President Obama made his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech yesterday. Full of irony, thoughtful, analytic, nuanced, humble. So much more elegant than George Bush could ever hope to do. Other than that, same bottom line, only now it's the Obama Doctrine, dressed up. I'm not buying it. I'm as angry as ever. I'm not ready to make nice:
- Log in to post comments
When the Nobel Peace Prize was announced, I asked this very question: what happens if Obama decides to send more troops to Afghanistan and it turns into another Vietman war as did LBJ? Another good reason not to award the peace prize for "potential". Maybe they should have waited for a few years and seen if Obama actually deserved it based on actions and not talk.
I feel as you do--remember Kissinger getting it. I always knew about politicians----they're cut from the same cloth, you can't trust them, they have no blood. Thank you for expressing my anger and frustration, your videos sing for me,also.
He has followed through on what he said during his campaign: Let us reduce our occupation force in Iraq - so we can put more boots on the ground with guns in their hands pointed at the inhabitants of Afghanistan. This is just what a suitable prospective Commander in Chief in Charge of Killing Foreigners needed to say, and he got the job.
At ForeignPolicy.com, Stephen M. Walt suggests "Instead of spending a lot of time parsing Obama's latest speech...I suggest we focus our attention henceforth on what he actually does."
It is already in front of us. What he has done is continue the war crimes of his predecessor. He swore to protect the constitution and enforce the laws, which would imply an obligation to investigate and prosecute these crimes, rather than commit more of the same.
When the Bush-Cheney Gang was in office, I would say that I hoped they would receive fair trials. I hope now that the Obama regime also receives fair trials. I know that such a thing will never happen when we have a Democrat, or a Republican, as president. But as the Firesign Theatre said, if you push something hard enough, it will fall over - and it seems to me that they're pushing the so-called "two party system" pretty darn hard.
mistah charley: No argument from me that he has carried out his campaign promise on Afghanistan. I thought it was stupid, then, too and I said so. It doesn't get any smarter because he's not George Bush.
Sad, blinkered rhetoric about 'war crimes' and 'killing foreigners'...no effort at all to understand the rationale for military action by a sovereign nation. President Obama got it just right:
"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."
J: Sovereign nation or not, there is international law to contend with (unless sovereignty nullifies it in your view). But your points (or Obama's) are not relevant. Even if I agreed with all of that quote, it an still be (and I believe it is) a stupid,misguided policy. I'd add immoral to it, but that's a separate question.
Just for clarification - how did you feel about going in Afghanistan in the first place, after 9-11? Was that an unjustified illegal or immoral action?
Don: I stated my opinion here many, many times. I think it was wrong then and wrong now. If harboring terrorists is grounds for invading, many countries (UK, Cuba, Nicaragua, Columbia, Guatemala, etc., etc.) would be justified in invading us and the Feds would be justified in invading and bombing Montana. Those countries wouldn't do it because we are too strong. Is that the principle? Might makes right? No my principle.
I take it then you did not believe that the Taliban government had any role in aiding or abetting Al Qaeda?
Also to flesh out your POV, what would you consider a just casus belli?
Don: I'm sure they gave them sanctuary, just as we give anti-Cuban terrorists sanctuary and even support. We also aided AFghani terrorists action the Soviet Union. The same ones that attacked us. So what's the principle here. Or don't we need a principle? We just do what makes us feel good?
Before I attempt to answer your question(s) please answer mine.
What would constitute a just casus belli in your mind? Or to put it in the phrasing that you choose to use - what principle would/could justify using military force in your mind?
The only thing that makes me glad now about the last Presidential election is that Sarah Palin is on a book tour instead of in public office.
J.(and Obama), does that democracy and freedom include the examples we brought to the Vietnamese and, say, Chileans (e.g.)?
Don S., before going into the Taliban's support for Al Queda, maybe we should back up even farther--have we in fact adequate evidence that those 19 guys in those planes were operatives for Al Queda--that this was more than another, if officially approved, conspiracy theory? But perhaps more basic is this: suppose a few of those 19 guys had survived; then there would have been a solid target for those among us whose way of dealing with the horror and fear and empathy we felt, watching people in those towers die, was anger and vengeance. As it is, this fury has had to strike against Afghan people, Iraqi people, and others--and, not incidentally, ourselves: look at the Medicare "trimming," the nonexistent public option, etc. etc. in the proposed healthcare reform bills, all (whether or not based on rightwing principles) backed by legislators desperate to save public monies so as to fund priorities like wars.
As one who stopped listening to presidents' speeches long ago, I'm curious--does anyone know, did Obama mention mideast oil or oil pipelines?
Don: Since I'm not the one to bring up the reasons for going into Afghanistan but merely pointed out that the reasons given didn't satisfy any consistent or coherent criteria in response to your question, I don't think it is my responsibility to come up with an entire theory for what constitutes a just war. It is a complex topic which I don't have an answer for. From the outset, though, I said attacking Afghanistan was not a wise thing to do (and I think events have borne me out; we are now stuck in quicksand) and not justified by any reasons other than anger, revenge, political expediency and ulterior motives (and no, Paula, Obama didn't mention oil). Those are powerful reasons that political leaders who deserve our respect will resist. So far we have two leaders who have flunked the test.
Hmmm. Not a surprising answer but still disappointing.
Some may believe that no war is justifiable. Some may believe that war is only justifiable if some particular principles are at stake. Some apparently think that war may sometimes be justified but that the reasons that justify it are like porn - they know it when they see it. Basically when it feels right to them. And they are free to say that other causes are unjust even as they admit that they do not know what would be a just cause while refusing to state that there are not any.
It isn't your responsibility to clearly articulate to me your POV about what would be a just casus belli. You have no responsibility to me or to any of your readers. But you may consider that understanding what you do and do not think is a principle worth going to war over is a worthwhile albeit difficult exercise. Without understanding those principles then clearly the standard is only that it "We just do what makes us feel good" (with of course that which makes you feel good being different than middle America's answer.)
Don: I have been in the anti-war movement for more than 40 years. I had a Conscientious Objector (I-O status), not easy to obtain for a doctor who doesn't claim a religious objection. I was willing to go to jail or exile rather than be drafted in the 60s, so I can assure you I have thought a great deal about it. I resisted the doctor draft. But I am not an absolutist. There are undoubtedly wars that one could conjure that I would likely agree I'd fight for (against an invading army; a good example where you can incite even the most pacific people to fight, as we haven't learned in Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam). But like many of the clinical decisions you face daily, I can't give you a hard and fast principle ahead of time. It is context dependent, just as your use of Tamiflu is (a far easier question which you also dodged for reasons that seemed understandable to me).
You asked if I opposed the war in Afghanistan from the start. I said yes. That's my default and the reasons giving for abandoning that default seemed to me both inadequate and mere rationalizations for a public's desire to extract revenge for the acts of 19 Saudis. Taking revenge on Saudi itself wouldn't have worked because of oil. Oil. That was Iraq. Blood for oil. Not a good bargain for me, either.
Bravo, Revere, for reminding us that as academics, we hold positions of trust which demand that we speak and write publicly to support humane rationality and to condemn its degradation.
What was more damaging to humane rationality: rewarding a servile, uncritical worshiper of wars and generals, President Obama, with the Noble Peace Prize or President Omaba's acceptance speech in Norway?
As to Obama's defense of the continuation and immense escalation of his war against the people of Afghanistan, Obama palpably violates the pillars of just war: "The traditional theory of the just war covers three main topicsâthe cause of war, the conduct of war, and the consequences of war."
In claiming that the war against Afghanistan is just, Obama accepts Bush II's contention of America's right to invade and occupy Afghanistan, because Afghanistan refused to comply with the U.S. ultimatum to extradite Bin Laden to the U.S. Since, however, the U.S. refused to produce any evidence (however preliminary) that Bin Laden was responsible or even implicated in the attacks of 9/11, Afghanistan was barred by international law from extraditing Bin Laden. Hence, the very basis for invading Afghanistan violated the first element of a just war, foreshadowing the false claims of weapons of mass destruction used to sell the re-invasion of Iraq three years later.
The second element requires that a just war must be fought justly, targeting only combatants and observing proportionality. As public health professionals, it cannot escape our attention that even after more than 8 years of war and occupation, despite the fact that the U.S. has expended more than $233 billion on war fighting and, allegedly, on nation building in Afghanistan, the position of Afghanistan on standard public health criteria (infant mortality, maternal mortality, and under 5 mortality) has not improved to any meaningful extent if it has improved at all. In addition, very considerable and credible evidence has leaked out of Afghanistan of gross violations of international law requirements to protect civilians' ability to survive and for the invading power to be restricted in its use of massive force by the principle of proportionality.
Regarding the third element of international law, the outcome of the war, after more than 8 years of continuous warfare and "nation building" Obama asks us accept his pledge that a brighter future awaits the people of Afghanistan. However, in view of not only the past 8 years of brutal war and occupation, but also the abandonment of the people of Afghanistan by the U.S. after Afghanistan fought a proxy war for the U.S. and defeated the USSR's earlier invasion/occupation at the cost of millions of dead and displaced, it is difficult to attach credibility to Obama's pledge.
For such as well-educated and intelligent president, it is outrageous that Mr. Obama uncritically accepts the claim that continuing and expanding the war against Afghanistan can be the only viable way to protect the U.S. This becomes completely outrageous because a most credible a non military alternative exists, namely, ending the occupation of Afghanistan. This approach has solid backing from top level U.S. government supported research performed by the USAF think tank, the Rand Corporation, Prof. Pape of the University of Chicago, etc., as opposed to the mere claims Gen. McChrystal which Mr. Obama has chosen to act on.
It is hardly hyperbole to characterize Mr. Obama associating himself with Rev. Martin Luther King and the Red Cross as outraging the mute earth. On issues of war and peace few people are as opposite as Dr. King and Mr. Obama. As for the Red Cross, Mr. Obama, like Bush II, prevents it from operating effectively to protect human dignity and lives in American war zones.
Despite being aware that he was risking his own life, Dr. King publicly denouncing both the U.S. war against Vietnam and explicitly acknowledged the fact that the U.S. government operated as "the leading purveyor of violence in the world today". Mr. Obama works to continue and expand war and seeks to provide the mass terror which constitutes war with a mantle of respectability and inevitability.
Obama has been just as cavalier as his predecessor in preventing the Red Cross from operating in Afghanistan even though by International Law, the International Committee of the Red Cross is obligated to act as the guarantor of the Geneva Conventions. Yet, Obama alluded with mock sincerity in his speech to an earlier recipient of the same peace prize, the founder of the Red Cross.
In his speech, Obama claimed, without raising a single supporting fact or even allegation, that negotiating with the opposition would be worthless. This shows again the extent to which Obama is little more than a polished version of Bush II, different in style but nearly indistinguishable in substance. Further, Mr. Obama continues Bush II's refusal to ratify the treaty banning land mines, which inflict a horrific toll of death and maiming upon Afghanistan farmers and children. That refusal Mr. Obama chose not to address in his Noble Peace Prize acceptance speech -- plainly it would not have advanced his cynical brand of humility, irony, and caring for the fate of children, here or abroad.
Leo Szilard, a decent man, instrumental in the development of the atomic bomb but fierce in his opposition to its deployment when it became clear that no other country was close to developing this weapon, said we must always allow ourselves a slight measure of hope. Similarly, let us hope that Obama can change from a war monger to a peace monger, but in the meantime, we must work to end the myth of "good" wars and "legitimate torture", etc. by remaining true a principle based on the public health model: prevention (justice and equity) rather treatment (war and the threat of war).
"Bravo, Revere, for reminding us that as academics, we hold positions of trust which demand that we ..."
Oh for Pete's sake! The American public holds academics just a bit above trial lawyers! Don't let the faux adoration that brown-nosing students heap upon you, and their uncritical acceptance of that which you say as "truth" (at least until the test is over or the letter is written) delude you into thinking that the public holds academics as anything of worth. They don't.
And nor should they if an academic thinks that his or her professorship in whatever somehow gives him or her a more valid moral or ethical compass than the upholsterer or the mechanic down the street. That is the sort of attitude that earns academics derision as bookcases, not scholars, and which fosters the a backlash against elitism that unfortunately generalizes to intellectualism in general.
As to the rest, I respect that you have made an attempt to define what would be a just casus belli even though I disagree with your assessments.
Don; The public doesn't trust doctors either, although they trust their doctor. Same with students, etc. But that's a side issue. Here's the main issue. Now that I've articulated my position as well as I could within the confines of the format and conversation as it has gone to this point, I'd like to know if you think a Cuban attack on Florida would be a "just war"? (of course hardly any wars have anything to do with these theoretical discussions; we attacked Afghanistan because we could and Cuba doesn't attack Florida because it can't).
In condemning President Obama's rationalization that his continuing war against Afghanistan is both just and necessary (#16 above), I took considerable care to supported my own allegations with verifiable/falsifiable facts to provide colleagues with a reasoned basis for accepting or rejecting my conclusions.
I welcome any comments pro or con provided that such comments are based on verifiable facts so that reasoned discourse is possible and that the claims can be evaluated objectively.
Based on the requirements of reasoned discourse, I am compelled to grade the comment of Don S (#17) as a clear F.
Evidently no fan of evidence-based medicine or evidence based anything else for that matter, Don S. provides a list of of speculations and marginal musings devoid of factual support. Hence, I find his conclusion not subject to evaluation and am forced to disregard them entirely.
Parenthetically, based on Don S's words, one might infer that Don S believes that discredited rhetorical devices such as ad homenem and straw man arguments can substitute for conclusions based on verifiable facts.
In the spirit of the former Governor of Alaska, Don S launches into a tirade, against a claim that I never made or even suggested, namely that academics' moral compass is automatically superior to that of non academics.
I do continue to believe that academics, particularly those with hard won knowledge of facts and conclusions under dispute, are obligated to speak out publicly to denounce folly particularly if the folly affects the lives of millions -- isn't that the rationale for academic freedom?
I cannot take seriously, Don S's "respect" for my "attempt to define what would be a just casus belli even though I [Don S] disagree with your assessments", because Don S provides no basis for his disagreement with my assessments. Does he refrain from any comment, supported by fact or not, of my assessment of the two other criteria of just war theory -- the conduct of the war, and the consequences of the war, because he is unaware of them? I choose not to join Don S. in the pedantry of using the Latin terms rather their more accessible English translations for the three criteria by which the justice of war are judged -- I feel that the stakes are a to high to waste time on such pedantry.
I do give Don S an "A" for changing the subject when it suits him and for what I view as his less than subtle efforts to silence further discussion of the the vital issues of the folly vs. effectiveness of Obama's huge expansion of the war or the justice vs. injustice of the war itself.
BTY why does Don S refrain from uncloaking and instead of reveal his name? Remaining cloaked in anonymity is his choice and I respect it, but since his view is endorsed by the war hysteria that has been so successfully exploited since the large scale criminal events of 911, I am led to wonder about his combination of selective timidity with his very public outrage.
Finally I find Don S's warning to Revere about "faux adoration that brown-nosing students heap upon you," so patronizing and inappropriate given Revere's integrity, that I believe Don S should retract these words publicly and immediately. Or does Don S feel that his comment will serve to prevent some from agreeing publicly with Revere? I hope that Don S is above trying to suppress either agreement or dissent.
Sorry for my blunder. In a senior moment, I just indicated that my earlier posting was #16. I should have said #17.
In yet another senior moment, I indicated that Don S's reply to my posting was #17. It is number #18.
Tom, the fallible.
revere,
Oh I have no illusions that physicians are held with much respect either, but then I am not going around declaring that as doctors "we hold positions of trust which demand that we speak and write publicly to support humane rationality and to condemn its degradation". I'd be rightly mocked if I did. If I speak on a cause I believe in my words have power (or do not more likely) on their own merit, not because of some imagined respect I command by virtue of being to put some letters after my name. If I did that I'd be an arrogant blowhard puffed up with my own hot air and could not blame anyone for puncturing my self of self-importance.
As to my personal sense of just causes I am more of a pragmatist than a moralist. I am no expert on American actions against Cuba but for the sake of discussion let us accept that the American government has sponsored acts of terror against the government of Cuba. (We can get into a separate discussion about how to define "terror" but for this discussion let us just accept that.) In that case Cuba could justly respond militarily at military targets provided that it did so in ways that reasonably attempted to minimize civilian casualties. Of course they'd be idiots to do so for obvious reasons.
As to Dr. Nagel's personal attacks, I will not engage in a pissing match. If he chooses to disbelieve that I respect his thought process even though I have personally concluded otherwise, that is his choice. As far as engaging in a prolonged point by point debate, well, I'll decline. Why do it? I am not going to change his mind and have no desire to try. I am honestly interested in hearing the perspective of those who have reached different conclusions than I (tentatively) have and both understanding and considering their thought processes, but arguing with them over it? Nah. Questioning them over it? Yes.
Back to the just war question, revere - I personally have no good answer to the question myself. I know that I don't know. The issues include how much we have fully exhausted other tools as options and/or how effective they might be, how much our own vital interests and future safety are at stake, how much damage may be caused by the action versus how much is risked by inaction, the need to respect other nations' sovereignty vs the need to intervene when some human rights lines are crossed (such as genocide). I think that Dr. Nagy's three pillars are a reasonable but incomplete framework to at least approach an analysis (again acknowledging that I may not agree with how he has applied the tool).
But hey, I am not an academic so I guess I should just be quiet.
Don: I'm quite surprised at how worked up you got over Tom Nagy's (NB: name) assertion that people in a position of respect and trust should try to use it with responsibility. It seems your only quibble with him is whether academics are people like that. The obvious answer is that some are and some aren't, just like doctors (which is why I said people don't respect doctors general but like their own doctor; I rather suspect your patients like you and consider you a figure of trust and respect). However the actual status of academics or doctors seems quite besides the point he was making. You disagree with his opinion about the status of academics (probably some kind of restricted data exist, but none of the three of us seem to know what it is and in any event, wouldn't be very illuminating because it is context dependent).
I would be the last to take you to ask for not using your full name, so I'll side with you on that issue. It isn't germane to the question. And yes, there were some ad hominem attacks in Dr. Nagy's response, although I wouldn't call them unprovoked. In that regard I don't think either of you acquitted yourselves completely, but I also know how easy it is to do it on a subject of great passion and I wouldn't have thought twice about it had it not been mentioned explicitly. I don't mind if people care enough to get really mad as long as it's kept within bounds, and on this site neither of you has transgressed badly. You've both done what I and others have done. Sometimes you just can't help it.
As for being more of a pragmatist than a moralist, what is that supposed to mean? That you don't have principles about this after badgering me for mine and then being disappointed because I couldn't articulate them on a very complex subject? Being a pragmatist means you decide on the basis of what's most useful. To whom?
Well, being neither an academic nor a doctor (MD or PhD), I can only conclude it is because you are just smart enough to realize Dr. Nagy has your number. Good move Don.
I attempted to flesh out what I mean by pragmatism further in my post in my list of the issues that I believe have to be placed in the balance. Those are not moral imperatives or absolutes; they are pragmatic considerations.
My objection is to the implicit statement that academics are, by virtue of their place in academe, among the trustworthy. It smacks of elitism and arrogance. One can be an intellectual without being either of those two things. Those who play to the stereotype of the intellectual elitist in my mind cause real harms to the cause of intellectualism outside of the ivory towers and should have some sense slapped into them.
Excepting a few "Truthers" I think it is and was pretty indisputable to most of us that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and that they had the direct support of the Taliban government.
Were there diplomatic options to deal with that attack? I do not believe that there existed any that would have successfully hobbled the capacity or the interest of Al Qaeda in engaging in other high profile attacks upon us. Our national interest in defending our citizens from these sorts of attacks was and is clear. Military force always is a very blunt instrument; unfortunately I believe it was the only option we had.
Could the military option have been exercised in a way that resulted in fewer civilian lives lost? I am no expert and do not know but it is hard to see reports of initial civilian deaths estimated at several thousands and up and not think that there was a better military approach that could have taken more care to minimize civilian deaths and displacement. The bombing from over the horizon approach preserved American lives but at a cost in Afghani civilian ones.
And IF America had stayed focused on Afghanistan, and prosecuted the effort in way that significantly hobbled Al Qaeda's capabilities while minimizing civilian harms, then an opportunity to bring moderate Arab states and moderate Arabs throughout the world into a sense of community with the countries of the West would have remained extant - as it was in the days immediately after 9/11 and in the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. This would have been a tremendous greater good; an opportunity squandered by the administration of the time.
Public health in Afghanistan? What was it like under Taliban rule? Oh like this - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9701081 and you can read more here http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html In short the abuse of many but women in particular, the lack of a healthcare system, the inaccessibility of healthcare to women in particular, the poor nutrition, were the state before the war, a consequence of previous wars and moreso of the tyranny of the Taliban. IF we had stayed focused on Afghanistan then greater progress in improving prenatal care, child health, and education would have occurred by now. But we pulled resources off of Afghanistan before stabilizing the situation and certainly before investing in helping Afghanis build those systems the way we should have done. As it is only incremental progress has been made (see http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/motherlandafghanistan/health.html) But we can still do that part better.
Can we just leave? Dr. Nagy claims that the Rand corporation endorses doing just that, but this is what they actually say www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG845.pdf
"Successes notwithstanding, the ANA [the Aghanistan National Army] is a long way from being able to assume primary responsibility for Afghanistanâs security. How long it will take for the ANA to develop such a capability is an open question, but clearly it is a matter of years. Equally clear is the fact that NATO and the United States cannot simply walk away from Afghanistan without jeopardizing everything that has been accomplished so far. Some form of security assistance will have to continue for the foreseeable future ..."
What about his cite of Pape as an authoritative voice more than the "the mere claims [of] Gen. McChrystal"? Does Pape indeed call for the "non military alternative ... namely, ending the occupation of Afghanistan"? Uh, no. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/opinion/15pape.html Pape believes that the tactic of widely spreading out troops in a way that is perceived as an occupying force may foster the growth of the very forces that we wish to diminish and instead advises a different military approach:
"Fortunately, the United States does not need to station large ground forces in Afghanistan to keep it from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy that relies on over-the-horizon air, naval and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with training and equipping local groups to oppose the Taliban. No matter what happens in Afghanistan, the United States is going to maintain a strong air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and these forces are well suited to attacking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias â just as they did against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001."
Yup, he proposes moving troops out and instead going back to the distancing bombing campaigns that worked so well before - except for the thousands of civilians killed by the approach that is. Excuse me if I do not especially like that plan.
Now I am not privy to the details of the plan, but my understanding from NPR reports is that McChystal's approach is to pull troops out of the widely spread locations that give the perception of occupation and to focus on a few mainly southern strongholds like Kandahar and on training Afghani troops. Yes that leaves more American's in harm's way than Pape's proposed bombing "over the horizon" proposal but it is less likely to cause as many Afghani civilian deaths and less likely to destroy as much needed Afghani infrastructure. I am also under the impression that Pape's other ideas, working with local groups, and providing the resources to give economic alternatives to supporting the Taliban, are very much part of the McChrystal plan as well.
Dr. Nagy also claims that Obama is "preventing the Red Cross from operating in Afghanistan" yet (http://www.icrc.org/eng/afghanistan) the Red Cross DOES operate in Afghanistan:
"the ICRC continues to provide support for selected hospitals and for six physical rehabilitation centres largely devoted to helping landmine victims. The institution also runs programmes to highlight the dangers posed by unexploded ordnance and rehabilitates water and sanitation services.
Visits to people detained by Afghan authorities, the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) or the United States-led coalition remain a top priority, along with efforts to restore or maintain links between members of families separated by years of armed conflict. The teaching and promotion of International Humanitarian Law among weapon bearers and the strengthening of the Afghan Red Crescent Society are other priorities. "
Details of the Red Crescent country plan are available on this web site: http://www.ifrc.org/where/country/cn6.asp?countryid=14
Finally the human rights v. sovereignty angle - the Taliban were tremendous abusers of human rights. That alone would not justify military action or, short of genocide, trump sovereignty, but it certainly adds to side of the scale tilting to making sure that Afghanistan does not return to Taliban tyranny and to a safe haven for Al Quaeda operations.
Again, I am sure that my thoughts on these matters will not change the minds of any one else, especially on this site, and I really felt no need to share them (except for the being goaded into it by mk ... and I really should be more mature than to let that force me to engage ...). My questions on this site have not been intended to badger you revere, but to give an open albeit critically minded hearing of a perspective that my own initial analysis differs from.
Re: Cuba attacking Florida Revere. Not so fast. During the time of the 80's when our little buddies the Nicaraguans decided it was time to start an invasion into Honduras, the Cubans too were preparing. The Ruskies had their subs in port and they sortied the day before that started. Indeed the Russians had a 20,000 man "engineering brigade" there along with about 250,000 Cuban troops and over 200 helicopters had been assembled for a "training exercise." They backed off when a full wing of Bufs and all of the fighters were put on alert in the SE. Nice.
Your assertion that they cant is way off base. Angola, Grenada, both prove that position wrong... But about 200,000 Nicaraguans started north, and by the time the Hondurans were finished with them there were about 60,000. We of course helped in giving them a front end alignment.
Don, lighten up a bit bunkie. You make a good point. They are academics and only live in their own little worlds, just like you and me. Their orbits are much tighter though and most are brilliant, impeccably trustworthy and are staunch in their convictions. If it were global warming scientists though we might be talking about real convictions if the heat keeps being turned up.
But in the case of my friend Revere if he says something its based in a long history of being one of the ones that are progressives and in some cases bubba, that aint bad. He is dead on about Obama, but maybe not Bush. If he has ever said something that was not couched in some sort of fact that made it at least plausible, then I am not aware of it. I think he is full of crap about GW but that too was based in what is quickly becoming the snake oil especially when it snowed in Melbourne this past morning when it was in the 100's a few days ago. In other words dont question his integrity with me around... I am the North to his South Pole... I rarely agree with him but like the S. pole I know its there, I know its real, I also know I can depend on him to disagree with just about everything I think and say.
Dishonest he isnt and due to limitations for bandwidth if nothing else, he has to limit it from time to time. There are 7 billion of us... One Revere. Cant cover a good book review in the space given.
But, the question is what to do about Afghanistan and its all about the warheads as far as I am concerned. Launch an offensive out of Pakistan and push them into Afghanistan. Once they are there and this is where the definition of acceptable losses comes in, you drop the micro-nuke and let God sort them out. Its a conundrum at best and its not a war, its a police action. Thats what the problem is... You fight wars to win them. We havent fought a war since 45 that we were planning on winning... its good for business and thats a crime. We could if we were unfettered by the progressives and Democrats and the Goddamn peaceniks take them out in very fast order. That means dead people and a shit load of them.
So why have a surge if the Rules of Engagement are so stupid? Cant shoot this, cant drop a bomb on that. Used to be that within reason, you kill anything that shoots at you with massive damage. Not since Korea man. If I were in charge I would simply just hurt them so bad that they would be begging for us to stop. Avowed policy, you shoot at us from a village then you better be packing because a 1000 pounder with your name on it is on the way. Collaterals? Okay, I would establish a 10% rule. If you cant shoot them, then bomb them as long as you can assure no more than 10% more than those you were after were killed. Sorry but that is war. Do you think Stalin or Hitler would give us the same quarter? Not literally on your life.
We are being laughed at by our opponents. Do you think we are doing the same? WE are losing this war and its because of the humiliation of the country. They know we have no gut for what is inevitably going to have to be done. They will get the bomb. We will have to stop them, or else.
We have a monstrous military machine and we are worrying about people stepping in front of bulldozers and the like. Order them out, if they dont leave they are dead. Guarantee that if there was some real shooting going on that they wouldnt be there in the first place.
A war is kill or be killed. The progressives, Democrats, communists, socialists and Marxists are happy as long as WE are killed. Obama is being led around by the nose by Pelosi, Reed and Rahm. Time to stop the musical chairs of this Administration cause sooner or later we will lose- Dien Bien Phu and then we will leave. The attacks that would come after that would and will make 9/11 look like an erector set fell down.
A few quotes for thought on this...straight from philosophy of war classes.
" In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment" -Darwin
"The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand"-Sun Tsu Art of War
" A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic" â Joseph Stalin
We can just pull out. If we do, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will start to overrun Europe in about 5 years. They will know that they could, did and can take us on and win. They take Pakistan and the nukes there and then we will have to declare an all out war and kill even more later. I am all for a lot of collaterals now rather than smoking craters where cities used to be later. That is though because I am an equal opportunity butcher and I was and still am very good at what I do. If its a cockroach problem then I pick the AMERICAN cockroaches and our allies first.
I have oft said it to the dismay and chastisement of the people here and that was that we might just have to kill them all to achieve peace . Why? Because dead people dont get up and shoot at you. The Ruskies have had it with them and their attacks, Pakistan, Jordan (they tried to kill the king there), the Saudi's. They killed Sadat too... Anyone who is handing out the olive branch will find themselves being strapped down to it for the roasting. There will be no moderator to call when it happens. They will launch their attacks and we will be hit. How we respond is going to be the question.
So either the surge works in Afghanistan and we kill Al-Qaeda and the Taliban off or the seconds hand begins ticking a bit faster on the Doomsday Clock. It will start like a 9/11 or a Mumbai attack then really get itself going. I dont know what it will be but who would have thought that killing an Arch-Duke would start WWI. There is no handle on this thing and its spinning out of control for results, money and lives and I take a real hard position on the latter. The process is one of the old United Arab Republic under Gamal Nasser and its teachings. That was the revolutionaries always win. The Muslims move into a country and then by the uterus gain control. Even those idiots in the UK are beginning to wake up... We have people there saying that we should apply Sharia law to Muslims in country.
We are also just dumb enough to pay for this activity under the welfare states of Europe. The Israelis saw it for what it was to them too and threw them out into Gaza.
Wonder what it will take to win this war? Negotiations are not on the table for this one.
Excepting a few "Truthers" I think it is and was pretty indisputable to most of us that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and that they had the direct support of the Taliban government.
Were there diplomatic options to deal with that attack? I do not believe that there existed any that would have successfully hobbled the capacity or the interest of Al Qaeda in engaging in other high profile attacks upon us. Our national interest in defending our citizens from these sorts of attacks was and is clear. Military force always is a very blunt instrument; unfortunately I believe it was the only option we had.
Could the military option have been exercised in a way that resulted in fewer civilian lives lost? I am no expert and do not know but it is hard to see reports of initial civilian deaths estimated at several thousands and up and not think that there was a better military approach that could have taken more care to minimize civilian deaths and displacement. The bombing from over the horizon approach preserved American lives but at a cost in Afghani civilian ones.
And IF America had stayed focused on Afghanistan, and prosecuted the effort in way that significantly hobbled Al Qaeda's capabilities while minimizing civilian harms, then an opportunity to bring moderate Arab states and moderate Arabs throughout the world into a sense of community with the countries of the West would have remained extant - as it was in the days immediately after 9/11 and in the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. This would have been a tremendous greater good; an opportunity squandered by the administration of the time.
Public health in Afghanistan? What was it like under Taliban rule? Oh like this - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9701081 and you can read more here http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html In short the abuse of many but women in particular, the lack of a healthcare system, the inaccessibility of healthcare to women in particular, the poor nutrition, were the state before the war, a consequence of previous wars and moreso of the tyranny of the Taliban. IF we had stayed focused on Afghanistan then greater progress in improving prenatal care, child health, and education would have occurred by now. But we pulled resources off of Afghanistan before stabilizing the situation and certainly before investing in helping Afghanis build those systems the way we should have done. As it is only incremental progress has been made (see http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/motherlandafghanistan/health.html) But we can still do that part better.
Can we just leave? Dr. Nagy claims that the Rand corporation endorses doing just that, but this is what they actually say www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG845.pdf
"Successes notwithstanding, the ANA [the Aghanistan National Army] is a long way from being able to assume primary responsibility for Afghanistanâs security. How long it will take for the ANA to develop such a capability is an open question, but clearly it is a matter of years. Equally clear is the fact that NATO and the United States cannot simply walk away from Afghanistan without jeopardizing everything that has been accomplished so far. Some form of security assistance will have to continue for the foreseeable future ..."
What about his cite of Pape as an authoritative voice more than the "the mere claims [of] Gen. McChrystal"? Does Pape indeed call for the "non military alternative ... namely, ending the occupation of Afghanistan"? Uh, no. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/opinion/15pape.html Pape believes that the tactic of widely spreading out troops in a way that is perceived as an occupying force may foster the growth of the very forces that we wish to diminish and instead advises a different military approach:
"Fortunately, the United States does not need to station large ground forces in Afghanistan to keep it from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy that relies on over-the-horizon air, naval and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with training and equipping local groups to oppose the Taliban. No matter what happens in Afghanistan, the United States is going to maintain a strong air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and these forces are well suited to attacking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias â just as they did against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001."
Yup, he proposes moving troops out and instead going back to the distancing bombing campaigns that worked so well before - except for the thousands of civilians killed by the approach that is. Excuse me if I do not especially like that plan.
Now I am not privy to the details of the plan, but my understanding from NPR reports is that McChystal's approach is to pull troops out of the widely spread locations that give the perception of occupation and to focus on a few mainly southern strongholds like Kandahar and on training Afghani troops. Yes that leaves more American's in harm's way than Pape's proposed bombing "over the horizon" proposal but it is less likely to cause as many Afghani civilian deaths and less likely to destroy as much needed Afghani infrastructure. I am also under the impression that Pape's other ideas, working with local groups, and providing the resources to give economic alternatives to supporting the Taliban, are very much part of the McChrystal plan as well.
Dr. Nagy also claims that Obama is "preventing the Red Cross from operating in Afghanistan" yet (http://www.icrc.org/eng/afghanistan) the Red Cross DOES operate in Afghanistan:
"the ICRC continues to provide support for selected hospitals and for six physical rehabilitation centres largely devoted to helping landmine victims. The institution also runs programmes to highlight the dangers posed by unexploded ordnance and rehabilitates water and sanitation services.
Visits to people detained by Afghan authorities, the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) or the United States-led coalition remain a top priority, along with efforts to restore or maintain links between members of families separated by years of armed conflict. The teaching and promotion of International Humanitarian Law among weapon bearers and the strengthening of the Afghan Red Crescent Society are other priorities. "
Details of the Red Crescent country plan are available on this web site: http://www.ifrc.org/where/country/cn6.asp?countryid=14
Finally the human rights v. sovereignty angle - the Taliban were tremendous abusers of human rights. That alone would not justify military action or, short of genocide, trump sovereignty, but it certainly adds to side of the scale tilting to making sure that Afghanistan does not return to Taliban tyranny and to a safe haven for Al Quaeda operations.
Again, I am sure that my thoughts on these matters will not change the minds of any one else, especially on this site, and I really felt no need to share them (except for the being goaded into it by mk ... and I really should be more mature than to let that force me to engage ...). My questions on this site have not been intended to badger you revere, but to give an open albeit critically minded hearing of a perspective that my own initial analysis differs from.
Pt 2 ...
Public health in Afghanistan? What was it like under Taliban rule? Oh like this - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9701081 and you can read more here http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html In short the abuse of many but women in particular, the lack of a healthcare system, the inaccessibility of healthcare to women in particular, the poor nutrition, were the state before the war, a consequence of previous wars and moreso of the tyranny of the Taliban. IF we had stayed focused on Afghanistan then greater progress in improving prenatal care, child health, and education would have occurred by now. But we pulled resources off of Afghanistan before stabilizing the situation and certainly before investing in helping Afghanis build those systems the way we should have done. As it is only incremental progress has been made (see http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/motherlandafghanistan/health.html) But we can still do that part better.
Can we just leave? Dr. Nagy claims that the Rand corporation endorses doing just that, but this is what they actually say www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG845.pdf
"Successes notwithstanding, the ANA [the Aghanistan National Army] is a long way from being able to assume primary responsibility for Afghanistanâs security. How long it will take for the ANA to develop such a capability is an open question, but clearly it is a matter of years. Equally clear is the fact that NATO and the United States cannot simply walk away from Afghanistan without jeopardizing everything that has been accomplished so far. Some form of security assistance will have to continue for the foreseeable future ..."
What about his cite of Pape as an authoritative voice more than the "the mere claims [of] Gen. McChrystal"? Does Pape indeed call for the "non military alternative ... namely, ending the occupation of Afghanistan"? Uh, no. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/opinion/15pape.html Pape believes that the tactic of widely spreading out troops in a way that is perceived as an occupying force may foster the growth of the very forces that we wish to diminish and instead advises a different military approach:
"Fortunately, the United States does not need to station large ground forces in Afghanistan to keep it from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy that relies on over-the-horizon air, naval and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with training and equipping local groups to oppose the Taliban. No matter what happens in Afghanistan, the United States is going to maintain a strong air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and these forces are well suited to attacking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias â just as they did against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001."
Yup, he proposes moving troops out and instead going back to the distancing bombing campaigns that worked so well before - except for the thousands of civilians killed by the approach that is. Excuse me if I do not especially like that plan.
Now I am not privy to the details of the plan, but my understanding from NPR reports is that McChystal's approach is to pull troops out of the widely spread locations that give the perception of occupation and to focus on a few mainly southern strongholds like Kandahar and on training Afghani troops. Yes that leaves more American's in harm's way than Pape's proposed bombing "over the horizon" proposal but it is less likely to cause as many Afghani civilian deaths and less likely to destroy as much needed Afghani infrastructure. I am also under the impression that Pape's other ideas, working with local groups, and providing the resources to give economic alternatives to supporting the Taliban, are very much part of the McChrystal plan as well.
Dr. Nagy also claims that Obama is "preventing the Red Cross from operating in Afghanistan" yet (http://www.icrc.org/eng/afghanistan) the Red Cross DOES operate in Afghanistan:
"the ICRC continues to provide support for selected hospitals and for six physical rehabilitation centres largely devoted to helping landmine victims. The institution also runs programmes to highlight the dangers posed by unexploded ordnance and rehabilitates water and sanitation services.
Visits to people detained by Afghan authorities, the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) or the United States-led coalition remain a top priority, along with efforts to restore or maintain links between members of families separated by years of armed conflict. The teaching and promotion of International Humanitarian Law among weapon bearers and the strengthening of the Afghan Red Crescent Society are other priorities. "
Details of the Red Crescent country plan are available on this web site: http://www.ifrc.org/where/country/cn6.asp?countryid=14
Finally the human rights v. sovereignty angle - the Taliban were tremendous abusers of human rights. That alone would not justify military action or, short of genocide, trump sovereignty, but it certainly adds to side of the scale tilting to making sure that Afghanistan does not return to Taliban tyranny and to a safe haven for Al Quaeda operations.
Again, I am sure that my thoughts on these matters will not change the minds of any one else, especially on this site, and I really felt no need to share them (except for the being goaded into it by mk ... and I really should be more mature than to let that force me to engage ...). My questions on this site have not been intended to badger you revere, but to give an open albeit critically minded hearing of a perspective that my own initial analysis differs from.
My apologies for the multiposting that resulted when I resubmitted several ways after my post had not appeared for several hours (last time that happened it ended up never showing). Revere, please feel free to clean it up by removing that which repeats itself.
BTW, I actually have no problem telling Dr. Nagy my "true identity" - "Uncloaked" I am Don Seidman, a general pediatrician, Elmhurst Pediatrics of the DuPage Medical Group. Google me and you'll find a small smattering of things - the first Pediatric CME introducing screening for post partum depression as a job for general pediatricians, a few letters to the Editors debating the wisdom of universal varicella vaccination and on the wisdom of universal work-ups of UTI in kids. A case report on an unusual presentation of epidural abscess in a child. An esoteric article on the neural dynamics of autistic behaviors. I am a nerd and a geek. I'd like to think that I have some intellectual leanings. But I am not an academic and none of what I have done qualify me as a moral compass for the masses.