Schumer: Stability in Afghanistan too expensive
posted at 1:36 pm on October 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Chuck Schumer appeared on MS-NBC this morning to endorse an unusual strategy in Afghanistan — the very “air raiding villages and bombing civilians” that Barack Obama derided as a candidate. The clip from Morning Joe is lengthy, but the portion that caught The Hill’s attention takes place in the first couple of minutes. Schumer seems to have missed a couple of strategy sessions in coming up with this idea:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Schumer said the U.S. might be able to keep itself safe while leaving Afghanistan destabilized.
“If we can accomplish the first part–protecting ourselves from terrorism–without bringing stability to Afghanistan, which I think is a very long, expensive, and iffy process, we should try to do it,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Morning Joe.
The New York Democrat compared the situation to Iraq, where he suggested stability had been too expensive.
“It cost us [a] trillion dollars and 4,500 lives approximately to bring stability to Iraq,” Schumer said. “Just in terms of the loss of life and treasure, do we want to do the same exercise in Afghanistan?”
The drone attacks in Pakistan have been effective in killing al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership, it’s true. However, that success is tied to getting good intelligence from locals on the ground on target selection. Without building trust locally, on the ground in Afghanistan, we’re simply not going to get the intel to hit those targets in the future. We certainly won’t get intel on target selections in Pakistan from bases in Malta or Okinawa, just as we weren’t going to win Iraq with a long-distance aerial campaign when John Murtha made the same suggestion in 2006.
If we want to prevent Afghanistan from lapsing back into a failed state, then we need to bring it to viability and stability. If we explicitly reject that mission, then we can expect the terrorists to once again take over the country and use it as a permanent base of operations for attacks around the world. Democrats made that argument from 2006 until this year in arguing that we should abandon Iraq to focus exclusively on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now that they’re on the hook for making those decisions, suddenly “air raiding villages and bombing civilians” — exactly what Schumer offers as an alternative — looks attractive.
Actually, Joe Scarborough makes a much better point just after Schumer. It will take at least a decade, and probably several decades, to bring stability and infrastructure to Afghanistan. Forget about Schumer’s argument for the moment; does the American people have the stamina to see that mission through to its end, even for ten years, let alone 20, 30, 40, or more? If not, does it make sense to get out now and leave Pakistan to fend off the radicals as they move their flags across the frontier to avoid the Pakistani army and set up terrorist shop in Helmand while our credibility suffers in the region?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Face it, any credibility we had was shot the moment the American people for some reason elected treasonous, corrupt and incompetent Democrat scum the majority party in Congress and the backstabber in chief, president.
Any defeat we take from that point on is just an after shock.
NoDonkey on October 27, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I need a spreadsheet to keep up with Democrats positions on this.
aquaviva on October 27, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Well being that the Corker in Command is waffling on his maples… he doesn’t seem to understand (or plays ignorant) that Afghanistan is a middle ground for other middle eastern countries. Especially countries that hate each other (India and pakistan come to mind) and it may be a good idea to at least stick around for a little while.
But I am just a little turd in a big pond.
upinak on October 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Chuck went to negative significance for me with the “chattering classes” crack this past summer in the Senate. He’s an absolutely worthless POS.
BuckeyeSam on October 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM
It cost us a trillion dollars and 4500 dead in Iraq because Bush 43 and Rumsfeld went penny-wise-and-pound-foolish on the boots-on-the-ground commitment, so what should have been 18 months turned into most of a decade.
The Democrats are about to give us more of the same.
JEM on October 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM
The American people have the attention span of a gnat (see 2008 presidential election).
The answer is no. And what does that mean? It means Obama will eventually withdraw (probably after failing miserably to implement McChrystal’s plan) and let Afghanistan slide right back into the terrorist staging cesspool it was before 2001. And we will get attacked again…even more effectively this time…then the same people who never care or pay attention or want us out now will cry and whine and ask ‘What Happened?’.
AUINSC on October 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM
We need 40k more guys to win the war Bush screwed up, but President Obama is so smart and awesome for not sending them – Bleeds Blue.
BadgerHawk on October 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I’m afraid you’ll need a three-dimensional analysis.
BuckeyeSam on October 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM
What’s a couple trillion amongst Democrats? How much has that deficit risen since Obama took office?
Knucklehead on October 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Yeah Chuck, we can all afford another 9/11….you moron!
TrickyDick on October 27, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Maintaining schummer as a senator is too costly. Costly in a finacial sense and costly in a moral sense.
chicken thief on October 27, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Time to hit the road.
The Calibur on October 27, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Nothing like being a weak kneed pantywaist, pussy to embolden our enemies. Look for Schumer in the lastest Victoria Secret Catalog. He and Obama are in the Nueter Section. Look for the gold plated lockbox to keep your testicles in.
Kuffar on October 27, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Has anyone proposed financing the war by harvesting confiscated poppy fields and selling the product in Hollywood?
BuckeyeSam on October 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I think that is the total amount Bush spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, not just Iraq, during his administration.
WashJeff on October 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Wait a minute…Democrats are complaining that something COSTS TOO MUCH?
LOL WTF LOL WTF LOL!
You know, Shmuck Schumer, you Democrats didn’t seem at all concerned with the price of your failed “stimulus,” or the downstream financial and societal coasts of your health care takeover.
In fact, defending the nation – the one Constitutional OBLIGATION that your Clown Car Corrupticrat Congress has – is the one obligation you Democrats always seem to have trouble with.
Why is that?
Good Lt on October 27, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Analysis Cubes!
Wooo Hoo!
Joe Caps on October 27, 2009 at 1:47 PM
If the people in Hollywood are high and the movies will be horrible!
OK. Bad argument.
WashJeff on October 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM
quagmire
cmsinaz on October 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM
to the ninth power.
upinak on October 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM
There’s a reason he’s earned the moniker CHUCK DA SCHMUCK.
BTW, he’ll go on MSLSD, but not Fox? Coward.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Afghanistan? Never heard of it. – Charlie Gibson
lorien1973 on October 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM
No.
Ed, a major terroristic event of some kind will occur long before that ten or forty year time period is over and will reshape the world. If Iran isn’t taken down, what happens in Afghanistan loses significance, even with the danger of Pakistani nukes in play.
a capella on October 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM
To all here who have a loved one in the military under this bho, I ask God to be with you and your loved one. This bho makes me sick, he is beyond horrible for our Republic and all who live here.
L
letget on October 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Yeah, defense is the only place Obama and his crack team of tax cheating budget sleuths have been able to find any ‘fat’ to cut.
AUINSC on October 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM
CiC is a looser
hawkman on October 27, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Chuck U Schumer
ted c on October 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Has anyone besides me ever noticed the strong resemblance between Schumer and Red Skelton’s old character Klem Kadiddlehopper(sp?)—and it’s not just facial.
jeanie on October 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I seem to have a bit of a problem getting past the fact that Pakistan has nukes coupled with a less then robust government. I guess I am just a worrier.
Cindy Munford on October 27, 2009 at 1:53 PM
I can’t stand that SOB
deedtrader on October 27, 2009 at 1:53 PM
How much will it cost if the Terrorists set off a few nukes here?
Juno77 on October 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM
New York, you have to vote this guy out.
yoda on October 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Three thousand people died in New York City disproving that particular theory…
Realist on October 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Democrats like Chuck love to throw money…our money…around like there’s no tomorrow. Unfortunately, they won’t throw money at things that are essential…like leaving Afghanistan and Iraq in stable hands. We pull out too soon, and everything, every penny spent, and every American GI who lost life or limb, will be all for nothing.
JetBoy on October 27, 2009 at 1:56 PM
with you there…
the man makes absolutely no sense IMO
cmsinaz on October 27, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Maybe Chuckles can send the hundreds of thousands of Bernie Madoff’s money he accepted to help defray the costs.
JammieWearingFool on October 27, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Yesterday I thought I strongly disliked Pelosi the most. This morning I changed my mind to Harry Reid. Now it is a tie between John F. Kerry (he won 4 purple hearts in Vietnam) and Chuck Schumer. How can one party have so manner scumbags?
ctmom on October 27, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Huh?
The only reason that Pakistan is going after the Taliban and Al Quaeda is because we are in Afghanistan. If we pull out, Pakistan goes back to supporting the Taliban. This is the situation.
With that in mind, the most important strategic goal in that area of the world is getting Pakistna’s nukes, eventually – or somehow rendering them useless. That is the most important issue.
But, seeing as we have a Taliban/Iranian/muslim nuke ally in the White House, I’m not sure what can be done about any of this. Having a traitor as Commander-in-Chief really complicates things. And if you think The Precedent is not a traitor, who is on the side of Iran/Taliban/Pakistani extremists/Hamas/Hexbollah/…, then you haven’t been paying attention.
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 1:57 PM
That is the real question that no one wants to ask much less answer.
Theworldisnotenough on October 27, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Has Schumer been under a rock for the past several months? How much does he believe scarecare will cost?
And where is the support the left claimed to have under the Bush Administation for our military? I sum up their view of the troops currently in Afghanistan with one word:
Abandonment
madmonkphotog on October 27, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I apologize if someone has already stated this, but….
Af-Pak is Obama’s Viet Nam.
Snatching DEFEAT out of the jaws of VICTORY!!!
PappaMac on October 27, 2009 at 1:58 PM
In no small irony, a man from Chuckie’s home borough was arrested today and charged with aiding Hezbollah.
JammieWearingFool on October 27, 2009 at 1:59 PM
The left/liberals/democrat leadership has always and continues to hate the military.
We must defeat these people.
daesleeper on October 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM
OT…………
Lieberman will join GOP fillabuster in Congress if public option is not removed.
Knucklehead on October 27, 2009 at 2:02 PM
OT
On Fox, the only network reporting real news….Lieberman’s won’t vote with the Democrats on the Health Scam!! And RINO, Snowe is out too!!!
yoda on October 27, 2009 at 2:02 PM
One aspect of current western thought has me baffled.
The Delcaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Or, to paraphrase, the Government does not rule without the consent of the people…
Thus, why do we now wage war on Governments, and not the people? We certainly did not in the last War we totaly won… ie WWII.
Until the Afgan people decide it is in THEIR best interest to put in a civilized government, anything we do in Afganistan is subject to failure. Problem is, that we are all carrot, and no stick. We are all forebearance, and no strength.
IMO you can’t Bribe a people into acting rationaly… but you can force them to act so through Fear…
Its time to put the FEAR of Americas might back into our Foreign Policy… like it was there right after 9/11 when the world pretty much thought we’d lost our patience…
Romeo13 on October 27, 2009 at 2:03 PM
I’m all in favor but, at the same time, we need to demand payment from the Iraqis of our related expenses and debt, which could be done by selling it to us over a period of years at a substantial, say, 50% discount in prevailing market prices.
TXUS on October 27, 2009 at 2:04 PM
He’s blowing Iraq, too. Big time.
Both of these cases of the disintegration of our position, and the work we had already done, are fully intentional on The Precedent’s part. He plans to bleed the US militarily the same way he is trying to bleed us domestically with his insane policies.
The Precedent is out for revenge against the US, and that’s about it.
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 2:04 PM
No, Ed, it will be different. The Taliban will promise not to let AQ back in. If that’s not good enough for you then I don’t know what to say…
Kafir on October 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM
I have tried a couple of times already…here`s hoping the next times a charm.I despise that slimy piece of biological underbelly.
NY Conservative on October 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Hear, hear!
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM
The Duke of New York,( Schumer), has an election for his seat in 2010. Why oh why couldn’t the GOP have a star to run against this very wealthy smug jerk.
At least some scandal on this guy should be spread around…He has plenty…Where are the voices in congress telling him what a jerk he is.
nondhimmie on October 27, 2009 at 2:07 PM
First we define victory. Then we declare victory. Problem solved Barak and the democrats are the party peace, justice, and the American way.
meci on October 27, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Good lord . . . Schumer is the epitome of a far left dirtbag.
rplat on October 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM
WARRIORS have to make it any way they can!
Check this vid out,…99cents to help a WARRIOR!!
http://www.thewarriorsong.com/Video.html
christene on October 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Proving that libera…fascist accuse you of doing is exactly what they would do.
jukin on October 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Let me be clear, that’s not that Afghanistan I knew.
txag92 on October 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM
The only time these traitorous bastards care about costs is when it has to do with national security and/or supporting our brave men and women out there who’ve got our backs 24/7.
TXUS on October 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM
It has finally been leaked, Obama’s notes on Afghanistan…it was in his own handwriting so you know he can’t say it wasn’t his.
These are his plans for not only Afghan, but it includes his detailed foreign policy plans. It is obvious why the NYT and the other MSM is hiding this from us.
Here
right2bright on October 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM
I remember when Alfonse D’Amato (the last decent Senator from NY) called him a “putz”, and got into a lot of trouble over that. Seems to me he was quite prescient.
mozemoose on October 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM
My take:
Stability in AfghanistanNational Security is too expensive.If the true be told.
CPT. Charles on October 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Hey, it’s worked for Detroit. Amirite? XP
Orange Doorhinge on October 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM
John Kerry, whom I’m told served in Viet Nam, has stated that McChrystals plans are to far overreaching.
Well, that’s good enough for me!
Where is Hillary???
PappaMac on October 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Actually, I’m warming up to the whole “carpet bomb the region and call it a day” stance.
You can lead a dark-ages culture to modernization, but you can’t make them Tweet. Or something.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM
It’s over folks.
The Dems are surrendering.
It’s Vietnam all over again.
Fasten your seatbelts. Next stop for Al Qaeda ….. a shopping mall or elementary school right down the street.
This, all of this, just for the sake of retaining power in the government. Democrats can go to hell.
fogw on October 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Shrillary is probably still too busy trying to force the wannabe dictator, who attempted a coup, back on Honduras. She’s got her hands full with that. So many enemies of America and Constitutional rule to back and support, so few people in this traitorous adminstration to handle it all.
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM
in other words no total war, no total victory….
very true…we’re too ‘civilized’ to win a war now…
all we achieve are tactical victories…we need to kill a hell of a lot more people to achieve total victory…and we are NOT our forefathers….OBVIOUSLY.
right4life on October 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM
You are asking a little two much from Excel. Certainly the Democrats can at least start keeping their changing positions in a database for us…right?
That way you could look up their positions easily.
Select Obama_Position from socialist_policies where
date = 10/27/09
issue = “Afghanistan”
care = “no”
value_soldiers = “no”
need_distraction = “no”
Output
1 row found
“Dither”
Select Obama_Position from socialist_policies where
date = 10/27/10
issue = “Afghanistan”
care = “no”
value_soldiers = “no”
need_distraction = “yes”
Output
1 row found
“Rubble doesn’t cause trouble!”
18-1 on October 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Between Kerry and Schumer,the Liberal narrative is starting
on Afghanistan!
Soon,State Runned Media will be doing their part as well!!
And Team Liberal is sitting at only about 11 months in!!
The Surrender With Honour commences Liberal style!!
canopfor on October 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Has anyone besides me ever noticed the strong resemblance between Schumer and Red Skelton’s old character Klem Kadiddlehopper(sp?)—and it’s not just facial.
jeanie on October 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM
REALLY dating yourself.
I liked Gertrude and Heathcliff.
faol on October 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM
It’s important to remember
weJimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brezinski played a major role in radicalizing Afghanistan in the first place by creating a plan to focus a new jihad against the Soviet Union, with billions on weapons to fight the Soviets funneled through Pakistan, importing Arab fighters like OBL, and even distributing pro-jihad propaganda written at the U of Nebraska.Jimmah Catah gots a PEACE PRIZE! And Reagan gets all the blame for the resulting backlash, when he actually continued Carter’s policy.
Beagle on October 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM
So now fathers who were soldiers deserted by the liberals in Vietnam get to watch their sons suffer the same fate a generation later.
It’s amazing to me that so many Americans are unwilling to believe that the demorat party doesn’t have an interest in national security or the fate of our military.
Bishop on October 27, 2009 at 2:19 PM
[O/T]: Flaming Skull Alert at AoS
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
Torpedo’s away!
CPT. Charles on October 27, 2009 at 2:19 PM
The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that Iraq was a sophisticated society, albeit a thug ruled one, prior to the war. They had doctors and other skilled professionals. They know what civilization is. The Afghans have no idea how to live as a modern, civilized society. Hence, Iraq was worth trying to stabilize as a free society. Much to my chagrin, I doubt we’ll have the same luck in Afghanistan.
Big John on October 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM
That’s BS. President Bush consistently said he would provide more forces in Iraq if and when his generals there requested them. In addition, it was new and powerful SIGINT capabilities that made the increase in forces successful.
rlwo2008 on October 27, 2009 at 2:21 PM
oh, and it amuses me how much Obama looks like LBJ here.
In the 1964 election, LBJ and the media claimed that Goldwater would get us into a major land war in Vietnam if elected. LBJ after winning the election immediately got the US into a major land war in Vietnam.
Obama in 2008 claimed that he would focus like a laser on Afghanistan, and that Bush and McCain were too distracted on other issues to do so. Well, Obama got elected and then immediately focused his attention on every issue on his plate, except Afghanistan, including the Olympics, regular concerts, his golf game, and crying abut Fox News.
18-1 on October 27, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Those who are responsible for Democratic control of this country resulting in the shafting of those allies who are struggling to escape Islamic terrorism and the American lives lost in past present and future over the Dem lack of leadership and scruples should spend eternity in a room with Schumer listening to him weasel out of of doing the right thing ad infinitum.
I don’t blame these miserable Democratic excuses for human beings, I blame the ones that put them in power.
Hening on October 27, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Careful. That kind of factual analysis can really make some heads explode around this place.
The Calibur on October 27, 2009 at 2:24 PM
So the Administration is sitting tight while the Kerrys and the Schumers run around advocating a bugout.
By the time Obama gets around to acting on it we’ll have seen half the Democrats in the Senate and a few from the House peddling this line.
Meanwhile the Taleban are sitting around studying up on their Giap, waiting out the Americans.
JEM on October 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
You make a good point on the change of direction but the problem is how do you determine that you won and it’s time to go home when the enemy is in and among the people and wears no uniforms? in other words, although we were fighting entire nations in WWII, they had a recognized authority that had to be defeated. Now, you just have tribe x, y and z who may or may not decide they are defeated based on who is camping nearby that week.
Tribal politics + islamic politics (it’s ok to lie to your enemy about truces, etc.) + family/blood affiliations make the whole thing so toxic I’m not sure anyone has the answer. One thing’s for sure though: tribal and family issues never demanded going across the freaking world and blowing up 3,000 people just because they were there.
WitchDoctor on October 27, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I’m starting to feel that way too. If you can’t control your country, then it’s threat to us. Therefore, we need to get rid of the threat, and it’s not our job to ensure they have flushing toliets. They need to fear us and consequences of damage to us, they are not our friends.
Oil Can on October 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM
So did Matthew Hoh:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html
Leadership.
Otis B on October 27, 2009 at 2:33 PM
More so, they are reading the writings of Osama Bin Laden… who predicted this very thing.
Osama’s entire battle plan is based on the Wests inability to wage total war (due to Western wimpyness)… and the Wests inability to fight a LONG war (due to internal politics and the way we shift Governments).
Romeo13 on October 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I thought by now the Tallyban were supposed to love us and wouldn’t be fighting us anymore.
God Bless the troops who doing their best to protect us from enemies both in front of them and behind them.
pedestrian on October 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I’m sure an ignominious Western retreat from Afghanistan won’t have any lasting consequences.
Mike Honcho on October 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Keep in mind, he also stated there is nothing wrong with a little “pork”.
elderberry on October 27, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Good one. I bit on that like a big mouth bass!
Gang-of-One on October 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM
The more civilians you kill and displace the more enemies you create, ultimately leading to an unstoppable spiral. Our funds would be better spent here at home defending our borders.
The Calibur on October 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM
As I’ve postulated here before… IMO its time to bring back the Medival idea of a Punishment Raid.
Those Raids were not there to take and hold an area, but to do economic damage weakening your adversary.
Todays version would be primarily conducted through Air strikes… you bomb their economic infrastructure… communications, power, bridges, factories, and the most expensive item for most countries their military… sending them back to a medival economy…
Revisionist history aside, Viet Nam came to the Peace table when Linebacker II essentialy destroyed their ability to produce anything modern… and with modern saty surveilance, we can do even better.
Punish the people, and the Government, and they WILL change direction…. may not be our friends, but they will certainly be scared to be our enemy.
Romeo13 on October 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Properly placing the blame for the Afghanistan mujahideen blowback (not “backlash”) on Carter instead of Reagan will make heads explode?
Beagle on October 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM
So, by your theory we are still fighting the Germans and Japanese?
Historicly inaccurate.
Romeo13 on October 27, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Well more so to the point that a lot of our headaches in the middle east are self created and bi-partisan.
The Calibur on October 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Romeo,
Didn’t General Sherman use Total War ideals during the Civil War to end it? He went after their economy and transportation and the South last the will to fight?
Oil Can on October 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Why–for the love of God–do my fellow New Yorkers keep electing this treacherous cretin to the Senate?
Schumer is a left-wing radical and a danger to this country.
His policies virtually guarantee another 9/11-scale attack (or worse).
He also opposes the second amendment and basically… well, he opposes the constitution, the declaration of independence and the principles upon which this country were founded.
Like his hero Obama, Schumer hates this country and wants to see it punished.
Chlorian Theoreticus on October 27, 2009 at 2:47 PM
You would think that the Senior Senator from NY would be more concerned about failed states and domestic terrorist attacks….. just sayin’
highhopes on October 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Historically a horrible comparison.
You’re comparing a standing army with government accountability to random Arab people around the world with weapons. They have no accountability to the populace and can’t be over thrown because they control nothing. They just provide more opportunity to Arab civilians than we or their governments do, plain and simple. If that wasn’t the case, what would they be fighting us for?
The Calibur on October 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Actualy, not.
If a Govenrment cannot control through law, the acts of its populace, then it needs to do more. If acts of WAR are being perpertrated by the citizens of a country, it is up to THAT country to do somthing about it… or be punished for that lack of action.
Most of these Middle East countries SUPPORT the Jihad… through their LACK of action. If they wanted to squash it, it would be squashed.
Problem is that they won’t do what is needed due to religious concerns… and because the West won’t Biatch Slap Iran (who is funding a lot of this activity).
Romeo13 on October 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Bullsh!t. Kuwait just ejected 400,000 palestinians right after the first Gulf War. Where were the war cries against Kuwait and the suicide bombings and airport machine gun attacks against Kuwaitis? Where is there any complaint by the palestinians about the Kuwaitis?
You don’t understand the arab/persian/muslim world. Killing them doesn’t get them too riled up. Life is pretty cheap out there. They kill each other over nothing. Showing weakness to them is what spurs them to war. It’s been so for thousands of years and everyone there knows it.
I don’t know where this idea that you’re peddling caught root. Certainly not from WWII, where the exact opposite was the lesson. Not from the Civil War. Not from any of our earlier wars. But, then, we won all of those. It’s only when we needed some sort of justification for not winning (as Truman decided with Korea that we no longer go to war to win, but to not lose) that the thinking you’re espousing gained some credibility in conversation … like the “torture doesn’t work” one and the “waterboarding is torture” one. These are all ridiculously stupid and go against our knowledge from any winning war or campaign in all of human history. But it “almost fits” for all the ties and losses.
progressoverpeace on October 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Com’on. It shouldn’t be that hard to dig up Chuckie Schumer’s “Afghan being a good war’ clip(s).
Sir Napsalot on October 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »