Trump and Afghanistan

[Maddy]

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.

If it were simply a question of after-acquired access to information, you'd think that we'd see a more random pattern in the nature of the flip-flops. In the case of elected officials, however, the 180-degree turns invariably veer decisively toward a single agenda. The incoming officials who have resisted that agenda have ended up dead. The ones who have complied have become billionaires within a few short years after leaving office.

I suspect that Trump has, in the last eight months, received a good deal of information to which he previously was not privy, but that this information has less to do with intelligence than it does the fact that the entire U.S. government apparatus works for, and marches to the tune of, a handful of transnational corporations. Recall that within the very first weeks of his presidency, certain intelligence agencies supposedly responsible to Trump announced that they would be withholding briefings from him. That was a shocking revelation that spoke volumes about what is going on.

[Kriegsspiel]

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?

"In 1996, 254 million persons, 75 million automobiles, and 35 million trucks entered America from Mexico. At the 38 official border crossings, only 5% of this huge total is inspected... These are figures that really call for contemplation."
- Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi

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.

It's a curious argument you're making here Kbg, I'm not following your logic. Killing American soldiers in Afghanistan is actually very tough. We have armored vehicles, body armor, helmets, fortified/secured areas, Q36 radar, close air support.... etc etc. Logistically, effectively attacking the coalition in Afghanistan is going to involve machine guns, RPGs, mortars, rockets, and IEDs.

At first blush, it appears much easier to kill Americans in America than it is wherever our military is stationed. For instance, more Americans were killed/wounded in the Pulse Nightclub (49/53) than in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in Afghanistan (50/40).

Effective attack in America involve 1 human + small arms.
Effective attack in Afghanistan involve multiple humans + heavy weapons. Or possibly 1 human + S vest. Or 1 human + VBIED.

Either way, it seems that logistically it is easier to attack Americans in America.

[Kbg]

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?

"In 1996, 254 million persons, 75 million automobiles, and 35 million trucks entered America from Mexico. At the 38 official border crossings, only 5% of this huge total is inspected... These are figures that really call for contemplation."
- Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi

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.

It's a curious argument you're making here Kbg, I'm not following your logic. Killing American soldiers in Afghanistan is actually very tough. We have armored vehicles, body armor, helmets, fortified/secured areas, Q36 radar, close air support.... etc etc. Logistically, effectively attacking the coalition in Afghanistan is going to involve machine guns, RPGs, mortars, rockets, and IEDs.

At first blush, it appears much easier to kill Americans in America than it is wherever our military is stationed. For instance, more Americans were killed/wounded in the Pulse Nightclub (49/53) than in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in Afghanistan (50/40).

Effective attack in America involve 1 human + small arms.
Effective attack in Afghanistan involve multiple humans + heavy weapons. Or possibly 1 human + S vest. Or 1 human + VBIED.

Either way, it seems that logistically it is easier to attack Americans in America.

Yes and no. (And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point by the way, just highlighting some difference you may not have considered.)

It is harder to kill US military members and unlike in the US they are trying to kill you too. (Off track comment: And I would argue this is why it is a good idea to provide them "local targets" who can flip the scales and turn them into a target...yeah that is totally sick logic and frankly was the only good thing in my mind for going into Iraq. US forces there became a big fat jihadi magnet, not that we planned on that. It was simply an unanticipated follow on result of the invasion.) This is counterbalanced by a fairly robust support network that will get you where you want to go and enable you to wage jihad. (Theoretically you are also well prepared to be a martyr for the cause and may in fact be seeking that.) Additionally there are several very wealthy and not so wealthy patrons who support this logistics chain year after year, and the countries that are part of the transit route probably care less you are heading off to go try and kill infidels. Learning a new language not required.

Now imagine trying to do the Mexican route. It costs way more, you have to get a visa and the very fact you are from certain countries will instantly put you on the "high interest" list, you are in a completely different cultural and religious religious context that is probably hostile rather than supportive. Additionally the best folks at smuggling you into the states aren't going to touch you with a ten foot pool because they know doing so will quickly bring the full weight of the US government on their heads quite quickly...and that would be bad for their business, not to mention probably deadly. So assuming you navigate that and have a support network to enable your ultimate attack in the states, yep, you're set for some serious mayhem. Knowing English or Spanish fairly well, required.

In short...a support network is required and it is far more difficult to set one up and keep it running in the Western Hemisphere than the Middle East. Certainly some determined folks could set one up (and they did for 9/11), but likely it would be a one shot effort.

So which option do you think most jihadists choose?

Option A: High odds I'll get to wage jihad at the risk of becoming a martyr

Option B: Low odds I'll get to wage jihad and I may end up in a US or Mexican prison for a good spell?

We humans are indeed fairly logical and try to maximize our utility functions whatever they may be based on...and all evidence indicates Option A is the main choice for the vast majority of would be jihadis.

Or perhaps a cell phone analogy: You can chose Verizon for $50 a month unlimited data or chose T-Mobile for $250 a month capped at 20GB.

[Kbg]

Oh yeah...I do fear folks who worry about this stuff for a living may be too invested to think clearly or innovatively about it and I could very well be in that category. Hopefully my take has added to the collective knowledge base and given ya'all something to think about. Differences of opinion are great and discussing ideas and thoughts from counterpointing views I find very rewarding so long as the opposing entity brings good reasoned thoughts and facts to the table. It's always good to honestly challenge our own thinking about something.

[farjean2]

More practically speaking, impeachment charges are brought by Congress. And my sense is that any president would have to do something extremely bat-shit crazy in the realm of foreign policy for Congress to care enough to impeach.

See the thread I started elsewhere about the secret war in Laos. If Congress isn't going to impeach a president for secretly conducting a war of the magnitude of what we did in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam war, then it's hard to believe it will ever happen. You have to wait until they hire burglars to break in and find dirt on their opponents.

[Kbg]

More practically speaking, impeachment charges are brought by Congress. And my sense is that any president would have to do something extremely bat-shit crazy in the realm of foreign policy for Congress to care enough to impeach.

See the thread I started elsewhere about the secret war in Laos. If Congress isn't going to impeach a president for secretly conducting a war of the magnitude of what we did in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam war, then it's hard to believe it will ever happen. You have to wait until they hire burglars to break in and find dirt on their opponents.

I agree. It seems to me the election blow back on legislators from the same party would make them extremely reticent to impeach. IIRC Nixon wasn't going to resign until several Republicans told him go now or get impeached and that's when he knew his presidency was over.

On the other hand, making it tough to take out the President and requiring clear bipartisan support to do it isn't necessarily a bad thing. A) It thwarts the opposition party's worst political instincts and B) keeps us from being say, Italy.

[Kriegsspiel]

It is harder to kill US military members and unlike in the US they are trying to kill you too. (Off track comment: And I would argue this is why it is a good idea to provide them "local targets" who can flip the scales and turn them into a target...yeah that is totally sick logic and frankly was the only good thing in my mind for going into Iraq. US forces there became a big fat jihadi magnet, not that we planned on that. It was simply an unanticipated follow on result of the invasion.)

There is a scene in Generation Kill* that touches on this phenomenon:

Searching the bodies of enemy combatants after a firefight

MEESH (the interpreter)
His address in Iraq is the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. Restaurant is two-star but room service is out of this world. And if you go around the corner, there's a club where the ladies go... just say you're a friend of Uday's...

SCHWETJE (company commander)
*interrupting* What does the rest of it say?

MEESH
"Purpose for entering Iraq: Jihad." He put "Jihad" at passport control. That's some wicked shit... some evildoing shit if you ask me, man.

SCHWETJE
They're coming here to fight us. I wonder if President Bush will ever find out about this. This is what the President's been talking about with the war on terrorists. This is why we're here.
...
FICK (platoon leader)
In more ways than one. Those Jihadists who attacked us? Isn't this the exact opposite of what we want to have happen here? It's all on that guy's passport. Two weeks ago, he was still a student in Syria. He wasn't a Jihadi until we came to Iraq.

So the question would be, is it ethical to put American soldiers in harms way, when we are manufacturing it? If people who would otherwise continue being farmers, or students, or electricians, or whatever... if those people are being induced to fight us in their country's by our being there, why is that a good thing? Unless they are terrorists who would be coming to America to attack us here instead, there isn't much upside. I mainly am referring to Afghanistan, where the overwhelming majority of enemy combatants are not foreign fighters, or people who would otherwise be on their way here to commence attacks in America.

This is counterbalanced by a fairly robust support network that will get you where you want to go and enable you to wage jihad. (Theoretically you are also well prepared to be a martyr for the cause and may in fact be seeking that.) Additionally there are several very wealthy and not so wealthy patrons who support this logistics chain year after year, and the countries that are part of the transit route probably care less you are heading off to go try and kill infidels. Learning a new language not required.

I don't disagree that this is the case, but what good are those jihadi-highways if there are no US forces there to attack?

Now imagine trying to do the Mexican route. It costs way more, you have to get a visa and the very fact you are from certain countries will instantly put you on the "high interest" list, you are in a completely different cultural and religious religious context that is probably hostile rather than supportive. Additionally the best folks at smuggling you into the states aren't going to touch you with a ten foot pool because they know doing so will quickly bring the full weight of the US government on their heads quite quickly...and that would be bad for their business, not to mention probably deadly. So assuming you navigate that and have a support network to enable your ultimate attack in the states, yep, you're set for some serious mayhem. Knowing English or Spanish fairly well, required.

I think al-Qurashi's point was that you don't need to go through the trouble and scrutiny of obtaining visas when a country has a border as porous as ours.

Option A: High odds I'll get to wage jihad at the risk of becoming a martyr

Option B: Low odds I'll get to wage jihad and I may end up in a US or Mexican prison for a good spell?

We humans are indeed fairly logical and try to maximize our utility functions whatever they may be based on...and all evidence indicates Option A is the main choice for the vast majority of would be jihadis.

What if a main motivation is not to become a shaheed, but something more pragmatic, like forcing the withdraw of American forces from the Muslim holy lands? Then you would see a pattern like we see: asymmetric warfare in the "occupied" areas, and terrorist attacks on your enemy's homeland.

* Excellent, BTW, for anyone who hasn't seen it.

[dualstow]

Great book, 'Generation Kill.'
Loved it.

[Kbg]

All good points...but then there is Europe and the rise of ISIS which rebuts/provides contrary evidence to your theory.

In any event, I'm well familiar with this line of reasoning and I'd be the first to say it may be viable option to try, though what I cited just above is why I'm doubtful it would work. You may enjoy the book The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen. He does a great job making the case that being "there" generates the problem.

And he also is an advancer of the notion that it takes a generation for these types of things to die off and as you know I very much buy into that line of thinking. Latest evidence: The FARC in Columbia appears to be wrapping it up and they've been around for how long? 53 years...

[WiseOne]

On top of this, in today's climate, a President who advocates for withdrawal faces a PR nightmare: he/she will be painted as weak and isolationist.

That would be frightening indeed, if decisions that are critical to citizens of the countries in question, to the point of whether they will live or die, are made based on interactions with the mainstream press. Who see news items in terms of how best to sensationalize them, or use them to advance a specific agenda, not how they should be responsibly or truthfully reported.

Unfortunately you may be right about this. The presidency, like many other things, is all about the publicity. As in, it doesn't matter what you actually do or how successful your strategy is. It matters what other people think of you, and outcomes aren't necessarily what they're looking at. Haven't you noticed that this is how it is in the workplace as well?

[Mountaineer]

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.

I decided to wait a day before saying anything on this subject as it got rather hot and I chose not to possibly add fuel to the fire. Anyway, I do not think Maddy was addressing Tenn, I think she was addressing Moda (see above). Anyway, that is the way I read it.

For what it is worth, I'm going to give a very brief model of the way I usually try to think about things. Here goes:

I think in terms of a "Task Cycle". For a visual of the Task Cycle, the Input, Process, Output surround and are focused and centered on the Purpose. The terms are:
Purpose: Why are we doing some task, what do we hope to achieve in the big scheme of things? Comment: It is important to involve all of those impacted by a decision or task so as to obtain buy-in or agreement as much as possible to the why of some effort.
Output: What is it (the objective and timing) that is desired? The output(s) should further advancement toward achieving the purpose. The Outputs frequently become Inputs for another Task Cycle.
Process: How exactly should the Input(s) be processed to best (effective and efficient) generate the desired Output(s)? Likely, there are a variety of processes that could be employed to run the Input(s) through. It is important to select the optimal one(s).
Inputs: What are the various things that are necessary to engage in the task? Which are available now, which need to be found somewhere? Which need to be discarded? Which need to be strengthened?

As a very corny example: If my purpose is to have a good looking lawn, the desired Output might be green grass, evenly cut grass, flowers in a bed, healthy shrubs, happy wife and happy neighbors.
The Process(s) could be: hire a lawn and landscaping service, do it myself, have a sheep to munch away, buy a bunch of artificial turf and plants.
The Inputs might consist of lawn tools and power equipment, a farm auction to procure sheep, yellow pages or Angie's List to select a lawn service, fertilizer, water, gasoline, etc.

In the case of this discussion, the Purpose of moderation might be to assure all members remain and are free to express their views.
The purpose of the contributions might be to provide and read intellectually stimulating material and to ignore that which does not tickle our fancy.
The Output(s) might be various view points and opinions, links to material that use credible sources, personal testimony.
The Process(s) might be to think before writing, preview a post before submitting, do homework if necessary to explore potential material, shout downs by participants of those you disagree with, respect of others, vitrolic rebuttals, or forgiveness of those who anger you, cherry picking material to fit a personal agenda.
The Inputs might consist of personal experience, textbooks by various authors, what we have learned from academia, etc.

I expect some of those processes may be more condusive to achieving the forum Purpose and desired Outputs than others. A big caveat is I doubt if we have a commonly agreed upon Purpose re. discussing Trump and Afghanistan - thus, it is easy to have a gigantic Cluster-F**k if we are not careful. Bottom line: All elements of the model (task cycle) are important to think through, at least for me, ... ahead of hitting a send key. My two cents, and the two cents are intended to be Purposeful, and helpful. If you don't agree, please be respectful in your replies. If all else fails, forgiveness usually works better than vengeance, or as my grandmother used to tell me, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If my comments have offended anyone, I apologize in advance and beg your forgiveness for my blunders. If I use crude or inappropriate language, call me out and forgive me as I forgive you if you use it. Peace dudes and dude-ettes. Life is short, enjoy it.

[Kriegsspiel]

All good points...but then there is Europe and the rise of ISIS which rebuts/provides contrary evidence to your theory.

I don't see why attacks in Europe would contradict the line of thinking I'm using. It would seem the strategy is to drive a wedge between allies of the US to cause them to not send their militaries to Muslim countries. The 2004 Madrid bombings being an example of a successful realization of the strategy. I was being specific earlier in only talking about America as a counterpoint to your argument that they are looking for the easiest way to kill Americans. In what way did you mean Europe rebuts what I was talking about earlier?

ISIS seems like a different case. They are an organized government that depends on controlling territory for their legitimacy, and explicitly call for attacks on Western countries. Usually that would be a ripe target for conventional invasion. On the other hand, even if ISIS didn't exist, would the attacks on Western countries cease? I doubt it. Combating terrorist raids is a task more suited to intelligence/special operations than conventional military. At any rate, I believe we'd fuck it up if we tried because we'd use the template we've tried in Afghanistan and Iraq; decapitation strike followed by occupation.

I like this quote from Ralph Peters:

"We Americans must avoid fantastic schemes to rescue those for whom we bear no responsibility. In dealing with nationalism and fundamentalism we must be willing to let the flames burn themselves out whenever we are not in danger of catching fire ourselves. If we want to avoid the needless, thankless deaths of our own countrymen, we must learn to watch others die with equanimity."

IE, if ISIS wants to just be dickheads in their own area, fuck em; they won't be much different from a bunch of other governments. If they want to sponsor terror against us, utilize intelligence/special operations and kill specific people and break their stuff.

In any event, I'm well familiar with this line of reasoning and I'd be the first to say it may be viable option to try, though what I cited just above is why I'm doubtful it would work. You may enjoy the book The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen. He does a great job making the case that being "there" generates the problem.

I will pick up that book today, thanks.

And he also is an advancer of the notion that it takes a generation for these types of things to die off and as you know I very much buy into that line of thinking. Latest evidence: The FARC in Columbia appears to be wrapping it up and they've been around for how long? 53 years...

I agree, at least a generation. I suspect there is an element of hopelessness that contributes to a cause dying off too. For instance, the Arabs have been butthurt about Israel for about a century. In the beginning, they launched full blown wars with tanks and planes and shit. Now every once in a while an Arab will stab people on the street. I think they've come to realize they will never ever defeat Israel, and they're there to stay. Contrast with resistance to "colonialism" like the British and now, "us," which started around the same time and is alive and well as I've tried to prove. I think they sense that "colonialism" is not a permanent situation, and therefore keep up their struggle.

[Kbg]

With regard to combatting them with special vs. conventional forces...if you are saying that's what we should be doing vs. a big footprint of conventional then we are in 100% agreement. But if one says we should not fight them directly then 100% disagreement.

On Europe/ISIS, my point here was doing nothing doesn't immunize one from attack (or the problem getting worse as in the case of ISIS).

[farjean2]

But if one says we should not fight them directly then 100% disagreement.

Was listening to a show last night about our deteriorating infrastructure that we should be ashamed of because a lot of the rest of the world is doing so much better. This was another one of Trump's campaign promises. We're going to rebuild our aging infrastructure because it's an embarrassment.

So sorry! We can't have nice things here because we have to go over there and spend trillions killing all the terrorists. Don't know what happened since he took office but now it's an existential threat to our very existence. I could wake up dead tomorrow.

Again, I call bullshit. the Lockheed Martin building I can actually see across the street looking out my window is probably very happy though.

[Kriegsspiel]

With regard to combatting them with special vs. conventional forces...if you are saying that's what we should be doing vs. a big footprint of conventional then we are in 100% agreement.

I kinda figured we were on the same wavelength.

But if one says we should not fight them directly then 100% disagreement.

I'd say that we can't solely fight them directly. There are some boxes you can't kill your way out of. Decreasing our dependence on Middle Eastern fossil fuels would be (would have been?) a giant win in the national defense realm1 2 3. Eliminating military aid to Israel too. Agreement level 0%< here ≤100% I suppose.

Was listening to a show last night about our deteriorating infrastructure that we should be ashamed of because a lot of the rest of the world is doing so much better. This was another one of Trump's campaign promises. We're going to rebuild our aging infrastructure because it's an embarrassment.

So sorry! We can't have nice things here because we have to go over there and spend trillions killing all the terrorists. Don't know what happened since he took office but now it's an existential threat to our very existence. I could wake up dead tomorrow.

Again, I call bullshit. the Lockheed Martin building I can actually see across the street looking out my window is probably very happy though.

Our arc as a country has definitely led us to the point where we're going to spend some money killing people4, but the way we're blowing it both wastes money and lives. Far too much of those trillions is being spent on maintaining a large military force engaged in "nation building" and COIN with very little effect on target. It is coming down to making the least bad choice. But yea, I remember back during the election thinking that Clinton would entail a continued military-industrial complex, but Trump was at the least a wildcard.



1You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of your international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world... If people steal our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy."
- Bin Laden, 1997

2"Muslims are starving to death and the United States is stealing their oil."
- Bin Laden, 1997

3"Remember ... that the biggest reason for our enemies' control over our lands is to steal our oil, so give everything you can to stop the greatest theft of oil in history from the current and future generations in collusion with the agents and foreigners. They are taking this oil for a paltry price in the knowledge that the prices of all commodities have multiplied many times. But oil, which is the basis of all industry, has gone down in price many times."
- Bin Laden, 2004

4 "The American way of life is not up for negotiations. Period."
- George HW Bush

[farjean2]

Our arc as a country has definitely led us to the point where we're going to spend some money killing people4, but the way we're blowing it both wastes money and lives.

More and more all the time I think American foreign policy is mostly bat-shit crazy paranoia exceeding the paranoia (for lack of a better word) of apocalyptic religious beliefs.

[Kbg]

Lots of good discussion...but I'm going to as briefly as I can state my opinions and then punch out of this one...

1. Agree with all that has been said concerning colossal waste of money and we can't kill our way out of this.

2. Agree we should not have a large presence in Islamic areas

3. I believe we have to maintain constant pressure and that the Islamist Jihadi thing is going to take a while to pass.

4. I don't at all subscribe to the idea that America is the problem with the Middle East. The problem with the Middle East is the Middle East. Not saying we don't throw some gas on the fire from time to time...but they got problems WAY, WAY, WAAAYYY bigger than the US/West.