Skip to main content

The continuing triumph of interventionist American foreign policy around the Indian sub-continent

Afghanistan is the front-line in the war on terror, which is synonymous with the war against Islamic extremism, right?

So let's do a headline round-up to see how well we're doing.

Pakistan has punted and allowed their own locally-grown Taliban supporters to replace the government's existing laws with sharia law in the country' northwest province.

Maybe this is a sop to the militants after another US drone strike kills 31 people there. What the hell, those people are all militants--they deserve it.

Meanwhile, the Taliban, which does not seem to understand that they are only allowed to fight in Afghanistan, is kidnapping people off the streets of New York.

So US envoy Richard Holbrooke is telling India this is all a really dangerous development...

Meanwhile, purely in the interest of regional peace, Israel has bumped Russia out of the number one slot as the major weapons supplier for India, adding significantly to the $9 Billion it has already sold there....

But that's OK, since Israel at least has a coherent foreign policy, including flouting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (with tacit American support), while semi-publically announcing its new covert war against the Iranian nuclear program [assassins, not bombers], and grabbing another 432 acres in the West Bank to insure that its new confused coalition government will start its work in an era of peace and stability.

Iran meanwhile moves to strengthen its air defense system, which Russia [India's Number Two arms supplier and the nation we're now dickering with to allow military supplies into Afghanistan] assures the US won't include any of those S-3000 air defense missiles that Vladi Putin swears he didn't sell to Teheran. Never mind those high-level Russian-Iranian military talks going on.

We're now shipping supplies to Afghanistan across Russia because Vlad also talked Kyrghyzistan into shutting down our bases there and evicting our troops.

In the midst of all this, 3,000 of my brothers and sisters of the 10th Mountain Division have arrived in Afghanistan as the spearhead of the surge that is supposed to fix the whole mess.

Which is really confusing, because last week the President wasn't sure whether he was going to order a surge or not....

Maybe the President ought to be paying attention to the former Soviet troops who left Afghanistan with their tails between their legs in 1979:

"It's like fighting sand. No force in the world can get the better of the Afghans," Oleg Kubanov, a former officer, said at an anniversary concert in Moscow.

"It's their holy land, it doesn't matter to them if you're Russian, American. We're all soldiers to them."...

The last Soviet soldier to leave was the commander of its forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General Boris Gromov, who crossed the Friendship Bridge across the Amu Darya river into Soviet Uzbekistan at midday on February 15.

"I am convinced of one thing. That it is irresponsible to forget about lessons like Afghanistan," Gromov, now the governor of the Moscow region, told Russia's Rossiskaya Gazeta daily.

The US, which led its own invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, is preparing to pour more troops into the country in an attempt to tackle a surge in Taliban-led violence

Russian veterans have warned that the US is set to relive the nightmare faced by the Soviet forces.

"They'll send more in and they'll lose more," Andrei Bandarenko, a former special forces officer, said of the US plans.

"What does Obama [the US president] know about the situation on the ground?"

Shamil Tyukteyev, who lead a regiment in Afghanistan between 1986 and 1988, also said that the extra troops would only make the situation worse.

"You can't put a soldier outside every house or a base on every mountain. We saw it ourselves, the more troops, the more resistance," he said.


Remind me, again, exactly what we're accomplishing by remaining in Afghanistan?

Better yet, somebody remind the President, before he gets around to gambling with another 30,000 American soldiers' lives....

And you wonder why the MSM doesn't give you foreign policy coverage?

Because it's actually scarier and more convoluted than talking about the government taking over control of America's banks....

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...