If the Taliban was as bad as we know it was to the general Afghan population before the Brits and us got there, what the hell does he think they’re gonna treat them like if we were to leave and the Taliban is left to their own devices – again?

Secondly, in order to be the imperialist powers that Hitchens ‘the unwiser’ says we and the Brits are, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Afghanistan would actually have to have something for us to rule or something for us to loot it of?

CH understands that people who tell you they are your enemy, and who wave weapons at you, must be dealt with three ways: Swiftly, harshly, and thoroughly. Anything less is a tacit allowance for them to attack you first.

PH is brilliant in his own way, but drinks the socialist Koolaid on the topic of war, believing that we can get the bad guys to quit fighting by not fighting ourselves.

It’s awful to hear a member of the Hitchens family sounding like Harold Pinter on a bad day.

- Christopher’s response to Peter’s initial answer of the question. Read the Pinter speech at the link for the full effect of Hitch’s zinger on his little bro.

If you are being attacked very clearly, as was 9/11, you have no choice but to repsond with war, the terrorists after all had already declared it! Other NATO nations should ofcourse help out, I have no respect for any nation which isn’t helping in Afghanistan.

Iraq was ofcourse different, no attack was actually made, no weapons were really found, Saddam was more of a threat to his own people than the West and I don’t believe that is worth any sacrifice by us, we can’t go into every nation with a cruel leader – we’d be in Cuba, Venuzeula, North Korea, Darfur, Zimbabwe, not possible.

Just to add this is from a Brit.

Saudi oil revenue is not a cause of this dire conflict, but “cutting off” the revenue would be.

Saudi oil funds this dire conflict and while cutting off their profits would have a dismal effect on their economy I would not be sad. Two reasons off the top of my head: 1) the majority of the Saudi electorate would be in the exact same position they are now as the oil wealth is doled out to jihadists and Saudi princes 2) I, my family and every commenter on this site would be less likely to die in a terrorist attack.

Lastly, I am uncomfortable with objectives that call for “bringing Muslims into the modern world”.
That’s an invitation to unhealthy stereotypes, imho.

Oh I’m terribly sorry. The next time I’m talking to one of my jihadist friends I’ll plead with them not to release a beheading video because I don’t want them to propagate negative sterotypes of muslims. That wouldn’t do.

Gotta disagree a bit, aengus.

This seems like Nazi-redux to me: The Islamo-fascists believe that non-Muslims need to convert, submit, or die(sic). The legacy of their faith is already a terrible thing….Not a “Cold War” at all.

I agree that we can defeat them economically and ideologically, but not unless we can defeat them militarily. ;)

You misunderstood me a bit. I have always advocated the military defeat of the Islamists. I’m simply advocaging a parallel economic and ideological effort to sustain it.

The “Cold War” involved plenty of military conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Grenada) but could not have been won by military means alone. A twin-track strategy of military intervention and ideological assault is needed. Jimmy Carter failed in both these aims whereas Ronald Reagan Reagan succeded in both these aims.

You’re right that it’s Nazi-Redux but there’s a reason for that. After WWII the Germans were De-Nazified and the Japanese were detoxified of their belief in their sun god (or whatever the hell it was). The muslims who fought on behalf of the Axis powers (Bosnian, Bakhori, “Palestinian”) weren’t considered important at the time.

My point its that the deprogramming of fascists that was conducted after 1945 – which overlooked the muslim element of the Axis – should be attempted beforehand to prevent a war in which millions of people die.

This seems like Nazi-redux to me: The Islamo-fascists believe that non-Muslims need to convert, submit, or die(sic). The legacy of their faith is already a terrible thing….Not a “Cold War” at all.

I agree that we can defeat them economically and ideologically, but not unless we can defeat them militarily. ;)

Saudi oil revenue is not a cause of this dire conflict, but “cutting off ” the revenue would be.

Lastly, I am uncomfortable with objectives that call for “bringing Muslims into the modern world”.
That’s an invitation to unhealthy stereotypes, imho.
Randy

This seems like Nazi-redux to me: The Islamo-fascists believe that non-Muslims need to convert, submit, or die(sic). The legacy of their faith is already a terrible thing….Not a “Cold War” at all.

I agree that we can defeat them economically and ideologically, but not unless we can defeat them militarily. ;)

Saudi oil revenue is not a cause of this dire conflict, but

cutting off

the revenue would be.

Lastly, I am uncomfortable with objectives that call for

bringing Muslims into the modern world

. That’s an invitation to unhealthy stereotypes, imho.
Randy

When I first heard him say that I was struck by simplicity of that statement. I have yet to hear anyone else speak one sentence that so encapsulates humanity.

Christopher seems more like Churchill; Peter like Chamberlain.

Yeah but this conflict isn’t similar to World War II. It’s more like the Cold War which was won economically and ideologically. Cutting off the Saudis oil revenue and bringing Muslims into the modern world should be the objective. It won’t be as glamorous as the Battle of Britian or the naval battle in the Pacific but that’s how it stands.

It is genuinely regrettable that Brit and Yank soldiers are killed and wounded on a regular basis, but our enemies do not take account of such inflictions upon their forces. This is why I believe that, 2 years or 50 years, if we are to defeat our enemies, we must consider very long term goals over what might get our politicos re-elected next term.

Sad fact. History bears me out.

Radical islam, therefore, can not be vanquished by staying in Iraq and Afghanistan and killing the odd islamist, as we are doing now, and as C Hitchens advocates. Those people have a birth rate several times our birth rate. Mathematically, this approach fails for demographic reasons. It will achieve nothing in the long term.

The fact remains that radical islam does not need Afghanistan or Iraq. The armed radicals show up there only because power vacuums were created there, not because those two geographical areas are fundamental battlegrounds or mean anything in the war on islam. Radical islam stems from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, purportedly our allies, but in reality the vectors of this disease. It would behoove us to use military force to topple those governments, much more so than patrolling the backwaters of Afghanistan.

The salient point is that while it can’t hurt to stay there for 30 years and play whack-a-mole, it certainly will not address the source of the infestation, or the seriousness of the pathogen.

If their sharia law is subordinate to the laws of the land, then I don’t see a problem. Anyone? Sharia law simply will not, and cannot, be the same oppressive laws of the Taliban era.

I see your point but I worry that if sharia law is given even a cermonial role in Afghan society it could influence its citizens to carry out terrible deeds.

Radical solution to a radical problem.

Sharia law shouldn’t have been mentioned in the Afghan constitution. Should British troops stay? Yes but the US/UK should insist on no sharia, no way no how.

If their sharia law is subordinate to the laws of the land, then I don’t see a problem. Anyone? Sharia law simply will not, and cannot, be the same oppressive laws of the Taliban era.

Right now, we have immigrants who are still thinking in terms of honor killings. They have to learn, or be taught, that it’s not allowed. It’s against the law. The imams must be made to respect the laws of the land too, and to preach accordingly. Unquestionably.

Chris Hitchens’ logic and intellect are pristine examples of pure awesomeness!

He’s the guy who disproves the rule about liberals. They are not all wrong.

I’m going to go wash my mouth out with soap now.