Seven years after Islamic terrorists flew planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon, killing thousands of Americans, al-Qaida reportedly is regrouping in the lawless border region of Afghanistan and planning new attacks, and the resurgent Taliban once again controls most of the countryside, our editorial today noted. It’s time to rethink this country’s anti-terror strategy. President Bush announced this week that, because of the success of the military surge and decreasing violence in Iraq, he will bring home about 8,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by February — about 5 percent of U.S. troop strength there — and redeploy about 4,500 combat troops to Afghanistan. If anything, the troop shift is not soon enough or large enough. That’s because the real central front in the war on terror is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. For too long, U.S. forces have been bogged down and stretched thin in Iraq, which has proved to be a distraction from the task of hunting down and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and dismantling the terror network that actually attacked us on Sept. 11.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
81 Comments
Yup.
Should never have gone into Iraq. I said so at the time (though I think that predates me on this blog, and perhaps this blog itself, I don’t know).
But at this point, that’s water under the bridge; we have to deal with the cards we hold. We’re are in Iraq, and we have to get ourselves out with a modicum of stability left behind. And a resurgent Taliban is not necessarily a result of being bogged in Iraq; Afghanistan has always been a bane to invaders, and we’re no different. For centuries one invader or another has attempted to control what is referred to as the “lawless border region;” all have failed. The USSR’s failure was a major part of it’s collapse, as it destroyed the image of invincibility that had clothed the Red Army.
How do we avoid the same fate? More troops will never be the answer, the Afghan countryside will chew them up and spit them back. And ‘nation-building’ won’t work; if we think Iraq is not receptive to Western-style restructuring, well, we haven’t seen anything yet in Afghanistan. Any brilliant military/economic/social strategists out there?
McCain said he knows how to capture Osama. So why isn’t he telling anyone? Or is it just another in a long line of lies from McCain? The answer is obvious.
Dang, Maggotpunk, you beat me to it!
Uh…maybe he doesn’t want to publicize his plan in advance? “Like…HERE IS WHAT I WILL DO….don’t anyone tell Osama now….”
riiiiight.
“McCain said he knows how to capture Osama.”
—-
McCain, who puts country first, won’t release this info unless he is made president?
Remember, and at no extra charge, McCain has said he knows how to win wars!
Weren’t the Democraps wrong about the surge as well? :D
McCain would rather win an election that catch Osama. As soon as the towers fell McCain made the case for going to war with Iraq.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/11/mccain-iraq-911/
“Remember, and at no extra charge, McCain has said he knows how to win wars!”
By crashing your plane, getting captured, then sitting in a POW camp for a few years?
Give ‘em a break. There were better targets in Iraq.
If we get mccain the next big distraction will be Iran.
We’ll not know until the surge is over, and Iraq govt. has taken control.
We had great popular sentiment in Iraq for driving out the Taliban, because of bungling and mismanagement and because of making Iraq the primary front against bin laden, we’ve lost the big mo.
Same thing bush did after initial victory in Iraq. Complete screw up.
Not a brilliant strategist of any kind here. :-)
Thoughts: there will never be enough soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines to “win” militarily. Nation building? Of the sort tried in Iraq? Doomed to failure from the initial steps, but there may (I stress may) be some things to try (borrowed in part from the testimony of the CJCS before Congress earlier this week):
1. Cash crops to replace opium; not familiar with what might best work, and realize that the monetary return will not be as great as the poppies, at least initially.
2. Stabilization of the military situation to allow the Afghani government a chance to establish itself outside the capital, and govern. Likely not a “Western style” representative government; the U.S. may well need to accept an authoritarian government.
3. The first two above are irrelevant unless and until the Pakistani side of the border can be transformed from an apparent safe-haven for Taliban and al Qaida insurgents, which will take the full cooperation of the government of Pakistan. To the extent that this is not forthcoming, there’s not much the U.S. and its NATO allies can do other than try to keep the lid on in Afghanistan.
4. Your suggestions here.
Doing nothing is not an option, given the current status of the situation.
bush-unfit for command.
Give the Taliban blankets laced with small pox….it worked for us before…..lets try it again.
#
ANTI
Posted September 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
Give the Taliban blankets laced with small pox….it worked for us before…..lets try it again.
——————-
:shock:
Wasn’t that in some movie?
“GMC70″ comes clean with –
Should never have gone into Iraq. I said so at the time (though I think that predates me on this blog, and perhaps this blog itself, I don’t know).
But at this point, that’s water under the bridge; we have to deal with the cards we hold. We’re are in Iraq, and we have to get ourselves out with a modicum of stability left behind. And a resurgent Taliban is not necessarily a result of being bogged in Iraq; Afghanistan has always been a bane to invaders, and we’re no different. For centuries one invader or another has attempted to control what is referred to as the “lawless border region;” all have failed. The USSR’s failure was a major part of it’s collapse, as it destroyed the image of invincibility that had clothed the Red Army.
How do we avoid the same fate? More troops will never be the answer, the Afghan countryside will chew them up and spit them back. And ‘nation-building’ won’t work; if we think Iraq is not receptive to Western-style restructuring, well, we haven’t seen anything yet in Afghanistan. Any brilliant military/economic/social strategists out there?
The obvious answer is to enforce the Universal Law of Holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.
I’m on record for more than five years now with my sincere belief than Iraq will turn into a bloodbath. Doesn’t matter if American troops leave tomorrow or in a hundred years (as John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) has proposed.
There was nothing like “Iraq” until after the first World War, and the cultural and tribal differences within those artificial borders have been around for a thousand years.
Over the millennia, Afghanistan has been “conquered” by all sorts of invaders. How’s that worked out so far?
George WMD Bush has put America’s military in two untenable quagmires. John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) promises four-more-quagmires!
Obama’s plan to emphasize action against al Qaeda via Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be all that better. I’ll grant you that. But at least it’s taking the war to where the enemy is.
How, “GMC70,” would McCoot change anything?
Be specific.
:shock:
Wasn’t that in some movie?
——
A book. Also lets send them cases of Old Crow whiskey.
My ancestors told be of these methods. Said they almost killed us all off.
Buy the opium crop and destroy it, one time only deal, to finance a different type of crop. Price supports for the alternate crop until it could become self funding. Tell the villagers after the first yr. all opium crops found will be destroyed and growers prosecuted.
Try and get Pakistan to either help drive out/destroy taliban and al-quida, or to (at least temporarily) declare the uncontrollable area as autonomous. Then we could declare war on that area. Pakistan could always reclaim it aftewards.
Try and get the corruption down in Afghan. govt.
Buy the opium crop and destroy it, one time only deal, to finance a different type of crop.
——-
Nah, small pox and whiskey. It’s much cheaper.
I don’t think there is any hope for Afghanistan. They have that tribal chief/sect/clan thing established worse than in Iraq, and are about 1,000 years behind the rest of the world as a developed country/society. Outside of keeping a close eye on the terrorists, I don’t what else can be done.
Propaganda.
Get the Afghan leaders believing and preaching that the Taliban and al-qeada are the downfall of the nation and they will never recover until they are eradicated . Have the Afghans police themselves.
Anyone see Charlie Wilson’s war? Pretty damn good and a preface to where we are now.
We can win this war on terrorists, but fighting the news media, libs and dems does not help any.
The only way to end the terror is to abandon the jews. But we can’t, because Adam is our grandpa.
The only way to end the terror is to abandon the jews – the racist
Proving your stipes yet again.
Send a million troops to Afghanistan. What will it do? Drive the Taliban back across the Pakistan border.
Then what?
Invade Pakistan?
UK’s Brown seeks new approach on Pakistan border
Brown told a London news conference that he will talk with Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, within days to draw up a revised strategy on halting the flow of fighters across the border.
U.S. President George W. Bush and Brown discussed strategy on Afghanistan in a video conference call Thursday, the British leader’s office said.
“What’s happening on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan is something where we need to develop a new strategy,” Brown said. “We are trying to prevent people from moving back and forward,” he said, referring to those responsible for attacks on NATO and U.S. forces.
He offered no specifics on how the border could be defended better.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/11/europe/EU-Britain-Pakistan.php
Bully for Brown. Shoot, let him take the lead on this one. Bout time someone else stood up.
one view of the surge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGwgum2KvJk
Reagan screwed up, after the Russians were driven out, we should have engaged in a little nation building. Even if they don’t have oil. The Taliban and Al-Quida might not of had very much influence if not for leaving a vacuum.
Who could have guessed it might be a good idea to seal the border? Like before they let binnie escape.
How, “GMC70,” would McCoot change anything?
He would put lipstick on it.
Solly,
“Propaganda.”
The problem with propaganda is that the Taliban already got the jump on us, speaks the language and knows the culture far better than we do. Their propagandists are far more accomplished than we are, and have already convinced the people (with some justification) that we are the obvious cause of Afghanistan’s downfall, and the country cannot recover until we are gone.
beber,
“The only way to end the terror is to abandon the jews.”
At this point you may be right, but it didn’t have to be this way. Instead of 60yrs of unconditional support, we should have taken a firm hand to Israli excesses and reined them in from the beginning rather than act as apologists for their every overreaction. If we had, maybe the situation would be manageable today.
Does anyone believe that Bin Laden being brought to justice would bring an end to terror?
Would set a nice example, and there is a littl thing called justice and revenge.
“How, “GMC70,” would McCoot change anything?
He would put lipstick on it.
Lipstick would be handling it from Alaska, collecting per diem.
Phantom
Posted September 11, 2008 at 4:44 pm | Permalink
Would set a nice example, and there is a littl thing called justice and revenge.
—————————————————-
Of course, but it’s not the end game either.
We know for sure that bringing Saddam Hussein to justice didn’t end terror.
lindainks55
Posted September 11, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
We know for sure that bringing Saddam Hussein to justice didn’t end terror.
—————————————————-
Yes that was a mistake. (sarcasm off).
why not kill Bin Laden’s family? Last I heard his mother is still alive and he has a son that lives in England, Why is Mohammed Atta’s father still giving interview?
For that matter why not the families of the following:
David Berkowitz
Dennis Rader
Jeffrey Dahmer
Scott Peterson
Charles Manson
Any other murderers families we should bring to justice?
I think Most of the Manson Family is in prison, One even has brain cancer,
The black haired bimbo is ready to go to war over Georgia!
“The governor advocated for the admittance of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
When Gibson said if under the NATO treaty, the United States would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
“And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,” she told Gibson.
Watch Charles Gibson’s exclusive interviews with Gov. Sarah Palin beginning tonight on “World News” and “Nightline.” Charles Gibson will do three interviews with Palin today and tomorrow. More Friday on “Good Morning America ” at 7 a.m. ET,” “World News” and on “20/20,” which will broadcast a one-hour special edition at 10 p.m. ET/9 p.m. CT.
Palin, who obtained her first passport last year and who has served just two years as Alaska’s governor, told Gibson that she was up to the challenge of being Sen. John McCain’s vice president.
“I answered [McCain] ‘yes,’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.”
“I thought yes right off the bat. … When he offered me the position as his running mate, the first thing I said to him was, ‘Do you really think that I could help the ticket? Do you really think that I could help this country? Absolutely, I want to do this with you.’
I think her end-timers was showing! Get Georgia in Nato, they get invaded, Bingo! WW3.
What gets me is al-Qaida is responsible for 9/11 and we go after Saddam. Brilliant!!! And Congress is as much to blame for this as Bush.
This is indeed the twilight zone: “Hey, Joe Blow just got killed over on seventh street by Mary Jane!”
“Cool, lets go after Jim Crow, over on Broadway.”
Over 4000 soldiers killed, and a tril. dollars, but hey we got rid of that nasty Saddam!
Ho-Hum (yawn)~!
Like this is a sudden revelation?
What kind of interviewer is gibson, when she said victory in the war, he should have asked her to define victory.
“We know for sure that bringing Saddam Hussein to justice didn’t end terror.”
And killing Bin Laden won’t either. That’s not the point and never was. You people don’t get it and the American people know it. Kumbaya.
So Jed, I take it that Israel taking out the nuke plant in Iraq back in 81 was an overreaction also?
How about trying this, lets try monday morning quarterbacking BEFOREHAND. I’d love to know what you people think if obama gets elected and within two years Iran gets a nuke and uses it on Israel.
What should president obamas response be???
What should president obamas response be if Israel goes in and takes out Irans nuke facility before it goes active?
“For that matter why not the families of the following”.
There is no incentive to killing the families of those you have mentioned.
There is an incentive “if” it was decided to take retribution against the families of terrorists.
Let me give you an example. Remember when kidnapping Americans in Beruit was in style? Hold em hostage, take a few pictures, make a political statement – then kill them? It happened frequently.
Only happened one time against the then Soviet Union.
“During October 1985, Alfa was dispatched to Beirut when four Russian diplomats had been taken hostage by militant Sunni Muslims. By the time Alfa was onsite, one of the hostages had already been killed. The perpetrators and their relatives were identified by supporting KGB operatives, and the latter were taken hostage. Following the standard policy of ‘no negotiation’, Alpha proceeded to sever some of their hostages’ body parts and sent them to the perpetrators with a warning that more would follow if the Russian hostages were not released immediately. The tactic was a success and no other Russian national has been taken hostage in the Middle East for the next 20 years.”
http://www.redsoldier.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=73
or Wikipedia
Sometimes all these animals understand if violence. There is very little really to disuade religious terrorists who have sworn their lives to Allah to kill Americans. Trade Center, Pentegon, are just big examples.
But they love their mudders.
Neutral either way. Far as I know, we don’t have a defense treaty with either country.
Maybe suicide bombers would be a little more hesitant to blow themselves up if that meant the deaths of their families. A billion dollar bounty for proof of Bin Laden’s Death( say a severed head)would still be both much more cost effective and cause much distrust in his org
Also, apparently she didn’t know, an attack on a NATO member does not mean an automatic armed conflict with all members. It is up to each country to determine the extent of their response.
Get the bimbo back to school.
“Maybe suicide bombers would be a little more hesitant to blow themselves up if that meant the deaths of their families.”
Maybe we should hire the former Alpha team from Russia to take care of the problem. Obviously Bush can’t and liberals will run home with their tails between their legs.
BTW, this is actually a shift of the focus AWAY from the success in Iraq and toward another place to attack Bush.
It’s all in the liberal playbook and media koolaid plan.
Wooo, read this, gave me a headache trying to follow her. Here’s to u miss america.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2008/09/the-palin-int-1.html
Took my aspirn, I’m back.
So, repubs. did palin knock the interview out of the park, after she crawfished out of her statements at her church.
Comforting to know God has a plan of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for every country.
She obviously rehearsed for it, or had a mike in her ear. Who could name the two revolutions of the ukraine and georgia off the top of their heads. And, she did correct that it wouldn’t mean an automatic military conflict if they attacked a member.
I might give her a c, on the interview, being kind. But, still think shes a nut.
Who cares what you give her Phantom. You are a nobody. The polls and voters left and right have spoken quite highly of her.
What AmWay? You must kill people in war?
The Russians had it all wrong. They should have just talked to em first.
It’s been seven years, and Americans still want to think of this as a traditional war. Glory, flag waving, truce, white flag, Christmas cease-fire, no shooting at the red cross or crescent, prisoner-exhanges, honor, and quiet talks around a politically shaped table.
What will it take to wake us up?
The bad guys have no such beliefs. The only good American is a dead American. To kill our men, women, and children in any fashion in sworn allegiance to their god.
It’s going to get much worse for America I’m afraid. It’s going to take more than the black eye we got on 911. It’s going to take the rivers of blood they have promised.
I disagree.
I don’t think most Americans know what a traditional war is.
The traditional wars of the past have involved a 100% effort to kill and destroy the enemy. War is not politically correct, and in past wars, the troops didn’t have the press in their back pockets 24/7 criticizing every missed shot, or filming every single person killed in war.
Traditional wars involved civilian and soldier deaths.
In trying to be PC and Sensitive, the Iraq war has taken 10 times longer then necessary, cost more American lives, but saved hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
Most who read this post will not understand or believe that reality.
You see your buddy blown up in the street and a dozen Iraqis run into a house, what you gonna do?
In the old days, you take em out.
Now, they get more due process then Americans get at home.
Oh, and with the old approach, similar to the Russian experience, you wouldn’t have so many cheap shots taken at US troops.
Once the enemy sees they will be destroyed with certainty, they decide to do something else for a living.
I guess I don’t really know what a traditional war is. I meant it in terms of something like WWII. There were times when armies showed honor and respect to their captured or wounded prisoners.
Not always. The Japanese were ruthless. But politics ruled then, and on the battlefield from Korea forward.
Traditional war, in the sense of two or more opposing armies, clearly wearing the uniform of their host nation – are over.
The fanatics of Islam would cut a mothers throat with no second thought today. And they hide without borders. That is their strength.
But it could be their weakness, if the US did likewise. Pakistan is a great place to start.
We attack – whenever we find bad guys. Screw em.
Pakistan is either with us, or against us. If they harbor terrorists, and provide them refuge – with or without public support, they are against us. No more border.
She seems to be stuck in the past?
‘Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush‘
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews
Wow here is Hank again in his alter nics “Max” and “American way”.
Alas that traditional approach won’t be politically correct enough for Americans, unless there’s a far more brutal attack then 9/11/01 on America in the future.
And you have to wonder what Obama would do as Commander in Chief. He struggles now whenever he gets a little criticism in a political campaign. What would Obama do under a truly stressful situation? Say a prayer with Rev Wright?
BlueJay
Posted September 11, 2008 at 10:57 pm | Permalink
Wow here is Hank again in his alter nics “Max” and “American way”.
===============================================================
Again BJ, you offer nothing on this blog.
Go away for 72 hours, I dare you!
Max,
JR/BJ is a financially strapped HS dropout, young man with no professional achievements, no hope for a career job, living near poverty, and so obsessed with blogging all day, that he fore goes any improvement to his lot in life. With no woman, nor strong personal friendships, his entire ego is wrapped up on these blogs.
Documented lower wage jobs, a child he cannot provide adequately for, and the receipient of handouts from fellow bloggers which keep him posting.
He has no real future, and I suspect he should be reported to child welfare in the interest of the child who needs a good fatherly figure and role model, which he presently is sorely lacking.
I play with him from time to time, as I would throw a dog a bone. But there is nothing serious coming from the poster.
Don’t forget about how JR brags about burning the American Flag – in front of his son. He taught him a real lesson alright.
I wonder if JR burned a flag today, on 9/11, for all the neighbors to see?
My post at 10:57 is proved out.
Do you often talk to yourself Hank?
gene,
“So Jed, I take it that Israel taking out the nuke plant in Iraq back in 81 was an overreaction also?”
Maybe not, but allowing and participating in the massacres of innocent Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and on the West Bank certainly were, and Israel’s building/acquisition of nukes has certainly motivated it’s neighbors acquire their own. In a situation as unstable as the middle-east is, it wouldn’t take much to set off a full nuclear exchange, with a bomb or two left over for the country that supplied weapons used to kill Palestinians, and refused the rest of the civilized world’s demands to place limits on their use.
I tried to think of something thoughtful to say on this day about 9-11. But what I could think of has been said before and if said six years ago would have been unthinkable. So I try not to think of what has happen in seven years and just remember those lost on 9-11-01.
Writer,
Forgive if I’m wrong but don’t you have a son over there in the sandbox? If so hope he comes home soon and safe
You have to keep justice when war. Iraq is exactly the same as war plan or perm.