Taliban on the ropes...the beginning of the End?

[eyeball]

That the Taliban were letting Al Qaeda operate there does not mean that they were the only ones. Yemen and Somalia, in particular, seem to have become new centers because Afghanistan is no longer safe for Al Qaeda. Terrorism is a "whack-a-mole" problem. You never really can eliminate it, but you can make it as difficult as possible for it to organize.

It's getting worse than whack-a-mole. I think the occurrence of spontaneous radicalization of individuals and small groups is evidence of a general state of moral dissonance that is slowly but steadily driving everyone nuts. It seems like the Rise of the Zombies but it's probably more accurate to equate the phenomenon to what we see in overcrowded over-stressed cages full of rats.

That said, this whack-a-mole thing isn't something that only applies to terrorists. The term mole creates the image of a network of tunnels that organizations secretly use to move through so they can create havoc elsewhere. It's more than a little ironic that the national security and intelligence agencies that many countries around the world employ often behave just as badly as moles. Hell they even use the term mole to describe what they do themselves.

You seem to be arguing that because we cannot win a war, it's pointless to fight it, but I say that some wars, even if there is no "flag on the hill" kind of victory, are still useful. The Middle (Canada, the UK, etc.) and Great Powers (US, Russia, China) have far more resources at their disposal in every possible way than Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist organizations. We can't hope to beat organizations which have very loose structures (much as the Brits never really seemed able to beat the IRA or keep the Protestant paramilitaries in check because in both cases it was a multiheaded beast), but keep flinging overt and covert force at them, and they expend more and more of their own resources on simply surviving rather than planning attacks.

The alternative is what? Bow down? Give up?

Do unto others as we'd have them do to us, instead of as they do to us. I really don't see any other alternative. Simply flinging more overt and especially covert force around the world is ultimately self-defeating not to mention really hypocritical at times.

[ToadBrother]

it's pointless without an end game...they will bleed us to death in a human and financial costs

How so? They have only limited means of raising money, some of which are rather vulnerable. Sure they can hide out in various hellholes, but so what? We don't have to win decisive victories to ultimately come out on top, we just have to keep them more busy trying not to be blown to bits are financially starved into irrelevancy. W

the alternative has already been proposed by the US miltary, negotiate...this war can not be won...

You negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. You soften them up, so that when you do extend an offer to sit down and talk, they're not just wasting oxygen.

[ToadBrother]

Do unto others as we'd have them do to us, instead of as they do to us. I really don't see any other alternative. Simply flinging more overt and especially covert force around the world is ultimately self-defeating not to mention really hypocritical at times.

I think we long ago established that you pretty much loathe the West here, and this seems to typify it. Yes, the West did nasty things, but the Islamists, no matter how you and your Yankee-hating friends love to invent new historical narratives, did not come into existence because of the United States. The modern Islamists have a very clear line of decent back to the Wahabists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, those radical fanatic Arabs of the Arab peninsula who held such reactionary views about the Ottomans and their lack of piety. The House of Saud was pretty much founded on booting the ungodly Ottomans and setting up a nice, pure Islamic state just the way Mohammed would have wanted.

But whatever sins of the past there are, to pretend that these religious nuts are going to just put down their arms because we blow kisses at them is idiotic. I say batter the Taliban with bullets and bombs until they're too scared to come out of their caves. Keep it up for twenty or thirty years if necessary. Bomb anything that crosses the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan that hasn't been checked and rechecked a dozen times. As well, do what we can to create a more civil society in Afghanistan. Most Afghanis want it. They don't want to spend eternity under religious freaks like the Taliban (you can see exactly that in the Swat Valley in Pakistan where the population cried so loudly at the Pakistani government basically selling them out to the Taliban that the Pakistani Army was finally forced to go in start killing those foul bastards). I say the Taliban, who no matter how good they are at hiding, are still a military force of some kind, so catch them in a pincer between the Pakistani Army across the border and NATO and Afghani troops on the other side. Drive them into the bloody mountains and keep them there, where, no matter how much they may dream of cutting off hands and denying women literacy and gynecological exams, about all they can do is crouch over their camp fires and help bin Laden make stupid video tapes.

[wyly]

How so? They have only limited means of raising money, some of which are rather vulnerable. Sure they can hide out in various hellholes, but so what? We don't have to win decisive victories to ultimately come out on top, we just have to keep them more busy trying not to be blown to bits are financially starved into irrelevancy.

they go where they want when they want, their entire country is already a hellhole and how do you finacially starve someone who has no cash? they live on what the tribal community gives them...

You negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. You soften them up, so that when you do extend an offer to sit down and talk, they're not just wasting oxygen.

how many decades, how much money and how many lives does that take?...at this rate they can go on forever...

[ToadBrother]

they go where they want when they want, their entire country is already a hellhole and how do you finacially starve someone who has no cash? they live on what the tribal community gives them...

That's survival-level existence. Like I said, you attack them hard enough, and all they have is the resources they can scratch together. It makes their capability of actually being an international terrorist organization very limited. That sort of thing requires money. Al Qaeda hanging around the wastelands of eastern Afghanistan is probably the best place they can be, particular if Pakistan can keep up the campaign in the Swat Valley, making the border-hopping that goes on all the more difficult.

how many decades, how much money and how many lives does that take?...at this rate they can go on forever...

Theoretically they could survive forever. There capacity for wreaking much havoc beyond the borders of such hellholes as Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia becomes much more limited.

[eyeball]

...to pretend that these religious nuts are going to just put down their arms because we blow kisses at them is idiotic.

To pretend that's what I said is disingenuous. What I actually said is that spreading more overt and especially covert force around the world is idiotic.

I think we long ago established that you pretty much loathe the West here

No not here, I loath it when it goes over there and disturbs the shit, especially covertly.

Yes, the West did nasty things

And as long as it continues to do nasty things you can expect no end to the violence and destruction. I'd say your prescription certainly sounds nasty.

[ToadBrother]

To pretend that's what I said is disingenuous. What I actually said is that spreading more overt and especially covert force around the world is idiotic.

Why is it idiotic? If these people want to kill us, then I suggest we'd better make sure they don't.

No not here, I loath it when it goes over there and disturbs the shit, especially covertly.

So you prefer open warfare?

And as long as it continues to do nasty things you can expect no end to the violence and destruction. I'd say your prescription certainly sounds nasty.

Everyone does nasty things. If some past misdeed, real or perceived, halts your actions then how is it that you leave your bedroom in the morning?

The world was too small 2000 years ago for everyone to expect people to stay in their own corners. It's even more untenable now.

Edited March 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

That the Taliban were letting Al Qaeda operate there does not mean that they were the only ones. Yemen and Somalia, in particular, seem to have become new centers because Afghanistan is no longer safe for Al Qaeda. Terrorism is a "whack-a-mole" problem. You never really can eliminate it, but you can make it as difficult as possible for it to organize.

This was all predicted in The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett. I read this book years ago at the start of the Iraq invasion by the US. It talked about the future hot spots of trouble in both Yemen and Somalia.

[wyly]

That's survival-level existence. Like I said, you attack them hard enough, and all they have is the resources they can scratch together. It makes their capability of actually being an international terrorist organization very limited. That sort of thing requires money. Al Qaeda hanging around the wastelands of eastern Afghanistan is probably the best place they can be, particular if Pakistan can keep up the campaign in the Swat Valley, making the border-hopping that goes on all the more difficult.

we're fighting the Taliban not AQ...

[eyeball]

Why is it idiotic? If these people want to kill us, then I suggest we'd better make sure they don't.

It's idiotic because projecting our power around the world is what makes people want to retaliate and kill us. You seem to forget or don't care that our side provoked this conflict by doing this in the first place.

So you prefer open warfare?

Yes that's right, I prefer even more death and destruction (sarcasm alert).

Actually I prefer the Mother of all Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.

Everyone does nasty things. If some past misdeed, real or perceived, halts your actions then how is it that you leave your bedroom in the morning?

Me? I'm not the one shitting my pants. You must be referring to people who like to imagine Hitler himself is about to reappear as an Islamo-fascist.

The world was too small 2000 years ago for everyone to expect people to stay in their own corners. It's even more untenable now.

Yes I would have to agree that fucking around in other people's corners is an even less tenable venture than it was in the past. Just wait until someone finally drives that point home and smacks us upside the head with a nuke.

[ToadBrother]

Yes I would have to agree that fucking around in other people's corners is an even less tenable venture than it was in the past. Just wait until someone finally drives that point home and smacks us upside the head with a nuke.

How odd that you agree with something I didn't say. For a guy that's all about truth and such, you certainly have a dishonest enough set of debating tactics.

[eyeball]

How odd that you agree with something I didn't say. For a guy that's all about truth and such, you certainly have a dishonest enough set of debating tactics.

In the wake of your accusing me of preferring open warfare? You can bite me.

[ToadBrother]

In the wake of your accusing me of preferring open warfare? You can bite me.

You'll note that mine wasn't a statement, but had this funny little squiggly punctuation mark with a dot beneath at the end denoting a question.

[eyeball]

You'll note that mine wasn't a statement, but had this funny little squiggly punctuation mark with a dot beneath at the end denoting a question.

Questions that obviously stupid indicate an underlying contempt that borders on being an...accusation.

On the one hand you seem to realize the West is guilty of having done some pretty abominable things in the past to achieve its goals but on the the other hand you don't seem to give a shit or acknowledge the West is still pretty much behaving the same way. We're still hanging out with some pretty abominable characters and now we're even aligning ourselves with our old enemies against our new ones.

There's something really sick and perverted about that given how this sort of behavior has blown back in our faces before. There's no doubt I loath the sorts of people who would do, defend, condone or otherwise shrug this off as a necessary and even tenable pursuit.

[ToadBrother]

Questions that obviously stupid indicate an underlying contempt that borders on being an...accusation.

This is what is known as projection. My question was, well, a probing one, to search where it is exactly you object to what I say, and where you stand. That you immediately assume that I'm playing a rhetorical game reflects more upon you than me.

On the one hand you seem to realize the West is guilty of having done some pretty abominable things in the past to achieve its goals but on the the other hand you don't seem to give a shit or acknowledge the West is still pretty much behaving the same way. We're still hanging out with some pretty abominable characters and now we're even aligning ourselves with our old enemies against our new ones.

I won't deny the West has done awful things, has helped with awful things, and that sometimes those awful things come back to haunt the West (ie. the almost mindless support of the Shah). But a lot of this was done within the context of a long-term conflict with the USSR, and, while substantial missteps were made, I'm still damned glad our side came out on top. That's cold comfort to a lot of folks, I know, but we were hardly the only ones playing these games. The Chinese backed the North Koreans, and now they're faced with dealing with the monster they made. The Russians are facing substantial backlashes from regions that they colonized over the last three hundred years.

It would be lovely if we could all live in our own little corners and meet on friendly terms, but there will always be competing interests, and sometimes there will be levels of hostility (open or otherwise) that force us to deal with bad people. Do you think it was wrong for the Brits and Americans to deal with nasty bastards like Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek? I mean, these were some pretty unsavory characters. Stalin is responsible for all sorts of atrocities, and Churchill and Roosevelt most certainly knew of some, if not all of them.

There's something really sick and perverted about that given how this sort of behavior has blown back in our faces before. There's no doubt I loath the sorts of people who would do, defend, condone or otherwise shrug this off as a necessary and even tenable pursuit.

Well, that's your problem. I suggest you create your own web forum with you as the sole member, that way you won't have to deal with sick or perverted views, as you see them.

[eyeball]

I won't deny the West has done awful things, has helped with awful things, and that sometimes those awful things come back to haunt the West (ie. the almost mindless support of the Shah). But a lot of this was done within the context of a long-term conflict with the USSR,

When I see leaders of the Western countries standing up in a Truth and Reconciliation process and defending us on these grounds I'll listen to them.

In the meantime, you sort of remind me of people who suggest that Omar Khadr be cut a little slack too.

Edited March 17, 2010 by eyeball

[wyly]

This is what is known as projection. My question was, well, a probing one, to search where it is exactly you object to what I say, and where you stand. That you immediately assume that I'm playing a rhetorical game reflects more upon you than me.

I won't deny the West has done awful things, has helped with awful things, and that sometimes those awful things come back to haunt the West (ie. the almost mindless support of the Shah). But a lot of this was done within the context of a long-term conflict with the USSR, and, while substantial missteps were made, I'm still damned glad our side came out on top. That's cold comfort to a lot of folks, I know, but we were hardly the only ones playing these games. The Chinese backed the North Koreans, and now they're faced with dealing with the monster they made. The Russians are facing substantial backlashes from regions that they colonized over the last three hundred years.

It would be lovely if we could all live in our own little corners and meet on friendly terms, but there will always be competing interests, and sometimes there will be levels of hostility (open or otherwise) that force us to deal with bad people. Do you think it was wrong for the Brits and Americans to deal with nasty bastards like Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek? I mean, these were some pretty unsavory characters. Stalin is responsible for all sorts of atrocities, and Churchill and Roosevelt most certainly knew of some, if not all of them.

Well, that's your problem. I suggest you create your own web forum with you as the sole member, that way you won't have to deal with sick or perverted views, as you see them.

the "west" is largely responsible for any conflict with the USSR...historically we're no better than those we fight...genocide, coups, concentration camps, assassinations, death squads, illegal invasions "our" side has done it all...no one should be acting surprised when it all blows up in our faces, that's why the CIA call's it Blowback...

[bush_cheney2004]

...There's something really sick and perverted about that given how this sort of behavior has blown back in our faces before. There's no doubt I loath the sorts of people who would do, defend, condone or otherwise shrug this off as a necessary and even tenable pursuit.

It is far easier to loathe those who live and thrive in the very political and economic systems that they pretend to condemn.

[M.Dancer]

the "west" is largely responsible for any conflict with the USSR...

True, I remember it like it was yesterday, how we blockaded Berlin....

[eyeball]

It is far easier to loathe those who live and thrive in the very political and economic systems that they pretend to condemn.

I know I'm supposed to be thankful and grateful but...you can probably blame my parents for giving me the gift of critical thinking. You see, it's not my fault.

[ToadBrother]

When I see leaders of the Western countries standing up in a Truth and Reconciliation process and defending us on these grounds I'll listen to them.

None are so blind as those that will not see.

No one is going to justify anything to you. You are but one person. I don't know where your ego gets its superboost, but come on. There will never be any sort of truth commission.

Edited March 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

I know I'm supposed to be thankful and grateful but...you can probably blame my parents for giving me the gift of critical thinking. You see, it's not my fault.

Fortunately, it really doesn't matter what you think...what matters is what you do. And you will keep doing it...."blowback" be damned.

[ToadBrother]

I know I'm supposed to be thankful and grateful but...you can probably blame my parents for giving me the gift of critical thinking. You see, it's not my fault.

I see little evidence of critical thinking. It's not like you're capable of actually seeing the other side of the debate. You're just an ideologue. I, as a child of the latter years of the Cold War, remember the fear that the mushroom cloud image could instill, and am still unapologetically happy that the USSR crumbled.

[wyly]

True, I remember it like it was yesterday, how we blockaded Berlin....

you are probably are old enough...

do you also remember when we invaded Russia in effort to stop the revolution? no? selective history memory?

Edited March 17, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I, as a child of the latter years of the Cold War, remember the fear that the mushroom cloud image could instill, and am still unapologetically happy that the USSR crumbled.

ah so do I...but as an adult I've learned it takes two to tango and you really do have to walk in another man's shoes to see the world from his perspective...