NATO to Taliban: Don't worry, we'll send more victims...

... because Afghanistan doesn't have enough targets already...

NATO yesterday called for a civilian surge to match the upcoming American military surge:

KRAKOW, Poland (AFP) – NATO called Thursday for a "civilian surge" in Afghanistan to boost reconstruction and help spread democracy as the military alliance battles to overcome a Taliban-led insurgency.

Warning of the price of failure in Afghanistan, where NATO has undertaken its biggest and most challenging mission ever, alliance Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer appealed for new efforts ahead of elections in August.

"It is not only a matter of more forces in Afghanistan, we need an equal civilian surge as well," he told reporters in Krakow, southern Poland, after chairing informal talks between NATO defence ministers.

He called on international institutions like the United Nations and the European Union, to help provide "more development, more support for governance and more institution building."

This is idiotic on too many levels to count.

But let's try the basic question: why are we in Afghanistan in the first place?

I'll make it multiple choice...

A) Because we need to do nation-building at the frontline of the war on terrorism

B) Because Afghanistan has ten times the reserves of oil and natural gas previously thought, and major multinationals are building major pipelines through the mountains

C) Because we need to keep Iran surrounded in case we want to invade later

D) Because all those bazillions of weapons being used there create good American jobs

Comments

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 ...

Search This Blog