Osler's Razor

Nice point. The Brits gave up; the Ruskies gave up; how long before the Yanks give up? How does that saying go? Never mess with a Sicilian or get involved in a land war in Asia? There might be something to that Sicilian thing.
 

I liked the article and the general's comments. They seem to be taking a rather realistic and strategic approach to this conflict, and one I can support. Additional ground troops mean less airstrikes, less airstrikes mean less civilian casualties, and more troops on the ground means a bigger commitment from the United States toward securing the region and equipping themselves to resist insurgent elements in their midst.

Those are all good ideas.

What makes me worried is that it sets a precedent that throwing more troops at a problem is going to solve everything. Yes, with enough force you can do just about anything, but sometimes a lighter touch is required. Or no touch, as the case may be in Iraq. Or a diplomatic touch, as the case may be in Iran. But certainly, helping the Afghanis and Pakistanis secure the region should be a top priority.
 

Ah, man, I was hoping we were going to continue the cartography discussion today! Gosh darn it!

Or at least I was hoping you would pick a topic where Lane could quote from some more anarchists.

By the way, Lane is the diplomatic touch we used with Iran where Obama sent them a letter and then they came out and said that such actions showed we were weak, and that our capitalist democracy had failed the kind of "lighter touch" you're talking about?
 

Despite the absence of mayhem, I'm glad you brought this topic up. Certainly the cartographic history of the region plays into its current situation.

I'm not sure Afghanistan isn't quite distinct from Iraq. From the little that I know (from friends who have spent time there, and from knowing a number of Afghanis), the majority of the citizenry does not want the Taleban to resurge, and *generally* supports the presence of foreign troops to help them; certainly the bungled air strikes hurt this, but as the General and Lane point out, adding more troops will help quiet this. There is certainly a strong, violent minority that the Afghan majority is up against, but resisting them will take a range of attacks.

What I like about what Obama is doing here is that (though I didn't see it when I skimmed this article) he doesn't view the military approach as the most important or only tack; it will be used to support the humanitarian and development projects, which is how the slow and more important change will happen. A few weeks ago, I wrote to one former student who had fled Afghanistan during the war, and she sort of rejected me asking if Obama should send in more troops. She felt this had to be a religious shift from within Islam, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where strong mullahs would reject the militant, radical wings of Islam. I appreciated her perspective because she rejected the idea that the U.S. can really effect the long term change there, claiming that the change must be from within Afghanistan/Pakistan (and that blurred failure of the cartographic enterprise). She and I agreed that that has to be supported -- temporarily -- by foreign troops, but I think Obama recognizes her perspective, which is why I don't think this will be "Obama's Iraq/Vietnam."

And RRL: that diplomatic touch was the reason that Iran did publicly make the gesture you refer to, and more quietly suggest that ties with the US could warm, and may be heading that way. I could try to find my reference for that, but I read it last week maybe.
 

I don't have many anarchist quotes. Moorcock's about it, though I might be able to find a few in LeGuin. I mean, I guess I could go through all the material I have from the professor that was married to Leonard Peikoff, but Objectivists and anarchists are different strains of crazy.

As for Iran's actions, just because a bully puffs up his chest and beats on it doesn't mean you must ape his actions. Ultimately, it's the people of Iran that we need to overthrow the theocracy and their puppet President, and you never, ever, win the people's goodwill with carpet bombing.
 

Well, I agree. You never win the goodwill of the people by carpet bombing. Good point. I didn't know I was advocating carpet bombing per se.
 

Off topic...but what the heck is in the water in Mexia?? (That's Ma-Hay-Ah for you Yankees). First Ana Nicole and now Allen Stanford. That town breeds infamy.
 

The people of Iran don't have to have an uprising. It's a democracy. They should throw the bums out.
 

Unfortunately, I only see it as being the defining issue of the Obama Administration if we "lose" in Afghanistan. It seems that defining presidential issues have a tendency to be negative. For example, President Bush I is remembered for promising "no new taxes." We ended up with new taxes, and he's shown the door after one term - nevermind how well he handled Desert Shield and Desert Storm. With President Clinton, he's most often remembered for all the sleazy scandals - this despite the fact that he actually was a pretty effective President. With President Bush II, it's Iraq and "Mission Accomplished." If we "win" in Afghanistan, I don't see it as being that defining based on recent history.

It's a shame, too - it's not proper for me to say in this forum whether or not I agree with the President's decision to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan, but if we accomplish what we intend to over there, it will be nothing short of amazing and should be remembered as a defining issue of the current Administration.

(Shameless plug for our servicemembers ahead...)

Of course, our Soldiers on the ground over there might also have something to do with that...my fellow judge advocates and I get to meet and work with these men and women on a daily basis, and it's truly humbling to be able to help them out in some small way.

Just my two cents' worth...
 

I think there's no way to predict whether our involvement in Afghanistan will be a, or the, defining event in Obama's presidency. Certainly it's important for us to help stabilize the country, as the article says . . . and, in my view, it's important for us to work hard to stabilize it (bring some sense of safety and opportunity for the Afghan people) because we bombed them back to the Stone age six years ago, purely out of our own interest and sense of revenge (i.e. we didn't go there to get rid of the Taliban, which might have been a worthy cause).

I think the article made it very clear that you can't talk in terms of winning and losing in Afghanistan. And I imagine Septimus' AFghan friends are right (I have known several Afghan students, too): that real change has to come from within. Afghanistan is an intensely tribal country, like Iraq (my Afghan Darii student hardly ever talked to my Afghan Pashto student) so any efforts of ours have to recognize this.

It can't be easy, figuring out how to help them and what to do. I wish I knew more about the situation to know what to do. But I can't see that we should just leave, without helping them move forward so that they're not right back where they started, or worse, as before we came in.
 

yeah But I saw this thing on Frontline that says that the region is a complete MESS Everyone is related to everyone else, your enemies' friend if the relative of your friend's enemy who is your friend.... This kind of thing And the land is terrible to live or conduct operation on, and Pakistan seems to be harboring the bad ones The us has no TRUE allies there because they are always making these back door deals with their enemy's friend's enemy.. its a MESS
It was an episode of Frontline called THE WAR BRIEFING. You can watch the entire thing online:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/view/