What's the worst that could happen if NATO left Afghanistan?

[Guest American Woman]

"Support the troops! Oh God, why won't y'all just support the troops?"

Talking about Political Correctness and all....

A lot of troops are over there because they want to do good, and are doing a tremendous amount of good for the Afghans. Do you believe supporting that is nothing but Political Correctness?

[bloodyminded]

A lot of troops are over there because they want to do good, and are doing a tremendous amount of good for the Afghans. Do you believe supporting that is nothing but Political Correctness?

I don't even know why you'd say that. The matter was pretty clear:

Dre said:

Where PC comes in here, is the underlying suggestion that its unpatriotic or wrong to question the mission or the ability of the troops to be successful at it.

To which DogOnPorch replied:

I doubt you're qualified to tie a soldier's boots much less comment on the mission.

Now, the truth is that this kind of knuckledragging, cowardly, and yes, politically correct response is one part boring and two parts amusing. And of course it's political correctness.

Andrew Bacevich--no "hate the military" radical, but a career military man-- has written extremely well on what he terms "The new American militarism"--an idea which can be transplanted onto Canadians too--in which a sort of "support the troops" notion, perhaps as a reaction to Vietnam, has become something of a fetish, and a hallmark of political correctness:

Under the terms of that consensus, mainstream politicians today take as a given that American military supremacy is an unqualified good, evidence of a larger American superiority. They see this armed might as the key to creating an international order that accommodates American values. One result of that consensus over the past quarter century has been to militarize U.S. policy and to encourage tendencies suggesting that American society itself is increasingly enamored with its self-image as the military power nonpareil.

The new American militarism also manifests itself through an increased propensity to use force, leading, in effect, to the normalization of war.

As one observer noted with approval, "public enthusiasm for the whiz-bang technology of the U.S. military" had become "almost boyish." Reinforcing this enthusiasm was the expectation that the great majority of Americans could count on being able to enjoy this new type of war from a safe distance.

While confidence in the executive branch, the Congress, the media, and even organized religion is diminishing, confidence in the military continues to climb. Otherwise acutely wary of having their pockets picked, Americans count on men and women in uniform to do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons. Americans fearful that the rest of society may be teetering on the brink of moral collapse console themselves with the thought that the armed services remain a repository of traditional values and old fashioned virtue.

Confidence in the military has found further expression in a tendency to elevate the soldier to the status of national icon, the apotheosis of all that is great and good about contemporary America.

Soldiers have tended to concur with this evaluation of their own moral superiority. In a 2003 survey of military personnel, "two-thirds [of those polled] said they think military members have higher moral standards than the nation they serve Once in the military, many said, members are wrapped in a culture that values honor and morality." Such attitudes leave even some senior officers more than a little uncomfortable. Noting with regret that "the armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve," retired admiral Stanley Arthur has expressed concern that "more and more, enlisted as well as officers are beginning to feel that they are special, better than the society they serve." Such tendencies, concluded Arthur, are "not healthy in an armed force serving a democracy."

One can recognize courage and achievement, I hope, without making a grand fetish out of human beings who serve.

Edited July 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

We get an up-to-the-minute update if one of our troops gets bagged. But you don't see a lot of stuff like 'NATO ambushes Taliban: over 200 dead'. Unless there's a f-up of some sort...civilian deaths, etc.

150 Taliban killed.

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/.../wl.../afghanistanusunrestmilitarykunar

80 Taliban killed.

www.thaindian.com/.../10-afghans-80-taliban-killed-as-petraeus-takes-command-roundup_100390636.html

29 Tabiban killed.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C07%5C24%5Cstory_24-7-2010_pg7_6

12 Taliban killed.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/16-twelve+taliban+killed+in+nato+offensive-hs-10

Dozens of Taliban killed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/NATO-says-dozens-of-Taliban-killed-in-recent-strikes/articleshow/6181248.cms

41 Taliban Killed.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2341429.ece

600 Taliban Killed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/26/afghanistan.afghanistantimeline

Senior Taliban Killed.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5itPO8ZcsRYL0uMk7KQQof7aYmv8g

Looks to me like theres hundreds if not thousand of reports from media all over the world.

[DogOnPorch]

150 Taliban killed.

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/.../wl.../afghanistanusunrestmilitarykunar

80 Taliban killed.

www.thaindian.com/.../10-afghans-80-taliban-killed-as-petraeus-takes-command-roundup_100390636.html

29 Tabiban killed.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C07%5C24%5Cstory_24-7-2010_pg7_6

12 Taliban killed.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/16-twelve+taliban+killed+in+nato+offensive-hs-10

Dozens of Taliban killed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/NATO-says-dozens-of-Taliban-killed-in-recent-strikes/articleshow/6181248.cms

41 Taliban Killed.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2341429.ece

600 Taliban Killed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/26/afghanistan.afghanistantimeline

Senior Taliban Killed.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5itPO8ZcsRYL0uMk7KQQof7aYmv8g

Looks to me like theres hundreds if not thousand of reports from media all over the world.

Yeah like Pakistan and India. Try a Canadian news story...rare. The average dead Taliban is nameless and faceless to us...the only good Taliban is a dead one. Oh, btw, you are commiting the rhetorical fallacies 'observational selection' and 'statistics of small numbers'.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

[bloodyminded]

Yeah like Pakistan and India. Try a Canadian news story...rare. The average dead Taliban is nameless and faceless to us...the only good Taliban is a dead one.

And how is this sentiment part of some leftist media PC tendencies?

[eyeball]

"Such attitudes leave even some senior officers more than a little uncomfortable. Noting with regret that "the armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve,"

No doubt they regret having to serve people like DOP. It must be embarrassing as all Hell having him and his ilk speaking so loudly on their behalf.

[DogOnPorch]

No doubt they regret having to serve people like DOP. It must be embarrassing as all Hell having him and his ilk speaking so loudly on their behalf.

DOP T's $25.00 + tax

DOP Track Suits: $100.00 + tax

Get yours today.

[Shady]

Here's another answer to the original "what's the worst that could happen?"

PIC

[PIK]

If Russia couldn't defeat them why does NATO think they can. The Taliban had the US helping them so I imagine Russia and China and Iran are helping the Taliban now. The US debt is out of this world and ours is getting much worse too, so what are we suppose to do,wait until we are broke like Russia was?? Wait until all our military are dead? There's a time to stay and fight and a time to go and if the US hadn't pulled so quickly the first time, to go to Iraq, we wouldn't have to be there now.

The russian 40th was a undertrtained ,under equipt, and full of illiterate soldiers, and facing the whole country supplied with lots of weapons from the west, apples and oranges.

[Bonam]

The russian 40th was a undertrtained ,under equipt, and full of illiterate soldiers, and facing the whole country supplied with lots of weapons from the west, apples and oranges.

As opposed to NATO forces, which are undermanned, bound by rules of engagement that tie their hands behind their backs, and are facing ever mounting political opposition to the mission at home.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Bonam