Trump and Afghanistan

[Maddy]

I could very well be uninformed on this point, but given the fact that Trump must necessarily rely upon the information provided to him by a military establishment and intelligence apparatus run by deep state elites, I don't think he stands much of a chance of exercising any meaningful judgment of his own in relation to foreign affairs.

I think the deep state establishment is on the brink of manufacturing a multiplicity of crises in which Trump will act as the unwitting stooge. They'll do it both for the purpose of furthering their own well-established agenda (western hegemony) and for the purpose of sabotaging Trump's presidency. It's a bizarre, untenable, situation that I don't recall any prior president ever having to contend with.

[Maddy]

I could very well be uninformed on this point, but given the fact that Trump must necessarily rely upon the information provided to him by a military establishment and intelligence apparatus run by deep state elites, I don't think he stands much of a chance of exercising any meaningful judgment of his own in relation to foreign affairs.

This lets Trump off the hook too easy, IMO. He ran on a platform of "draining the swamp". His general personality, such as it can be distinguished from afar, is that he is his own man. It sure seemed that way when he against foreign interventions in the Republican debates.

In any case, this is one area where he doesn't actually need Congress, or the establishment, or anybody. He is the Commander-In-Chief. Surely there are men and women in the military and intelligence communities whose views are more compatible with getting the U.S. out of the Middle East mess. Listen to them!

Unless, of course, it was all posturing (this is what I believe, and why I stopped supporting him).

I don't think it can be rationally denied, at this point, that many of the very people upon whom Trump must necessarily rely for information, as well as many of the people upon whom he must rely to execute his policy directives, are covertly working to undermine him at every turn. Valuable time that could, and should, have been spent on important foreign and domestic issues has been wasted rooting out these criminal saboteurs who continue to infest the White House woodwork. I find it disingenuous that the very same commentators who deride Trump for not accomplishing the things he promised are actively cheering this situation on.

I'm going to lose power for a while, so I'll catch you all in a day or three.

[Maddy]

Not to be glib, but... Who cares what commentators are saying?

My point has nothing to do with them. It has to do with Trump, what he *said* he would do (which I was completely on board with) and what he actually is doing, which is weaseling out. If Trump voters are not going to hold his feet to the fire, who will? Marco Rubio? William Kristol? Hillary Clinton?

I care, because it seems to me the epitome of dishonesty to champion the effort to hamstring a president from all sides and to simultaneously complain that he hasn't done what he said he would do or that his supporters have been remiss in not holding his feet to the fire. It's a form of gaslighting: calling black white with a dead serious look on your face for the purpose of creating unfounded confusion and doubt in the mind of the listener about the reliability of his own perception.

It's exceedingly obvious, by now, that the radical Left is pulling out all stops to prevent this president from doing anything of substance irrespective of what that might be. And the overwhelming majority of the moderate Left--in concert with the establishment elite on both sides of the aisle-- appears quite content to allow that state of affairs to continue.

Perhaps I wouldn't be so bothered by this kind of dishonesty if the situation were not so dead serious. The Left is playing with fire here. The chaos it is creating in conjunction with the establishment on both sides of the aisles is quite capable of bringing down this country. And it won't be Trump's fault if it happens.

P.S. My use of the word "commentators" was an effort to be tactful.

[Kbg]

Former mid-level deep statist here...

Didn't vote for the R presidential candidate for my first time ever last year...anyone who remotely looked at the Trumpster objectively could see he wasn't fit for the job. Crazy me, I actually like someone in government who is competent and while you may have wanted to drain the swamp what you got was incompetence, serious incompetence. (By the way...I'd like to drain the swamp too, but it's Congress and the current Congressional election process/money involvement that should be the focus of our ire. However, we don't vote that way.)

What us deep statists like to discuss over martinis (shaken never stirred) is the problem of ungoverned spaces in a world of 21st century transportation modes.

The way I see it, on a personal level, after having spent over a decade dealing with this issue very directly, is the US essentially has two fundamental choices both of which suck. Danged if you do, danged if you don't.

Option 1 I'll call the "Be Like Europe" Option...do very little and suffer periodic slaughters of innocents from time to time on your home turf.

Option 2 I'll call the "Take it to them on their home turf" Option...do a lot and pay out extensive amounts of treasure doing so.

Obama tried number 1 and ISIS was the result, clearly and unequivocally...with a serious boost given to them courtesy of the Syrian civil war (back to that ungoverned spaces thing us deep statists like to discuss over drinks). Obama was too much #1 and Bush was too much #2 where the costs far exceeded any gains made.

To me I think the only viable option for the long haul is to just continually recalibrate and try to play effective whack a mole as cheaply as possible. Sometimes you will need to dial up, sometimes you will be able to dial down.

For a couple of years I was immersed in this subject academically followed by multiple years as a practitioner and after a decade plus the academic observation I learned early that rings most true to me over time/still is that it takes around 40 years for this kind of stuff to go away. Basically the first generation toward the ends of their lives begin to question what was the point of it all since they had no success (if effectively countered) while the follow on generation comes to the conclusion it just isn't working and/or "why would I want a life of being continuously hunted?"

Not very satisfying an answer I'm sure...and not for me either. But us deep statists come to understand you get the world as it is not the magical one you wish for.

P.S. McMaster is fully aware of what can happen to statists who are stupid. He wrote the book on it (literally).

[WiseOne]

I could very well be uninformed on this point, but given the fact that Trump must necessarily rely upon the information provided to him by a military establishment and intelligence apparatus run by deep state elites, I don't think he stands much of a chance of exercising any meaningful judgment of his own in relation to foreign affairs.

I think the deep state establishment is on the brink of manufacturing a multiplicity of crises in which Trump will act as the unwitting stooge. They'll do it both for the purpose of furthering their own well-established agenda (western hegemony) and for the purpose of sabotaging Trump's presidency. It's a bizarre, untenable, situation that I don't recall any prior president ever having to contend with.

Perhaps nothing so sinister is involved. I remember that something very similar happened when Obama took office. During his first Presidential run, he talked prominently about closing Guantamano and pulling out of Iraq - remember that? Then, almost the moment he got into the White House, suddenly those opinions flipped 180 degrees. I can only assume that the President is told things that people like you and me will never know about, and that could conceivably affect foreign policy decisions.

For this reason, Trump's foreign policy reversals by themselves don't bother me that much. I'd be more concerned if his policies did not adapt to new information. Look what happened when Obama finally did carry out his campaign promise to pull out of Iraq. What a disaster. Was ending up with ISIS really worth a president not "flip-flopping" or reneging on a campaign promise?

Different issue from the severe personality problems of course. I feel the need to point that out in order to avoid the flames that seem to appear every time someone says something mildly reasonable that may be construed as being kind to Trump.

[farjean2]

Option 1 I'll call the "Be Like Europe" Option...do very little and suffer periodic slaughters of innocents from time to time on your home turf.

Option 2 I'll call the "Take it to them on their home turf" Option...do a lot and pay out extensive amounts of treasure doing so.

When I think about the logic you are applying here all I can do is go WTF? It's the same thing I heard before I went to Vietnam. We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

I've had a few beers already and have a hard time even collecting my thoughts about how totally F**King illogical your two options are. I don't know if there is an official name for this kind of logical fallacy but if somebody has one, please help me out.

We lost the war in Vietnam and today the last name Nguyen is far more common in America than mine and probably most of the people here unless it's Smith or Jones. The Nguyen's live among us peacefully and the Vietnamese have not attacked us yet.

So how about option #3 - let's leave them the F**K alone and hope they'll leave us the F**K alone. They are a very insignificant country with no military power of their own and there is no way they are ever going to attack us militarily as a country. If there are some folks living among them we think might do us harm then let's keep them out of our country. If we can't do that, then that should be our problem, not theirs.

[Kbg]

About # 3...for the Taliban, I think it would probably work like a champ (now) and you are totally deluded/seriously clueless if you think it will work for committed jihadists.

Need I remind you who flew the airplanes (them) and who funded the mujahadeen (us)? Think through the last sentence I just wrote and perhaps a lightbulb will turn on or a clue bird will land. If either fails to happen hit the books and educate yourself a bit.

[Kbg]

About # 3...for the Taliban, I think it would probably work like a champ (now) and you are totally deluded/seriously clueless if you think it will work for committed jihadists.

Need I remind you who flew the airplanes (them) and who funded the mujahadeen (us)? Think through the last sentence I just wrote and perhaps a lightbulb will turn on or a clue bird will land. If either fails to happen hit the books and educate yourself a bit. I recommend you start first in the area of jihadist theology and followed by the Al-Qaeda/ISIS theology wars. As a double bonus you'll come to understand their end objectives. If you get this far come back and provide your analysis as to why #3 is a good idea. Until then, generously, I'll consider you simply ill informed. If you were informed you wouldn't have made the anology you just did.

[farjean2]

About # 3...for the Taliban, I think it would probably work like a champ (now) and you are totally deluded/seriously clueless if you think it will work for committed jihadists.

Need I remind you who flew the airplanes (them) and who funded the mujahadeen (us)? Think through the last sentence I just wrote and perhaps a lightbulb will turn on or a clue bird will land. If either fails to happen hit the books and educate yourself a bit. I recommend you start first in the area of jihadist theology and followed by the Al-Qaeda/ISIS theology wars. As a double bonus you'll come to understand their end objectives. If you get this far come back and provide your analysis as to why #3 is a good idea. Until then, generously, I'll consider you simply ill informed. If you were informed you wouldn't have made the anology you just did.

What's your plan for having all the future jihadists line up in Afghanistan so we can kill them all? Or do you want to just kill them all so we don't have to sort them out.

[Kbg]

What's your plan? I think my opinion was quite clear. I'm not taking the bait on this one. I have zero remorse for my role in helping some of these guys meet Allah a little earlier than they perhaps planned. Animal is too kind a word to use for them. Rather than have this esoteric feel good conversation using me as your foil why don't you spend 30 minutes and watch some ISIS snuff videos. I would watch one before each time I went to the middle east...just my private modern day version of Capra's Why We Fight. Absolutely sickening, and absolutely motivating. (That's all I could take and I usually had nightmares for several days after.)

What does suck and does cause remorse is when innocent people get killed who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and that happens.

[Kbg]

I'm more of a centrist kinda R...most likely I'd be called a Rino by some. I wasn't terribly impressed with the field this year. I liked Bush but understand why he didn't do well. I thoroughly did not like the Senator from Texas and the guy from NY. Rubio started well but caved and dived in with the gutter snipes. I liked Kasich as well. I voted Libertarian though I'm not really a Lib...I was just hoping they could break the two party barrier.

On my earlier posts... no one more than I would have preferred to have had all the money used up in Afghanistan and Iraq spent on domestic priorities. Wars are an utter waste of human capital and resources on top of the lifetime scars left on many who participated or were on the receiving end intentionally or unintentionally...but there are worse things. Evil should be opposed and lethally so if required and these guys are evil. I have no doubt they would give Stalin and Hitler a run for their money if they ever got big (which they won't).

[Kbg]

Desert,

On the domestic front I'm actually encouraged...the other two branches are doing what the Constitution designed and states are shoving back. As much as the liberal press likes to give the street marchers credit for the "resistance" the real checks on the Don substantively thus far have come from Democratic State AGs and centrist Republican national legislators.

[Kriegsspiel]

Count me in the 'disappointed' camp, this was one area where I thought Trump would be a win. I believe we should withdraw from Afghanistan.

[Mountaineer]

Not to be glib, but... Who cares what commentators are saying?

My point has nothing to do with them. It has to do with Trump, what he *said* he would do (which I was completely on board with) and what he actually is doing, which is weaseling out. If Trump voters are not going to hold his feet to the fire, who will? Marco Rubio? William Kristol? Hillary Clinton?

I care, because it seems to me the epitome of dishonesty to champion the effort to hamstring a president from all sides and to simultaneously complain that he hasn't done what he said he would do or that his supporters have been remiss in not holding his feet to the fire. It's a form of gaslighting: calling black white with a dead serious look on your face for the purpose of creating unfounded confusion and doubt in the mind of the listener about the reliability of his own perception.

Epitome of dishonesty? Gaslighting? Holy crap.

Please show me where I'm championing an effort to hamstring Trump from all sides.

Look... Getting the U.S. out of wars in the Middle East is very important to me. I think it ultimately makes the U.S. safer. In the summer of 2016, Trump appeared to have stance consistent with my view -- this was one reason I considered voting for him. And so I'm disappointed that he has reversed course here. I was similarly disappointed in Obama for backtracking there as well. And, yes, many people that voted for Obama because he was a "peace" candidate didn't care when he bombed countries and started new wars. I, on the other hand, did care -- I don't hold the people who disregarded Obama's flip-flip in very high regard.

So now Trump is basically doing the same thing: promising one thing, then doing another.

I had the impression that getting the U.S. out of the Middle East was important to you too. But now I'm confused.

Interesting. This discussion is indicative of ends vs. means if my interpretation is correct. I hear Maddy saying the means (e.g. rule of law) are very important if our society is to continue to be healthy. I hear TennPaGa saying the ends matter most if we are to be safe (e.g. get out of the Middle East now no matter what). Would you please clarify and correct me if I have misinterpreted? Thanks.

[Maddy]

The following is a very interesting two hour-long podcast, first aired on Coast to Coast last night, by political analyst Craig Hulet. It is addressed to why we are in Afghanistan, why we will never be out of Afghanistan, and why we'll continue to be in Afghanistan regardless of what president or political party is in power. Mr. Hulet quite obviously despises Donald Trump, but his view is that Trump is entirely irrelevant to what's going on there.

http://www.eliasound.biz/hulet/mp3s/2017/08.23.17.mp3

[moda0306]

Maddy,

I don't mean to apply intentions, opinions or priorities to you that don't actually exist, but you seem to be far more concerned about some pretty standard political posturing and bad faith arguments against the president than what you seem to agree are outright crimes of his administration (and others).

If the Patriot Act, the way the war on terror has been executed, and how we execute war generally truly ARE crimes, than a "rule of law" advocate should strongly advocate for prosecution of those crimes... and if they care about rule of law more than other priorities (like "the media" "attacking" the president unfairly (I'm with Tenn... WHO CARES? There are bigger fish to fry)), then you wouldn't be constantly harping about those other things.

If rule of law truly is important, it's not just important when some college leftists rip down a monument, or "the left" uses inconsistent legal arguments to advocate for impeaching Trump. It's also sort of important when the President decides to spy on folks, and remove thousands if not tens/hundreds of thousands of people of life & liberty without due process. You seem to care FAR more about how Trump & the presidency are being "abused" than how secretive, violent, unchecked war-time power is being wielded. Until yesterday, I really didn't know where you stood on war execution issues & civil liberties. Perhaps I'm just not very observant.

For the record, I'm not saying everyone's priorities have to be the same as mine, or that you have to care about the same issues. But if someone purports to hold principle very strongly, I'm going to kick the tires on it. And every single time I've kicked the tires on "rule of law" folks, they've gone flat. The truth is they only care about certain types of laws. The types of laws that would put every living Republican (and democrat) president in jail are of little-to-no interest to them. Cross an imaginary line established by a war of aggression (aka a border) and drive without insurance though? Prepare to have the wrath of the U.S. police state visited upon you.

The fact is, if we started enforcing all laws consistently, they entire system would collapse, as the law-makers and law-enforcers would have to walk right into the cell with us. If you disagree with that statement, please let me know if I'm wrong. If you agree with it, please tell me why war-criminals should be left-alone while brown imaginary line crossers should be drug a thousand miles from what they feel to be their homes. Because that last statement is essentially what 95% of "rule of law conservatives" are proposing, even if they don't say it.

[Maddy]

Maddy,

I don't mean to apply intentions, opinions or priorities to you that don't actually exist, but you seem to be far more concerned about some pretty standard political posturing and bad faith arguments against the president than what you seem to agree are outright crimes of his administration (and others).

Moda,

My view is this: If you have a legitimate viewpoint, make it in a straightfoward, intellectually honest manner, without hyperbole, drama, or fudging of the facts. I have no respect for any political end that can't win out on the weight of its own merit, without the use of duplicity. And thank you, Mountaineer, for making the point that I'm talking about means, rather than ends, because I often see the means as the more important issue in the long run.

I think you've totally misunderstood me if you think I don't care about the unconstitutional expansions of executive power, or about the violations of constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, that have carried over pretty much unchanged from one administration to the next. I personally regard the Obama administration as having been the sin qua non in this regard, but that's just my take on things.

If the Patriot Act, the way the war on terror has been executed, and how we execute war generally truly ARE crimes, than a "rule of law" advocate should strongly advocate for prosecution of those crimes... and if they care about rule of law more than other priorities (like "the media" "attacking" the president unfairly (I'm with Tenn... WHO CARES? There are bigger fish to fry)), then you wouldn't be constantly harping about those other things.

Again I think you misunderstand me if you think I don't care about unconstitutional invasions of individual liberties and war crimes. They are, in fact, the only political issues that matter. (See my link to a podcast by Craig Hulet several posts prior.) However, I don't think that we, the ordinary people, stand a chance of rectifying these things so long as we sanction the use of duplicity as a means of persuasion, or so long as we buy into the same "the ends justify the means" mindset as the criminal establishment. It is in this regard that the Left has really taken the prize. How can it claim to be occupying the high ground when it is being funded by one of the linchpins of the global corporate establishment, George Soros?

If rule of law truly is important, it's not just important when some college leftists rip down a monument, or "the left" uses inconsistent legal arguments to advocate for impeaching Trump. It's also sort of important when the President decides to spy on folks, and remove thousands if not tens/hundreds of thousands of people of life & liberty without due process. You seem to care FAR more about how Trump & the presidency are being "abused" than how secretive, violent, unchecked war-time power is being wielded. Until yesterday, I really didn't know where you stood on war execution issues & civil liberties. Perhaps I'm just not very observant.

You're totally misconstrued me on this. I'm responding selectively to certain issues only because they are the ones in today's news. In a thread about Charlottesville, I talk about what's happening in Charlottesville. Start a thread about civil asset forfeiture or the use of unconstitutionally seized evidence, and I'll give you an earfull.

The fact is, if we started enforcing all laws consistently, they entire system would collapse, as the law-makers and law-enforcers would have to walk right into the cell with us. If you disagree with that statement, please let me know if I'm wrong. If you agree with it, please tell me why war-criminals should be left-alone while brown imaginary line crossers should be drug a thousand miles from what they feel to be their homes. Because that last statement is essentially what 95% of "rule of law conservatives" are proposing, even if they don't say it.

I'd like nothing better to see a whole slew of politicians and corporate executives in handcuffs. If you're not hearing that message from constitutional conservatives generally, you're not listening.

[Mountaineer]

Epitome of dishonesty? Gaslighting? Holy crap.

Please show me where I'm championing an effort to hamstring Trump from all sides.

Look... Getting the U.S. out of wars in the Middle East is very important to me. I think it ultimately makes the U.S. safer. In the summer of 2016, Trump appeared to have stance consistent with my view -- this was one reason I considered voting for him. And so I'm disappointed that he has reversed course here. I was similarly disappointed in Obama for backtracking there as well. And, yes, many people that voted for Obama because he was a "peace" candidate didn't care when he bombed countries and started new wars. I, on the other hand, did care -- I don't hold the people who disregarded Obama's flip-flip in very high regard.

So now Trump is basically doing the same thing: promising one thing, then doing another.

I had the impression that getting the U.S. out of the Middle East was important to you too. But now I'm confused.

Interesting. This discussion is indicative of ends vs. means if my interpretation is correct. I hear Maddy saying the means (e.g. rule of law) are very important if our society is to continue to be healthy. I hear TennPaGa saying the ends matter most if we are to be safe (e.g. get out of the Middle East now no matter what). Would you please clarify and correct me if I have misinterpreted? Thanks.

Thanks, Mountaineer.

FWIW, I don't think "ends vs. means" is what this discussion is about. I certainly think following the rule of law is important, and I don't think I've said otherwise. In any case, I'm not clear on where that comes into play on Trump's Afghanistan flip-flop.

I was not clear; I don't think Trump's Afghanistan flip-flop or other wise is relevant to my question - the rule of law and ME comments were just examples. I'm just saying that you seem to be more of an "ends are very important" person in your comments about 1. get out of the Middle East, 2. Trump sucks, etc (not that you ignore the means at all). Maddy seems to be more of a "means are very important" person (and also does not ignore the ends at all). FWIW, I think ends (i.e. a worthwhile objective) are very important but the processes we use to achieve the objective are equally, if not more, important in the long run. Sort of reminds me of the old TV Kung Fu days: balance Grasshopper, balance. I was just curious about how you and Maddy self-diagnose and/or could further illustrate your functional modus operandi. I may have completely misread you both (if so, my apologies), but what I see from your comments you tend toward being 80-20 on ends-means, and Maddy more 20-80.

Edit: I see that Maddy explained and posted while I was writing this post. Thanks Maddy.

[Maddy]

My view is this: If you have a legitimate viewpoint, make it in a straightfoward, intellectually honest manner, without hyperbole, drama, or fudging of the facts. I have no respect for any political end that can't win out on the weight of its own merit, without the use of duplicity. And thank you, Mountaineer, for making the point that I'm talking about means, rather than ends, because I often see the means as the more important issue in the long run.

Since you are accusing me of duplicity and dishonesty, and also accusing me of advocating for ignoring the means in favor of the ends, I would really like to know where I have done this.

Tenn, my comment wasn't directed at you or Moda (to whom my post was responding), but at the characteristic modus operandi of the radical left. It was meant to explain why I have spent a disproportionate amount of bandwith expressing my disdain for the kind of activism typified by the events in Charlottesville and for the recklessly false narratives about Trump that have been continually spewed by the media, and to amplify my point that the means of achieving an end are oftentimes more important to the longterm outcome than the end itself.

I think that liberals and conservatives could, in many respects, find common ground on many of these issues if the radicals (on both sides) would quit pissing on everything. (Recall that I was a card-carrying civil libertarian liberal until the Left went off the deep end.)

[Maddy]

Since you are accusing me of duplicity and dishonesty, and also accusing me of advocating for ignoring the means in favor of the ends, I would really like to know where I have done this.

My comment wasn't directed at you, Tenn, but at the characteristic modus operandi of the radical left. It was meant to explain why I have a disdain for the kind of activism typified by the events in Charlottesville and for the recklessly false narratives continually spewed by the media, and to amplify my point that the means of achieving an end are oftentimes more important to the longterm outcome than the end itself.

I think that liberals and conservatives could, in many respects, find common ground on many of these issues if the radicals (on both sides) would quit pissing on everything.

Well it sure SOUNDED like it was directed at me.

here, I'll review:

Not to be glib, but... Who cares what commentators are saying?

My point has nothing to do with them. It has to do with Trump, what he *said* he would do (which I was completely on board with) and what he actually is doing, which is weaseling out. If Trump voters are not going to hold his feet to the fire, who will? Marco Rubio? William Kristol? Hillary Clinton?

I care, because it seems to me the epitome of dishonesty to champion the effort to hamstring a president from all sides and to simultaneously complain that he hasn't done what he said he would do or that his supporters have been remiss in not holding his feet to the fire. It's a form of gaslighting: calling black white with a dead serious look on your face for the purpose of creating unfounded confusion and doubt in the mind of the listener about the reliability of his own perception.

It's exceedingly obvious, by now, that the radical Left is pulling out all stops to prevent this president from doing anything of substance irrespective of what that might be. And the overwhelming majority of the moderate Left--in concert with the establishment elite on both sides of the aisle-- appears quite content to allow that state of affairs to continue.

Perhaps I wouldn't be so bothered by this kind of dishonesty if the situation were not so dead serious. The Left is playing with fire here. The chaos it is creating in conjunction with the establishment on both sides of the aisles is quite capable of bringing down this country. And it won't be Trump's fault if it happens.

P.S. My use of the word "commentators" was an effort to be tactful.

I was trying to engage you in a specific conversation about Trump's Afghanistan flip-flop, not in some fucking Hannity-esque whinefest about the librul media. But you wanted none of that conversation. You doubled fucking down on "epitome of dishonesty" and "hamstringing the president". And for good measure, threw in the "using the word commentators was an effort to be tactful" comment. Which, to me, was a fucking weasel way to say you were talking about *me*.

So fuck off.

Now THAT's ad hominem.

You know, Tenn, only you can decide whether or not the shoe fits. Nobody's stopping you from distinguishing your views from the ones I have criticized.

[Maddy]

It's not worth it to me to do a complete post-mortem, since the posts speak for themselves. But I'll make one point here, which is that I went out of my way to depersonalize the discussion by referring to the "commentators" who were cheering on the effort to hamstring Trump. What I called "duplicitous" and "dishonest" was the Left's support for the effort to tie Trump's hands while simultaneously criticizing him for not accomplishing what he said he would accomplish. You summarily dismissed the validity of that point by stating that you don't care what any "commentator" thinks, thereby opening the door for me to insinuate, quite honestly, that I've seen what appears to be support for this effort right here on the forum. Frankly, I have a hard time remembering who, exactly, has said what in previous threads, but I do remember ideas and general themes pretty well. So if you felt that I was pointing the finger at you personally, you had every opportunity to distinguish your views from the ones I was addressing. Not insignificantly, I've been doing that, in response to Moda, for the last few days.

[farjean2]

What's your plan?

What does suck and does cause remorse is when innocent people get killed who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and that happens.

Yes, that happens. To the tune of several million in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. All for what? To prevent what happened any way and what 80% of the people in Vietnam would have voted for if we allowed the election that was supposed to take place.

I already gave my plan. Keep the bad guys over there. There is no way we can identify who they are and kill them all and thinking we can is what I'm seeing as totally illogical about your argument (and apparently Trump's now too). There are other countries they can flee to including the Philippines where a lot of them are going.

Although I'm getting pretty close to being extremely disgusted with Trump even though I voted for him I think he has the right idea about banning immigration from those countries. I would be in favor of going farther and banning all Muslims just like we did communists because their beliefs are completely incompatible with ours. That's never going to happen, of course. Probably wouldn't happen if some Jihadi de-capitated an American on American soil and posted it on Youtube. You'd just hear the argument that not ALL Muslims are like that. Of course not. If I took a package of M&M's and laced one with arsenic and then told you not all of them are that way, would you take the package and eat it? Only if you are a liberal judge and don't have to be the one eating them.

But thinking that somehow we can go somewhere and kill all the people that want to do us harm or may want to in the future is as bat-shit crazy as Mountaineer's belief that one day Jesus is going to come down here and kill all the unbelievers and cast them into a lake of fire.

[farjean2]

So, to get back to Trump's Afghanistan policy: I am thoroughly disappointed that he flip-flopped. And I'm not alone in my disappointment.

If he really wanted to, he could have chosen to de-escalate. He's the commander-in-chief. But he *chose* not to. Just like our Nobel-peace-prize-winning 44th president chose to start wars in Libya and Yemen and Syria.

I tend to read conservative-and civil-libertarian-leaning authors and sites (probably 60%... the most liberal I get is Damon Linker and Noah Millman). Many of them supported Trump's candidacy. But all of them are disappointed in Trump's flip-flop, and his bellicosity on foreign policy in general. They expected much different.

I only half-expected much different. If you listened close enough the bellicosity in foreign policy was there all the time. You just didn't know which half of what was coming out of his mouth to believe. Was he really a non-interventionist or a neocon of the worse kind?

He seems intent on going with the latter right now so if I start seeing "impeach Trump" stickers I'll be saying Amen. But if we are really going to impeach presidents for being two-faced liars not many of them will last long.

[WiseOne]

So, to get back to Trump's Afghanistan policy: I am thoroughly disappointed that he flip-flopped. And I'm not alone in my disappointment.

So am I. However, I find it interesting that Obama flip-flopped in precisely the same way when he first took office, on not just one foreign policy issue but several. I wonder if it's because Presidents are privy to information that you, I, or a Presidential candidate is not. That is, the candidate's position is formulated on the basis of the same information that you and I have. BUT - a President's course of action is informed by intelligence briefings and advice that we don't know anything about.

In fact, it may be a good thing that a President can change course in response to new information. If you recall, Obama finally did make good on his campaign promise to pull out of Iraq. Was unleashing ISIS worth seeing a President not "flip-flop"? I blame him more for that than for "flip-flopping" on Guantanamo etc. It may be that consistency with campaign promises is not the best way to judge a President's foreign policy performance. For these reasons, I've always thought of campaign promises as an indicator of a mindset, not as a fixed plan. And I haven't been surprised when it changes once the person takes office - in fact, I expect it.

It's a bit uncomfortable when the guy at the steering wheel is doing something you didn't expect, while you're in the backseat with a blindfold on. Unfortunately I can't think of any obvious way to improve that situation.

[Kbg]

What's your plan?

What does suck and does cause remorse is when innocent people get killed who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and that happens.

Yes, that happens. To the tune of several million in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. All for what? To prevent what happened any way and what 80% of the people in Vietnam would have voted for if we allowed the election that was supposed to take place.

I already gave my plan. Keep the bad guys over there. There is no way we can identify who they are and kill them all and thinking we can is what I'm seeing as totally illogical about your argument (and apparently Trump's now too). There are other countries they can flee to including the Philippines where a lot of them are going.

But thinking that somehow we can go somewhere and kill all the people that want to do us harm or may want to in the future is as bat-shit crazy as Mountaineer's belief that one day Jesus is going to come down here and kill all the unbelievers and cast them into a lake of fire.

If you think closing the border is going to be remotely effective...four words...the war on drugs. How's that working out for us? The fact is jihadis will go where they think they can kill Americans easily from a logistics perspective and as a result they head to where the US military is (now) because it is much easier for someone to go to Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan vs. the US. Sipping tea with my radicalized buddies in Saudi Arabia on Monday, catch a jet on Tuesday and if all goes well I'm all set to kill Americans in a couple of weeks tops. (This is how it works, really.)

The argument you say I'm making IS illogical and I never made it. The basic tactics employed is to keep them from reaching a critical mass that they can then leverage to do serious damage/harm. And you can not say that won't happen because it did happen exactly as experts in the field feared. (And OBTW this point was the national security lesson of 9/11...lest we forget.) Unless you are a pick your facts to suit your opinion kinda person draw a timeline between our withdrawal from Iraq and ISIS' eventual take over of about 1/3 of the land mass of Iraq.

BUT if you can just step away from your beliefs for a just couple of minutes, ask yourself why would two men who went into office saying they would end the war or draw it down seriously do a 180?

Trust me on this one...us deep statists do NOT like spending most of their professional lives in ****holes for months/years on end. We would much rather be in DC thwarting Presidents, duping Congress and coordinating with the Illuminati to take over the world...martini in hand of course.