

I've never heard of our friends on the Right giving a fig about what the UN thought -- why pretend to start now?

This trade has painted a target on the back of every American worldwide.

Hyperbole much?

Refusing the trade sends a message to the servicemen you pretend to care about, saying that they better have a spotless record in order to avoid being left to rot for political reasons.

"leave no man behind" my foot.

Returning the enemy's military leaders while we are still at war, is essentially aiding the enemy which is classified as treasonous.

Are prisoner exchanges treasonous? Fine -- you tell the troops that if they're captured, they're better off eating their sidearm.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Alleged deserter, or are we not bothering with due process anymore?

Either he left camp and went AWOL, or he deserted. After 30 days of being AWOL you are considered a deserter by default. So no matter what, he's a deserter.

I've never heard of our friends on the Right giving a fig about what the UN thought -- why pretend to start now?

None of these 5 are US citizens...

Hyperbole much?

Stating what should be blatently obvious to most people isn't a hyperbole...

Refusing the trade sends a message to the servicemen you pretend to care about, saying that they better have a spotless record in order to avoid being left to rot for political reasons.

Stop trying to use the appeal to emotion argument on me, it isn't going to work. You'd have a case if we were talking about low-level Taliban, but these were 5 of their top leaders.

"leave no man behind" my foot.

More like: "We do not negotiate with terrorists." my foot.

All prisoner exchanges are treasonous?

Stop trying to misrepresent what I said.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Stating what should be blatently obvious to most people isn't a hyperbole...

So try it; you might like it.

Stop trying to misrepresent what I said.

How did I misrepresent? granted, you specified leaders, even though the truth is that the return of any enemy soldier is giving "aid and comfort." You mumbled something about "during wartime" as if the "War on Terror" was ever going to end... it's adorable, I tell you.

 

[GarfieldJL]

How did I misrepresent? granted, you specified leaders, even though the truth is that the return of any enemy soldier is giving "aid and comfort." You mumbled something about "during wartime" as if the "War on Terror" was ever going to end... it's adorable, I tell you.

I was talking about 5 of their top leaders, not 5 low level people, that is why your comments misrepresented what I actually said.

Returning the enemy's military leaders while we are still at war, is essentially aiding the enemy which is classified as treasonous.

 

[theophilus777]

Well, that's your problem, isn't it?

Are they brutal? Certainly. Power-hungry? No doubt. Crazy? No. Stupid? Absolutely not.

I think it's pretty stupid and insane to be so brutal and power hungry that you run a territory the way they do; even moreso if you actually killed massive humanitarian aid as you suggest, stopping its flow. We're talking about desperate needs here.

As much as I would like to believe that the Iranian government would ONLY use nuclear material for good, and would never ever think of doing anything unseemly with it, I just can't see myself trusting their government with it at this time.

Who said anything about trust? Part of the deal would of course be oversight by the appropriate body. You know, like what Saddam consented to but refused, that gave us legal right to end the ceasefire of Gulf War 1.

So this means you are to the right of me?

No, we haven't --as long as they think attaining their goal is worth the effort, they will keep trying... and they don't have a whole lot to lose from trying.

How come when I pointed that out, your conclusion was that I don't know anything about them?

They don't need to beat us; they just need to wear us out.... they know that, too.

And we knew that before going in. That whole "911 we will never forget" thing? Which is why I still think that broadcasting any withdrawal date was lunacy. We know all they'll do is lay low until we leave, then go back to business as usual. If we were going to prop up their Gov't until it was stable, we should actually do that. If we weren't, we should've gotten out of dodge as soon as we were done breaking things. This pertains equally to both fronts. Either approach might be tenable ...

Well, in terms of our needing to be there, drones don't help -- they do minimize US casualties, which is always a good thing, but it's our political and cultural presence that they object to.

Wait, what? A drone may need some boots on the ground, but an extremely small presence will do it, right?

And are you suggesting that they don't object to our drone presence, as long as we have no political or cultural presence? I mean that'd be kinda cool, but I'm not buying it.

In terms of the psychology of warfare, the drones do send a useful message to our enemies -- "We can hurt you, but you can't hurt us."

But those drones are expensive, and the cost doesn't justify the message.

I still think the "message" is bang, you're dead. I still think war is about killing people. You haven't yet given any info to dispel that notion. It also seems obvious that any plans they may make will be less effective if the people they depend on keep dying. Drones seem especially apt for the mobile nature of this new type of 'warfare.'

Only if I accept your premises -- but they haven't gotten the message that their cause is futile, simply because (as you're finally starting to see) they have nothing to lose by continuing.

Sun Tzu would help you here -- if you're interested in learning from him, let me know.

There is none of this "finally starting to see" stuff; this is where we started. I'm saying when everyone interested in this form of stupidity is dead, their cause will in fact be futile. Not before.

If your fav author here has relevant statements on this topic, by all means ...

Except I showed you how the butter and blankets scenario wouldn't work -- which is why it wouldn't be implemented.

I don't think you've shown either part of that premise. Instead, you've accurately pointed out US foreign policy would never embrace it on general principles, even though it in fact would not be altruistic.

But they won in Vietnam, and we can learn form our mistakes -- are you suggesting otherwise?

Tongue in cheek, clearly we can't, because evidently we didn't. I again point out that their odd form of victory has no direct carry-over to what we might have done to win in our 2 middle eastern theaters, although the type of warfare they waged should have prepared us for what to expect. Despite the differences between jungle and desert, there were a lot of similarities that were predictable. I think a lot of that was ignored, and cost (mostly) American lives.

This also seems moot to me since your objective is clearly not to engage in the first place.

And what's wrong with learning how not to lose? We can't afford to make the same mistakes we made the last time; we can at least agree on that.

We can't afford it, which is why our children will be paying for it, and theirs ...

Well, that's the problem -- when our nation builders go in and get shot at, we're back to a shooting war.

My plan didn't include going in with guns, you're still overlooking that. That's why I said it would take the bravest "soldiers" to ever set foot on a battle field. Its also why I put it in the winning by losing category. I personally don't believe even the Taliban would continuously kill all comers, but of course a trip to the negotiating table would've been needed first. Had they replied the way you predict, refusing our aid, we could still have pulled out the military card. With or without the colonizing option, but certainly w/o any fixing things after breaking them. Let them choose their weapon. If they are not stupid or crazy as you assert, they would have chosen the aid. Under the watchful eye of their gunmen, no doubt.

You mean become the monsters the world thinks we are?

You're a Christian; read Matthew 16:26 and get back to me on that one.

Not Attila the Hun, just Alexander the Great. And your usage of Scripture is out of context. You might consider "the soul of the Nation" or some such grandiose ideal, but that isn't what is referenced here. And we wouldn't be pursuing the world, just peace. Look at our debt, would it be any higher had we taken that step? The argument could be made it would be less. And the current dilemma, how to withdraw and do so morally, would be settled. Prop up a stable Gov't. indefinitely, because it's OURS.

As it is now, anything we do, we're wrong. Unless we commit to keeping them afloat, when they've clearly shown they have no will to do it themselves. And we're not about to do that. Also notice, the Taliban are NOT the elected Gov't in AF. So as horrific as either of my ideas seem, both are superior to our current condition.

Because then the United States can't look at its collective self in the mirror and say we're the "good guys" anymore. "He who fights monsters," and all that.

But that cat's already out of the bag. You and I can calmly discuss the treachery that was kept under wraps for decades, and very few retain the illusion we are somehow the good guys anymore. So since every monster we've chosen to prop up in the middle east has turned sour, why not start picking our own?

As much as I think our foreign policy shouldn't be compromised by too much sentimentality, I do think there are lines we shouldn't cross. Torture is one of them -- calling it "enhanced interrogation" fools only those who need to be fooled in order to sleep at night.

What you're proposing is another one: it's no longer nation-building or liberation -- you're talking outright conquest. That's not who we are, and certainly not who we should aspire to be.

The chickenhawks tell us that the terrorists want to destroy America -- we do that, and they've succeeded.

Well I expect Sunny Zoo has influenced your thinking here too, but it would work. And I see no other use for our current military, other than just bombing someplace to smithereens; which also bypasses the need for much of our current military. So much for winning by winning, back to winning by losing. If we wouldn't do either the conquest thing nor the butter and blankets idea, just kill those responsible and call it a day?

They're not crazy -- they're devoted. Because their leaders are anything but stupid -- they have been smart enough to frame a political conflict as a religious one, disguising it as a fight for the preservation of their Islamic way of life... THAT's why their foot soldiers aren't afraid to die -- in their minds, they're fighting for their souls. And Christian or Muslim, who wouldn't want to be a martyr?

Glad you see through the obvious religious falsehood. "Who wouldn't want to be a martyr" has kind of a catchy ring to it; set to Always Look On the Bright Side of Life, perhaps? Or a game show hosted by Regis?

Now, if you want to call religious faith the same thing as being crazy, I may not want to argue with you -- but while they may exploit the stupid and unhinged, they themselves are not.

You'll notice you never see the leaders blowing themselves up, right?

Which brings us full circle, back to the 5 leaders released. They weren't blown up, so they have more value than those who are unhinged. You seem to be allowing for my assertion that their ranks are crazy and stupid, but their leadership is cut from a different cloth ...

We invented the technology, but that doesn't mean we own it. it's their land, and their oil. You have no moral problems with conquest?

I double dog dare you to find a national border NOT defined by conquest. If we're going to engage militarily, it seems far more humane to at least leave an improvement in our wake. It seems dumb to blow a place up at our expense, re-build it at our expense, and lose to the competitive edge we give them in the global marketplace. We did that in Japan, ok. aren;t you for learning from our mistakes?

Israel's border was defined by conquest. What makes them valuable, is we made it possible. This places responsibility upon US. If we wash our hands of it - we'd have to Godwin the thread.

Fix it how? The only solution for us is to wash our hands of it, and the Israeli/Palestinian chips fall where they may.

Again, morally reprehensible. Conquering a region, colonizing it, governing it fairly, making it pay for itself, and help us with our debt in the meantime? Far better than your suggestion here.

More so than conquering the entire Middle East and keeping them as vassal states to the Almighty US? And you think that solution will result in less violence?

Yep Because our "peacekeeping mission" has been woefully under-staffed compared to what was needed, and this way allows it to be staffed as needed. Far more moral than the Talibs with guns; our prison population could do better. Although our ranks of the unemployed (and under-employed) might prove ample, and would be a better fit.

Remember, I'm saying if we're going to use military might anywhere, we should actually put it to good use, AND leave improved conditions in our wake. We are talking about populations that has proven they just do not have the idea. The same could be said of post WWII Russia, who never utilized their land well.

But the path we're on has any such opportunity slipping through our fingers, and probably gone already.

Explain to me why keeping Israel as our ally is worth it. Explain to me why they can't take care of themselves.

You are extolling the virtues of the 6 days war, and asking for a repeat? There is growing will to accommodate that request, but Israel has been extraordinarily patient, and humane. I thought you were on the side of cooler heads prevailing? That includes Arabs pushing Israel into the sea?

Even a viable government which may still hate us, and may still act against our interests? How many trillions of dollars are you willing to gamble on that?

I think you have never fed poor people. I certainly have never built infrastructure to provide clean drinking water and sanitation for them. Put both together? I think that would go a long way in "the battle for hearts and minds." It'd be lots cheaper than what we've done, too.

But all I see you really saying is to have just shrugged off 911, as though it were a self-correcting problem.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was talking about 5 of their top leaders, not 5 low level people, that is why your comments misrepresented what I actually said.

You were talking about giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- are you saying that trading prisoners regardless of who they are is not aid and comfort?

Really, it's just a matter of degree...

 

[theophilus777]

You have a government looking out for itself, living high off the hog while it leaves its people to rot. Sounds like Louis XVI to me, and we all know what happened to him.

Morally reprehensible, but not crazy.

You think Talibs live high on the hog? (Btw, prolly not the best metaphor for Muslims)

Which had nothing whatsoever to do with Hussein. So why in the name of the Devil's mother did we suddenly need to invade-- ahem, "liberate" Iraq?

I've certainly seen lots of answers for this, but one I would most like to dispel is that we feared nuclear (or any other major) attack on domestic soil. I know no one that ever believed this. Small-scale terrorist attack, sure. The relationship between terrorist and Iraq was primarily financial, as it was seen at the time.

I think our timing was terrible. I also think the humanitarian concern re: Saddam was at least heightened, if not simply more practical to do something about it w/ a massive troop build-up nearby. There's also the fact of Saddam's violation of the cease-fire via not co-operating w/ UN inspectors. That whole bit was fishy, to say the least.

And then... he stopped being useful. All we needed was an excuse to be done with him. And along came 9/11...

You paint a picture that it was as capricious as toppling over pieces, like in a game of Risk?

You're the one talking about "winning" and "losing" -- don't say anther word until you tell me exactly what we stand to "win" or "lose."

I think the only legitimate objective remains unchanged; no more terrorist attacks on US soil. That includes disrupting their training sites, finances, and plans. I also point out that much worked, to date. With no disrespect to our Dep't of Homeland Security, I think the bulk of that has been stopped beyond our borders.

Saddam was a side-trip, with Iraq beyond only a little more directly related.

The Taliban can easily refuse admission, eject, or even open fire on your humanitarians, and justify it any way they please to their bretheren: "Those so-called 'humanitarians' were American agents sent to destroy our Muslim way of life!" or something similar.

And you know perfectly well that whatever their excuse is, the Middle East is far more likely to believe it over us -- our credibility in the region is more or less nil, remember?

You're overlooking the role of swarming the place with journalists; film footage doesn't lie.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think it's pretty stupid and insane to be so brutal and power hungry that you run a territory the way they do; even moreso if you actually killed massive humanitarian aid as you suggest, stopping its flow. We're talking about desperate needs here.

Well, that's your opinion.

Who said anything about trust? Part of the deal would of course be oversight by the appropriate body. You know, like what Saddam consented to but refused, that gave us legal right to end the ceasefire of Gulf War 1.

So this means you are to the right of me?

You're putting a lot of trust in them doing the right thing -- you're willing to take the risks?

How come when I pointed that out, your conclusion was that I don't know anything about them?

Where did you point it out?

And we knew that before going in. That whole "911 we will never forget" thing?

That was a soundbyte,, not a strategy.

Remember what I warned you about thinking in soundbytes?

Which is why I still think that broadcasting any withdrawal date was lunacy. We know all they'll do is lay low until we leave, then go back to business as usual.

On that, we agree, at least in terms of military strategy. The problem is that our politicians are beholden to the American people, and the people wanted answers.

Wars get unpopular if they drag on too long, and the people want to know not just that there's a light at the end of the tunnel, they want to know where that light is.

Price of living in a "Free" society, my friend.

If we were going to prop up their Gov't until it was stable, we should actually do that.

And how many trillions of dollars are you willing to flush to get it done?

Remember, it's the people's money, not yours -- they want results.

If we weren't, we should've gotten out of dodge as soon as we were done breaking things. This pertains equally to both fronts. Either approach might be tenable ...

We tried this approach at the end of WWI -- left Germany a smoldering wreck.

Remember who slithered in to rebuild it?

Wait, what? A drone may need some boots on the ground, but an extremely small presence will do it, right?

Irrelevant -- it's not the people that bother them as much as the prevalence of Western culture. Certainly, they hate having dozens of our military bases on their lands, but it's the cultural influence that really has them in a twist... and as long as we're trying to do any sort of "nation building" in our own image over there, they're going to resent us for it.

And are you suggesting that they don't object to our drone presence, as long as we have no political or cultural presence? I mean that'd be kinda cool, but I'm not buying it.

I'm suggesting they object to all of it -- drones or no drones.

I still think the "message" is bang, you're dead.

And you accuse me of oversimplifying.

The advantage of drones is they we can shoot them, but they can't shoot us -- how you're missing that is something of a mystery...

I still think war is about killing people. You haven't yet given any info to dispel that notion.

Killing people is a means to an end -- but to what end?

It also seems obvious that any plans they may make will be less effective if the people they depend on keep dying.

people are replaceable -- especially when today's cannon fodder becomes tomorrow's martyr.

As whimsical as the notion is of winning a war by killing every single person on the other side; sorry, that only works in video games.

Drones seem especially apt for the mobile nature of this new type of 'warfare.'

I agree -- but we can't fight any kind of war exclusively (or even primarily) with drones. We still need boots on the ground, and personally, I think we should always have them -- because war should never be as neat and clean as a video game.

There is none of this "finally starting to see" stuff; this is where we started. I'm saying when everyone interested in this form of stupidity is dead, their cause will in fact be futile. Not before.

You're right -- you've seen nothing, and you are right back where you started: thinking that wars are won by killing everyone on the other side.

If your fav author here has relevant statements on this topic, by all means ...

Taking the state intact is superior, destroying it is inferior. Similarly, taking a battalion, an army, a company intact is superior, destroying it is inferior.

Therefore, one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not skillful; subduing the enemy without battle is skillful.

Therefore, the superior military attacks strategy,
the worse attacks alliances,
even worse attacks the army,
and the worst of all attacks cities.

I don't think you've shown either part of that premise. Instead, you've accurately pointed out US foreign policy would never embrace it on general principles, even though it in fact would not be altruistic.

And the fact that it isn't altruistic is precisely why it wouldn't work... not that anyone would believe you even if it was.

Tongue in cheek, clearly we can't, because evidently we didn't.

But we can; we simply chose not to -- and we suffered for it.

I again point out that their odd form of victory has no direct carry-over to what we might have done to win in our 2 middle eastern theaters, although the type of warfare they waged should have prepared us for what to expect.

But since we didn't learn from our past mistakes, we were doomed to repeat them.

Despite the differences between jungle and desert, there were a lot of similarities that were predictable. I think a lot of that was ignored, and cost (mostly) American lives.

Agreed -- that doesn't mean we couldn't have learned anything useful.

This also seems moot to me since your objective is clearly not to engage in the first place.

Well, duh (and I mean that in the nicest way). War is something to be avoided whenever possible, and I haven't heard a compelling reason why we went into Iraq that passed the smell test -- have you?

We can't afford it, which is why our children will be paying for it, and theirs ...

Agreed -- that comes from refusing to learn -- not from being unable to learn.

My plan didn't include going in with guns, you're still overlooking that.

And that's why your plan was suicide.

That's why I said it would take the bravest "soldiers" to ever set foot on a battle field.

Kamikazes?

Its also why I put it in the winning by losing category. I personally don't believe even the Taliban would continuously kill all comers, but of course a trip to the negotiating table would've been needed first.

And why does the Taliban need to negotiate with us?

Had they replied the way you predict, refusing our aid, we could still have pulled out the military card. With or without the colonizing option, but certainly w/o any fixing things after breaking them. Let them choose their weapon. If they are not stupid or crazy as you assert, they would have chosen the aid. Under the watchful eye of their gunmen, no doubt.

So.... "accept our help or we'll invade you?"

Humanitarian aid at gunpoint? THAT'S your plan?

Not Attila the Hun, just Alexander the Great.

An educated conqueror as opposed to a bloodthirsty one. Yeah, we'd be greeted as liberators...

And your usage of Scripture is out of context. You might consider "the soul of the Nation" or some such grandiose ideal, but that isn't what is referenced here. And we wouldn't be pursuing the world, just peace.

You really don't see the point, do you? That's just sad.

Look at our debt, would it be any higher had we taken that step? The argument could be made it would be less. And the current dilemma, how to withdraw and do so morally, would be settled. Prop up a stable Gov't. indefinitely, because it's OURS.

So... conquest... but with a happy American face slapped onto it.

Yeah, they'll fall for that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As it is now, anything we do, we're wrong.

You're seeing the dilemma -- at last. Damned if we do... and all that.

Unless we commit to keeping them afloat, when they've clearly shown they have no will to do it themselves. And we're not about to do that.

And they're not about to let us do it for/to them.

Also notice, the Taliban are NOT the elected Gov't in AF. So as horrific as either of my ideas seem, both are superior to our current condition.

"our" condition? What makes "our" condition so bad re: the Taliban?

It certainly stinks for the Afghanis, but... so?

But that cat's already out of the bag. You and I can calmly discuss the treachery that was kept under wraps for decades, and very few retain the illusion we are somehow the good guys anymore. So since every monster we've chosen to prop up in the middle east has turned sour, why not start picking our own?

You mean becoming the monster? As a Christian, you honestly don't see the problem with that? Again, sad...

Well I expect Sunny Zoo has influenced your thinking here too, but it would work.

What would work? Conquering the Middle East?

Only if, as a Christian, you abandon all pretense of morality and set yourself up as the conquering hero...

And I see no other use for our current military, other than just bombing someplace to smithereens; which also bypasses the need for much of our current military. So much for winning by winning, back to winning by losing. If we wouldn't do either the conquest thing nor the butter and blankets idea, just kill those responsible and call it a day?

And who exactly is responsible that needs killing?

Listen to yourself: You're not even talking strategy anymore; you just want to kill or conquer something.

Glad you see through the obvious religious falsehood. "Who wouldn't want to be a martyr" has kind of a catchy ring to it; set to Always Look On the Bright Side of Life, perhaps? Or a game show hosted by Regis?

Of course it's a religious falsehood -- the one you mistook for insanity.

People don't care about their lives when they're fighting for their souls -- or at least when they think they are.

Which brings us full circle, back to the 5 leaders released. They weren't blown up, so they have more value than those who are unhinged. You seem to be allowing for my assertion that their ranks are crazy and stupid, but their leadership is cut from a different cloth ...

The rank and file is deeply devout, willing to kill or be killed for their cause --that's religious zeal, which is easily mistaken for both insanity and stupidity; I see it constantly around here. But don't you make that mistake.

Of course, you've got to wonder how much value those 5 leaders have left to those who are "unhinged..." think about it. The rank and file are expected to die, but their "leaders" survive, betray their secrets, and then get delivered home? I might not put so much faith in a leader who compromised the cause by refusing to be a martyr...

I double dog dare you to find a national border NOT defined by conquest. If we're going to engage militarily, it seems far more humane to at least leave an improvement in our wake.

So how do we improve it without making it worse? Remember, the people we're talking about have no reason to trust that our motives are altruistic... especially because they're not.

It seems dumb to blow a place up at our expense, re-build it at our expense, and lose to the competitive edge we give them in the global marketplace. We did that in Japan, ok. aren;t you for learning from our mistakes?

So you're suggesting that we "improve" them, but make sure that no matter what happens, they stay inferior to us?

How do you propose to do that?

Israel's border was defined by conquest. What makes them valuable, is we made it possible. This places responsibility upon US. If we wash our hands of it - we'd have to Godwin the thread.

Nonsense -- Israel's all grown up now -- time to cut the apron strings. Just because we made it possible doesn't mean we're responsible for them perpetually. Time for them to stand on their own...

... or not. As their borders were defined by conquest, it's time for us to step back and see who gets to redefine them.

Place your bets... personally, I think they'll be okay without us.

Again, morally reprehensible. Conquering a region, colonizing it, governing it fairly, making it pay for itself, and help us with our debt in the meantime? Far better than your suggestion here.

Sounds like what the British did with America... and I'm sure you recall how that ended...

Yep Because our "peacekeeping mission" has been woefully under-staffed compared to what was needed, and this way allows it to be staffed as needed. Far more moral than the Talibs with guns; our prison population could do better. Although our ranks of the unemployed (and under-employed) might prove ample, and would be a better fit.

So, you're saying send over the prisoners and unemployed as "peacekeepers"?

First question: We'll get to the rest later: Suppose they don't want to go?

Remember, I'm saying if we're going to use military might anywhere, we should actually put it to good use, AND leave improved conditions in our wake.

And if anything, we've learned that nation building is NOT a good use for our military might. What makes Colony-building any different?

We are talking about populations that has proven they just do not have the idea. The same could be said of post WWII Russia, who never utilized their land well.

And we're talking about governments who don't want to get the idea from us.



But the path we're on has any such opportunity slipping through our fingers, and probably gone already.

You are extolling the virtues of the 6 days war, and asking for a repeat? There is growing will to accommodate that request, but Israel has been extraordinarily patient, and humane. I thought you were on the side of cooler heads prevailing? That includes Arabs pushing Israel into the sea?

No, I'm asking what value is Israel as an ally? What do we get out of the deal that makes the seething hatred of nearly the entire Middle East worth it?

It's a simple question -- what's in it for us?

I think you have never fed poor people. I certainly have never built infrastructure to provide clean drinking water and sanitation for them. Put both together? I think that would go a long way in "the battle for hearts and minds." It'd be lots cheaper than what we've done, too.

So it is bribery -- and you expect the Taliban to sit on its thumbs while we go in and do it? You don't expect them to respond? You don't expect the rest of the Middle East to see this bribery for what it is?

But all I see you really saying is to have just shrugged off 911, as though it were a self-correcting problem.

Ah, when in doubt, invoke 9/11 -- sorry, but that tactic broke from overuse years ago.

 

[theophilus777]

You're putting a lot of trust in them doing the right thing -- you're willing to take the risks?

I couldn't tell if you were referring to Iran w/ nuclear energy, but I think its a good idea, provided UN scrutiny.

We tried this approach at the end of WWI -- left Germany a smoldering wreck.

Remember who slithered in to rebuild it?

Can you explain how the current situation is different, on either front?

Irrelevant -- it's not the people that bother them as much as the prevalence of Western culture. Certainly, they hate having dozens of our military bases on their lands, but it's the cultural influence that really has them in a twist... and as long as we're trying to do any sort of "nation building" in our own image over there, they're going to resent us for it.

Still sounds like you're saying if we send drones to make strategic kills, and do it well, they'd be ok with that. i think we need some boots on the ground to do that, but they can be in small groups,. special ops. Somehow I think they'd still object.

The advantage of drones is they we can shoot them, but they can't shoot us -- how you're missing that is something of a mystery...

I'm not missing that at all. I'm just saying the psychological advantage this would give us against a conventional enemy is lost, due to religious zeal, stupidity or lunacy, whichever you prefer to call it. the advantage is reduced to those we kill, w/o being killed ourselves. And you have yet to defend your position that we can't kill them all. As much as I know about our arsenal, I suspect you know more. Which would mean you know we very well could.

Taking the state intact is superior, destroying it is inferior. Similarly, taking a battalion, an army, a company intact is superior, destroying it is inferior.

Therefore, one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not skillful; subduing the enemy without battle is skillful.

Therefore, the superior military attacks strategy,
the worse attacks alliances,
even worse attacks the army,
and the worst of all attacks cities.

So USA #1 = we suck? We attacked cities and armies. Not alliances, and certainly not strategy. Or you could consider Iraq as an attempt at attacking an alliance. How do you "attack strategy" of terrorist groups? AQ, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, pick any one. Or boko haram, if you prefer.

And the fact that it isn't altruistic is precisely why it wouldn't work... not that anyone would believe you even if it was.

Altruism is a non-existent unicorn, but this is the wrong forum for that.

Well, duh (and I mean that in the nicest way). War is something to be avoided whenever possible, and I haven't heard a compelling reason why we went into Iraq that passed the smell test -- have you?

Alliance w/ AQ and/or Taliban. That was the primary stated reason, that most libs and doves here have forgotten. Of course that ideology would have us march right across into Saudi Arabia, and maybe Egypt too. One colony from oil field to shining oil field would not be that difficult to conquer, and obviously keeping it intact would be superior.

And why does the Taliban need to negotiate with us?

So.... "accept our help or we'll invade you?"

Humanitarian aid at gunpoint? THAT'S your plan?

Skillful diplomacy; walk softly and carry a big stick. Point out we can push them off their precious territory rather easily, but have no real motivation to do so. State plainly that it would be cheaper to simply do some of the Nation building we always do after blowing a place up, w/o needing to blow up AF, esp considering it was in a shambles to begin with. Point out rather pointedly that the Taliban had 0 cred with the Int'l community because they had neglected their populace, not providing any essential services, and couldn't be considered a legit Gov't. Let 'em get piping mad if they want, when truth does that its needed.

Broker a peace deal if possible, that starts with a massive influx of humanitarian aid, coupled by media to show the world if they commit any human rights violations. (Killing unarmed people counts) Make them put their money where their mouth is, if they think their populace really wants them in power they will improve their own position along with everybody else's. Make sure every other country knows the details of the deal before anybody sets foot in AF for the effort.

And if the Talibs refuse, our bargaining chip was normal warfare, but no Nation building. IOW, get out of dodge as soon as our military objective was completed. How long did that part of the operation take again? How much blood? How much treasure? How much did we do to remove their ability to do us harm? That part of it was actually pretty effective. All I'm saying is give them the choice, and make it one or the other but not both.

An educated conqueror as opposed to a bloodthirsty one. Yeah, we'd be greeted as liberators...

No liberation involved in this scenario; unabashed colonizers.

You really don't see the point, do you? That's just sad.

I see the point far better than you. You're the one confusing the Gospel with a text book for how to accomplish world peace.

So... conquest... but with a happy American face slapped onto it.

Yeah, they'll fall for that.

That part of things is not designed for a willing populace. And again, we'd be far more moral than the Taliban ever was. (Unless you really really like long beards, I guess?)

 

[theophilus777]

"our" condition? What makes "our" condition so bad re: the Taliban?

It certainly stinks for the Afghanis, but... so?

SEE: post WWI Germany. We have sunk terrible blood and treasure, but not accomplished any lasting objective.

You mean becoming the monster? As a Christian, you honestly don't see the problem with that? Again, sad...

Keep tabs on them, and have them pay for it. You don't recall that was W's plan from the beginning?

What would work? Conquering the Middle East?

Only if, as a Christian, you abandon all pretense of morality and set yourself up as the conquering hero...

Who said anything about "hero?" And colonizer, please. Empires colonize.

And who exactly is responsible that needs killing?

Listen to yourself: You're not even talking strategy anymore; you just want to kill or conquer something.

Actually I don't, and never did. Slow suicide is taking a hit like 911 and doing nothing. I've laid out 2 drastically different plans. But OBL was a start.

So you're suggesting that we "improve" them, but make sure that no matter what happens, they stay inferior to us?

How do you propose to do that?

If we colonize, and rule, then they're not in competition with us and they can progress as rapidly as possible no problem.

Nonsense -- Israel's all grown up now -- time to cut the apron strings. Just because we made it possible doesn't mean we're responsible for them perpetually. Time for them to stand on their own...

... or not. As their borders were defined by conquest, it's time for us to step back and see who gets to redefine them.

And here I was thinking you might care about the plight of the Palestinians. No? You've been talking about removing their political objective ... if Israel kills all the Palestinians as they've been accused of, terrorism ceases?

Sounds like what the British did with America... and I'm sure you recall how that ended...

Like I said easy to conquer difficult to maintain. Those pesky colonists are bound to become more trouble than they're worth sooner or later, but in the meantime there's profits to be made ol' chap! Why should Halliburton have all the luck?

So, you're saying send over the prisoners and unemployed as "peacekeepers"?

First question: We'll get to the rest later: Suppose they don't want to go?

Not peacekeepers at all, more like prison wardens, or maybe Dukes and Princes. Finding competent people to (willingly) fill the positions is merely a logistical challenge. Keeping them from becoming corrupt might prove harder. I think we could do better than Merry Old England.

And if anything, we've learned that nation building is NOT a good use for our military might. What makes Colony-building any different?

Different objective entirely. Different rules of engagement. Stare at Judge Dredd and you suddenly see things differently. There's a reason these folks responded well to the likes of Saddam, and we don't need to resort to injustice to achieve order. We would need to make an example of swift justice though. I don't think separation of powers would be the order of the day ...

No, I'm asking what value is Israel as an ally? What do we get out of the deal that makes the seething hatred of nearly the entire Middle East worth it?

It's a simple question -- what's in it for us?

So we can rule out altruism then? Balance of power means nothing either? We're the God looking down at the ant farm? What happens when we turn the red ants loose on the black ants? This scenario is a lot less moral than colonizing the place. Palestinians get rights violated sharply worse, their violence increases sharply, terrorism rises sharply with it, Israel responds with disproportionate force ... how big would you like to see Israel become? I mean the Palestinian refugee situation IS hopeless, right? Just euthanize them all, much more humane is it?

I'm thinking everyone would fare better if we just annexed it.

So it is bribery -- and you expect the Taliban to sit on its thumbs while we go in and do it? You don't expect them to respond? You don't expect the rest of the Middle East to see this bribery for what it is?

Altruism, bribery, tamato tomahto ... a deal's a deal.

Ah, when in doubt, invoke 9/11 -- sorry, but that tactic broke from overuse years ago.

That tactic is overused only once "they" give up their aspirations as terrorists. You already defined winning that way, remember? That really is what the war on terror is about. You're saying we should have done nothing; they would never give up their aspirations that way.

 

[Armoured]

Ah, when in doubt, invoke 9/11 -- sorry, but that tactic broke from overuse years ago.

QFT. What's the difference between 9/11 and a dead dairy cow?

 

[High Fidelity]

Skillful diplomacy; walk softly and carry a big stick. Point out we can push them off their precious territory rather easily, but have no real motivation to do so. State plainly that it would be cheaper to simply do some of the Nation building we always do after blowing a place up, w/o needing to blow up AF, esp considering it was in a shambles to begin with. Point out rather pointedly that the Taliban had 0 cred with the Int'l community because they had neglected their populace, not providing any essential services, and couldn't be considered a legit Gov't. Let 'em get piping mad if they want, when truth does that its needed.

Broker a peace deal if possible, that starts with a massive influx of humanitarian aid, coupled by media to show the world if they commit any human rights violations. (Killing unarmed people counts) Make them put their money where their mouth is, if they think their populace really wants them in power they will improve their own position along with everybody else's. Make sure every other country knows the details of the deal before anybody sets foot in AF for the effort.

And if the Talibs refuse, our bargaining chip was normal warfare, but no Nation building. IOW, get out of dodge as soon as our military objective was completed. How long did that part of the operation take again? How much blood? How much treasure? How much did we do to remove their ability to do us harm? That part of it was actually pretty effective. All I'm saying is give them the choice, and make it one or the other but not both.

I don't think this is possible and I think the past 10 years are a testament to that.

The problem is that we aren't fighting a conventional war. The US military is the greatest recruitment agency the Taliban and other terror networks could ask for.

Shy of eradicating the entire Middle East, we'll never, ever root out the Taliban or every other terror network.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Here is what needs to happen in Iraq.

Pakistan resumes air strikes to flush insurgents from volatile border region | Reuters