Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 26 Jun '10 21:15
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26herbert.html?src=me&ref=general

    Worse Than a Nightmare
    By BOB HERBERT
    Published: June 25, 2010

    ...

    Those who are so fascinated with counterinsurgency, from its chief advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, all the way down to the cocktail-hour kibitzers inside the Beltway, seem to have lost sight of a fundamental aspect of warfare: You don’t go to war half-stepping. You go to war to crush the enemy. You do this ferociously and as quickly as possible. If you don’t want to do it, if you have qualms about it, or don’t know how to do it, don’t go to war.

    The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

    In Afghanistan, we are playing a dangerous, half-hearted game in which President Obama tells the America people that this is a war of necessity and that he will do whatever is necessary to succeed. Then, with the very next breath, he soothingly assures us that the withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin on schedule, like a Greyhound leaving the terminal, a year from now.

    Both cannot be true.

    ...
  2. 26 Jun '10 21:16
    what is the military doing trying to win "hearts and minds", anyway?

    did they get the job because they work the cheapest?

    imagine how much political consultants charge to work in a battle zone.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jun '10 21:41
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26herbert.html?src=me&ref=general

    Worse Than a Nightmare
    By BOB HERBERT
    Published: June 25, 2010

    ...

    Those who are so fascinated with counterinsurgency, from its chief advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, all the way down to the cocktail-hour kibitzers inside the Beltway, seem to have lost sight of a fundament ...[text shortened]... chedule, like a Greyhound leaving the terminal, a year from now.

    Both cannot be true.

    ...
    Herbert's solution is to get out; what's yours?
  4. 26 Jun '10 22:54
    take on the Taliban and Pakistan intelligence with enough force and diplomacy for a reasonable chance of success, or get out.

    not soft-handing it while Pakistan continues playing games.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    27 Jun '10 01:32
    no1.:Herbert's solution is to get out; what's yours?
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    take on the Taliban and Pakistan intelligence with enough force and diplomacy for a reasonable chance of success, or get out.
    zeeblebot carefully sets out his stall: he's both for staying AND for getting out, the difference being neatly obfuscated with words like "enough" and "reasonable chance" and "soft-handling" and the definitionless "success". The point being, later Obama can be condemned for withdrawing ["why didn't he take on the Taliban?"] and Obama can be condemned for not withdrawing ["why did he take on the Taliban?"]. We shall see.
  6. 27 Jun '10 02:32
    Originally posted by FMF
    zeeblebot carefully sets out his stall: he's both for staying AND for getting out, the difference being neatly obfuscated with words like "enough" and "reasonable chance" and "soft-handling" and the definitionless "success". The point being, later Obama can be condemned [b]for withdrawing ["why didn't he take on the Taliban?"] and Obama can be condemned for not withdrawing ["why did he take on the Taliban?"]. We shall see.[/b]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Warm_fuzzy_logic_member_function.gif
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    27 Jun '10 12:51
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    take on the Taliban and Pakistan intelligence with enough force and diplomacy for a reasonable chance of success, or get out.

    not soft-handing it while Pakistan continues playing games.
    It seems clear that Pakistan is unwilling to provoke a full scale civil war to serve what the US elite perceive as American interests. Pakistan stability has already been seriously compromised because of measures they have undertaken due to US pressure.

    Keep pushing and the result might be a another, far bloodier and more problematic war we'll have to fight in Pakistan.
  8. 27 Jun '10 18:33
    track back the Taliban and the Mumbai attacks and they both lead to Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan has been harboring Taliban leaders and institutions.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    27 Jun '10 18:52
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    track back the Taliban and the Mumbai attacks and they both lead to Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan has been harboring Taliban leaders and institutions.
    So you want to go to war with Pakistan in order to win the war in Afghanistan?
  10. 27 Jun '10 18:55
    i doubt it would take war. but apparently the US has brought no pressure at all against Pakistan, judging by the results.
  11. 27 Jun '10 18:57
    and i did say, "or leave".

    that the US continues operations in Afghanistan while permitting them a free base in Pakistan is just stupid and smells like politicians.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    27 Jun '10 18:59
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i doubt it would take war. but apparently the US has brought no pressure at all against Pakistan, judging by the results.
    What "pressure" do you think would be sufficient to force Pakistan to get rid of their present Intelligence apparatus and replace it with one more acceptable to the US government?
  13. 27 Jun '10 19:03
    war. but they'd probably stop short of needing an invasion of Karachi. or even the initialization of hostilities. if the US said, "we can occupy Waziristan, or we can take out your entire air force and air defense network and then occupy Waziristan. which do you want?" the Pakistans would probably choose the former. the latter opens them up to Indian opportunism.
  14. 27 Jun '10 19:06
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_%28international_relations%29#Rights_and_responsibilities_of_a_neutral_power

    Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,[3] and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.[4] A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,[5] but not escaped prisoners of war.[6] Belligerent armies may not recruit its citizens,[7] but they may go abroad to enlist.[8] Belligerent armies' men and material may not be transported across neutral territory,[9] but the wounded may be.[10] A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,[11] but not war material,[12] although it need not prevent export of such material.[13]

    Belligerent naval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different restrictions.[14] Exceptions are to make repairs — only the minimum necessary to put back to sea[15] — or if an opposing belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.[16] A prize ship captured by a belligerent in the territorial waters of a neutral power must be surrendered by the belligerent to the neutral, which must intern its crew.[17]
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    27 Jun '10 19:09
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    war. but they'd probably stop short of needing an invasion of Karachi. or even the initialization of hostilities. if the US said, "we can occupy Waziristan, or we can take out your entire air force and air defense network and then occupy Waziristan. which do you want?" the Pakistans would probably choose the former. the latter opens them up to Indian opportunism.
    Good luck with that. Suppose they said we'll incinerate Bagram AFB with a nuclear missile if you try?