David Kilcullen writes that Afghanistan is still winnable. But only just. In a George Packer-edited New Yorker email interview Kilcullen summarizes the problem: (hat tip Small Wars Journal)
(1) We have failed to secure the Afghan people. That is, we have failed to deliver them a well-founded feeling of security. Our failing lies as much in providing human security—economic and social wellbeing, law and order, trust in institutions and hope for the future—as in protection from the Taliban, narco-traffickers, and terrorists. In particular, we have spent too much effort chasing and attacking an elusive enemy who has nothing he needs to defend—and so can always run away to fight another day—and too little effort in securing the people where they sleep. (And doing this would not take nearly as many extra troops as some people think, but rather a different focus of operations).
(2) We have failed to deal with the Pakistani sanctuary that forms the political base and operational support system for the Taliban, and which creates a protective cocoon (abetted by the fecklessness or complicity of some elements in Pakistan) around senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.
(3) The Afghan government has not delivered legitimate, good governance to Afghans at the local level—with the emphasis on good governance. In some areas, we have left a vacuum that the Taliban has filled, in other areas some of the Afghan government’s own representatives have been seen as inefficient, corrupt, or exploitative.
(4) Neither we nor the Afghans are organized, staffed, or resourced to do these three things (secure the people, deal with the safe haven, and govern legitimately and well at the local level)—partly because of poor coalition management, partly because of the strategic distraction and resource scarcity caused by Iraq, and partly because, to date, we have given only episodic attention to the war.
One of Kilcullen’s most interesting observations is which he believes to be the central front on terrorism. Is it Iraq or Afghanistan? It is neither.
Pakistan is extremely important; indeed, Pakistan (rather than either Afghanistan or Iraq) is the central front of world terrorism. The problem is time frame: it takes six to nine months to plan an attack of the scale of 9/11, so we need a “counter-sanctuary” strategy that delivers over that time frame, to prevent al Qaeda from using its Pakistan safe haven to mount another attack on the West. This means that building an effective nation-state in Pakistan, though an important and noble objective, cannot be our sole solution—nation-building in Pakistan is a twenty to thirty year project, minimum, if indeed it proves possible at all—i.e. nation-building doesn’t deliver in the time frame we need. So we need a short-term counter-sanctuary program, a long-term nation-building program to ultimately resolve the problem, and a medium-term “bridging” strategy (five to ten years)—counterinsurgency, in essence—that gets us from here to there. That middle part is the weakest link right now. …
On what Obama should do:
Well, I don’t have his ear, and I don’t envy the pressure he must be under. But if I did have his ear, I think I would argue for the four major points we discussed above. First, the draw-down in Iraq needs to be conditions-based and needs to recognize how fragile our gains there have been, and our moral obligation to Iraqis who have trusted us. As I said, we don’t want to un-bog ourselves from Iraq only to get bogged in Afghanistan while Iraq turns bad again. Second, our priorities in Afghanistan should be security, governance, and dealing with the Pakistan safe haven—and we may not necessarily need that many more combat troops to do so. Third, the Afghan elections of September 2009 are a key milestone—we can’t just muddle through, and the key problem is political: delivering effective and legitimate governance that meets Afghans’ needs. And finally, most importantly, this is a wartime transition and we can’t afford the normal nine-month hiatus while we put the new Administration in place: the war in Afghanistan will be won or lost in the next fighting season, i.e. by the time of the September elections.
The bottom line here is that the War on Terror is far from over. Whether we are, as Churchill once said, not at the beginning of the end, but at least at the end of the beginning ultimately depends on whether there is a consensus in the West that can sustain the long campaign that Kilcullen describes. The limp response from NATO and the desire for quick fixes suggests that while the road to ultimate victory may be known, we may not want to go there. Where we will go on the road of quick fixes is another story.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
39 Comments
1. Mike Sylwester:The people who won the US election a couple weeks ago believe firmly that military efforts abroad are futile, doomed to failure, and colossal wastes of money.
Obama’s talk about shifting our military effort from Iraq to Afghanistan was a false promise. Now that he has been elected, he intends only to withdraw our military forces from both places without causing immediate fiascos.
And then he will begin to withdraw money gradually from the USA’s military budgets into its civilian budgets.
The War on Terror is over. We are removing all secret military controls and returning to public civilian control of all decisions.
All captives now being detained by the US military soon will be transfered to civilian courts, which will release all who cannot be convicted in accordance with civilian law.
All blocks on terrorist-related bank accounts and transactions will be removed unless the blocks can be maintained by civilian courts deciding on the basis of publicly provided and disputed information.
We no longer will pressure or bribe any foreign governments to fight for us abroad or even provide any special transit or basing rights abroad for our military forces. We will conduct military operations abroad only for humanitarian purposes and only in concert with the United Nations.
The people who won the election don’t even want the USA to be “The World’s Policeman” any more. They want the United Nations to fulfill that function.
They don’t even want the USA to use any military threats or force — or anything else more than diplomatic persuasion — to try to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among morally retarded and primitive countries.
The USA is moving quickly into a posture of pacifism and isolationism. Our population expects wars in the Middle East and Africa and elsewhere and doesn’t think we can prevent any of those wars and doesn’t want any part of those wars.
Nov 15, 2008 - 12:41 pm 2. Lifeofthemind:It will get worse. Sorry Wretchard you are offering excellent subjects well crafted. I for one will not retreat into depression or submission. It does however become hard to find something useful to add to the conversation. Our debates here were always on the order of Armchair Generals in the Club critiquing what the young staff was up to. That implied that we could at least suggest ways to make things better. We could debate some proposed action, by the Armed Forces, the Intelligence community, the financial world or even by brave academics, which could be taken. The problem now is that with Obama coming in and the Treason of the Clerics almost complete there are no tools left for us to recommend. What do you do when you can not even win in Fantasy Football? All that is left is prayer.
Keep trying though, maybe we can get out of this rut somehow.
Nov 15, 2008 - 1:05 pm 3. NahnCee:I think for America, the War on Terror is over. We can say honestly that we won in Iraq and pull out of there. If they then revert back to savagery, so sad, too bad, but what do you expect of the Middle East on its own?
We will say we gave it our best shot in Afghanistan and it’s unfortunate that we have to leave, but we really need those billions of dollars back home now so Afghanistan is going to have to self-determine now because we simply do not have the time nor money to rebuild that country from scratch like we did in Iraq. And we’ll pull out.
We will say we treated Pakistan as a tippy-top ally and they stabbed us in the back so we’d be damned fools to pour good money after bad, and we’ll leave that country twisting slowly in the breeze under the watchful and decidedly unfriendly gaze of neighbor India whom we’ve bequeathed some extremely large clubs to pound Pakistan with when the time comes.
Obama will pull us out of everywhere and will focus on meeting with the UN, meeting with NATO heads, meeting with OPEC, and with … just … meeting.
When there’s another attack on American soil, we will be *extremely* lucky if Obama gets it together to launch a retaliatory missile like Bubba did. He won’t have the gonads to nuke anyone in America’s defense and he certainly will not launch a full-scale invasive war to root out evil-doers.
The world hated the War on Terror and bitched for years about American arrogance and hegemony. Are they ever going to enjoy life with America knitting mildly on the side-lines and Al-Queda, Iran, Russia and the Taliban frolicking through the streets and cities of the world thinking up new ways to kill people and more efficient ways to torture them before they’re actually dead.
Nov 15, 2008 - 2:16 pm 4. hdgreene:I think Mike gives a good description of the attitude of President Elect Obama’s supporters. But if George Bush gets out of office without a 9/11 repeat then Obama has a problem: How does he prevent one on his watch? Having the US air force in Afghanistan is a good deterrent. I’m sure the tribes that dominate the tribal belt don’t want B-52s dropping smart bombs on every vehicle that moves. The once or twice a week hellfire missile through the kitchen window is likely already causing involuntary twitches.
It’s also possible the Pashtun hosts are turning over targeting information for the AQ types that are planning attacks on the West. Ultimately the Pashtun are responsible for the behavior of the bad boys and my guess is they would like to contain the conflict within parameters that have been tacitly agreed upon by the parties.
Are the tribal leaders ready to endure the kind of bombardment and the arming of dissident elements that the Taliban faced in 2001? Maybe, but only for a “Spectacular” greater than 9/11 (which was insufficient to deter a US response).
If Obama signals our enemies he won’t turn nasty than all bets are off. I think he might negotiate a US withdrawal from Afghanistan in return for Bin Laden and other AQ leaders (they could be killed during the raids).
My guess is the next major terror attack on US soil will open a multiple attack terror offensive and will occur after Iran has a couple dozen nukes. The offensive will be the precursor to a major war in the Middle East — launched by Iranian Revolutionaries in a last, desperate gamble before their economy crumbles (they’ll start by grabbing shiite populated oil producing regions). This war will draw in Russia, China, India, Pakistan and possibly Europe but not the US, which will be too weak to effectively respond but too strong to further provoke. It will happen in 2012 when the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world. It was the flood before. It’s the fire next time.
President Obama will win reelection on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” Two years later he will be forced to intervene in the Middle East and South Asia.
The 21st century will be yet another American Century. I don’t know about the 22nd. I haven’t thought that far ahead.
Nov 15, 2008 - 2:17 pm 5. Charles:According to Michael Yon the war in Iraq is over now and we won.
Nov 15, 2008 - 2:30 pm 6. Cannoneer No. 4:The bottom line here is that American momentum, initiative, and progress towards victory in the War on Terror are pretty much over.
The people who don’t really believe Western Civilization deserves to survive are now in charge of its most powerful bastion. Perhaps the regime change that has recently taken place in America was exactly what the attacks of seven years ago were meant to accomplish.
Violent terrorism is just the kinetic component of Psychological Operations (PSYOP). The Westphalian nation-state referred to as the United States of America has been out-PSYOPed by Non-Governmental Organizations reaping the harvest planted by the Soviets over the last century. Those of us who still wish to be counted among the Defenders of Western Civilization must improvise, adapt, overcome, resist and oppose hostile Governmental and NGO’s with our own networks strategically communicating counter narratives.
Nov 15, 2008 - 3:08 pm 7. Herb:Cannoneer said, in another venue, “When a job needs to get done and the government isn’t doing it, who steps up? Who is left?”
Tommy Atkins
GI Joe
Doughboys
Diggers
Devil Dogs
They’ll answer the call when it comes. Too late. Too hard. Too bloody. They’ll bleed for us who are too old. And for those of us who are too stupid to anticipate the cost of not recognizing evil when it comes at us. And for those who dont value what we have.
They’ll buy us another generation of “peace” long enough for most to forget the price of peace.
Sad, but too regular to be accidental.
C’neer is right to worry. There are fewer and fewer of the Sheepdogs. I regularly see the current crop going to and from Iraq and Afghanistan at the USO in Atlanta. These are truly our finest people. I dont see their equal on any street. But somehow we find them and they step up.
Nov 15, 2008 - 3:46 pm 8. whiskey:Yes the War on Terror is … on pause until AQ nukes a major Western city, courtesy of either Iranian or Pakistani nukes.
THEN it is a race to see who can survive the counter-nuking and nuking by simply killing all potential enemies, who cannot be deterred, or hit with a hamstrung, weak conventional forces.
With the election of Obama this became inevitable.
Nov 15, 2008 - 3:51 pm 9. Cannoneer No. 4:GI Joe, Doughboys and Devil Dogs all work for The Government, herb.
Many who answered the call are having second thoughts.
What happens to a flock that rejects its sheep dogs?
Nov 15, 2008 - 4:21 pm 10. MarkL:Panic.
The commentators here are forgetting the role inexperience and a ‘kumbaya redneck’ view – which characterises the left – of the world brings. Whereas pres. Bush was experienced and knew enough, D’OH!bama and his motley crew will not be, and everyone knows it. This pushes up the agenda, to hit the continental US inside the first 12 months of the new administration if possible.
So let us assume a major strike on the scale of 11Sep. When Bush got the word (and remember how new a President he was then), you could see him withdrawing inside his head and considering the options. He walked out of that school with a plan. Sure, it changed as data flowed in, but the response was measured and in accordance with that plan developed in the first few minutes.
D’OH!bama lacks anything like the level of experience of Bush. I contend that his administration will contain fewer level heads, less experience, and a greater propensity to take the most extreme measures first. In short, I contend that this new administration will be easier to ‘fool’, more gullible, more likely to believe the fever-dream that ‘they *really do* think like us and all this holy jihad stuff is just blather’. Now, when that bubble is burst, they are much more likely to panic.
Especially if the attack is aimed at administration figures *personally*. Say a nerve gas or biowar attack on Washington.
Three Conjectures, I know.
MarkL
Nov 15, 2008 - 4:32 pm 11. Bill Hocter:canberra
I think Kilcullen makes some good suggestions about how to proceed and rightly acknowledges the problems inherent in dealing with the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I think that where he errs is the sense of time urgency, i.e., that is that the next year is necessarily critical. It’s difficult to imagine a Mao, or Ho, or Fidel implying to the faithful that time is running out. Those guys would rally the troops from a cave or some jungle swamp. It’s not over while you’re alive and still fighting.
I remember well the pessimism of the late 70s-the world was coming to an end, the Russians would win it all, etc. Even the Catholic Church appeared to be despairing through Liberation Theology. But things turned around rather suddenly. So be of good cheer.
Nov 15, 2008 - 4:55 pm 12. NahnCee:Don’t worry … be happy.
I *am* of good cheer. I’m very much looking forward to snarling “I *told* you so!” attacks on all the blithering liberals I know who have lectured me on the greatness of Obama. If they’re still alive after it happens.
Nov 15, 2008 - 5:11 pm 13. Mongoose:Cannoner: Another way to looks at it is the the battle has shifted to the home front. It is not really a WOT, it is a war for the survival of our civilization. The islamicist front is only one front, one enemy. The one at home is the most deadly. The WOT may have actually postponed what has occurred this election.
Of course, isolationism will not work. Russia, China will be encouraged to further aid our enemies. It will take even more blood and treasure to reassure allies the next time the wolf bites. It will be a set back similar to Viet Nam.
But i wonder, are all of these fiends stronger than us? Can such people really destroy what is left of the West. If so we deserve to go down.
Perhaps this is a way to finally get it before the America people what is really going on. It was only 52%. It is not ver yet.
But we need to stop being timid and call things by their real names. As often as we can. We have to take it to the people somehow. It is the only chance we have.
Nov 15, 2008 - 5:23 pm 14. Stew:Please. Obama is stocking up on Clinton cronies….”change we need”. We will get what we got in the 90’s …African embassy bombings, USS Cole, Mogadishu,Khobar Towers.
Nov 15, 2008 - 5:46 pm 15. exhelodrvr:Obama has been pretty consistent in proclaiming the importance of Afghanistan.
I suspect that he will follow through on this line of thinking; it is a likely win if handled properly, and would be an excellent start on his 2012 campaign. That would take away the “soft on security” argument from the Republicans. And with the surge having been so successful in Iraq, he can shift resources without endangering the gains in Iraq. And he’s too smart not to realize that.
Nov 15, 2008 - 6:25 pm 16. NahnCee:Yep, that’s what he’s doing alright. It makes no sense to me, because Madelaine Albright, et al, will be making midnight phone calls to Bubba and Hillary and then doing what Billary tell them to do, not what Obama wants. Which is OK with me, since Billary are more pro-American than B. Hussein but I don’t understand the thinking or tactics on the part of the Obama people in doing it that way.
Be interesting to see whose names are on the guest lists when and if Obama and his angry black wife start entertaining in the White House. And who will be put in charge of the inauguration festivities and who will be invited to them. I will vomit if Rosie O’Donnell or Whoopie Goldberg are tapped to M.C.
Nov 15, 2008 - 6:28 pm 17. Cannoneer No. 4:The End of the Beginning from 2006.
Whether or not all of these fiends are stronger than us depends, mongoose, upon who “we” include as part of “us”. My part of “us” doesn’t deserve to go down, and if “we” do, it’ll be swinging, and “we” will take a lot of “them” down with “us”. “We” will take even more down if “we” make best use of the next 65 days to prepare “ourselves” for the hard times ahead.
Nov 15, 2008 - 8:38 pm 18. fred:Most people I know who voted for Oobonga and were against prosecuting this war from pretty much not long after 9/11 are generally not informed about the nature of this enemy and how vulnerable our entire civilization is. They get their news and perspective from the MSM. They are generally isolationists and pacifists. They think if we withdraw from the Middle East and let the wolves devour Israel that dar al Islam will leave us alone. Overwhelmingly, they think our two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan are a waste of blood and treasure. They are GREEDY for those funds to be here at home funding goodies from da guvmint.
I don’t think Oobonga would retaliate if we were hit hard by Islamic terrorists, and he is going to completely avoid confronting China and Russia. Anyone who thinks that Joe Biden’s description of Oobonga as having “a spine of steel” has done zero homework about the man’s background and thinking.
But I don’t think this is a permanent state of being in our country, because the nation is deeply polarized over this and other issues. There are two opposing camps with totally opposite worldviews and I don’t see either side giving in. So, in order for the nation and our civilization to survive, well, you know what I’m about to write next…
Nov 15, 2008 - 9:18 pm 19. fred:Cannoneer #4,
Do you really think we cannot ever now pull back from the abyss? Maybe the only way we can save our civilization is to cut out part of it – perhaps violently if it must come to that.
Nov 15, 2008 - 9:27 pm 20. fred:I might add that Russia has, from the very beginning of the recrudescence of Islamic jihad in the 20th century after 1948, been the biggest sponsor of Islamic terror states and organizations. And right now enables Iran to survive and advance its programs.
Russia + Iran + North Korea = Big Trouble for the West.
Nov 15, 2008 - 9:38 pm 21. Cannoneer No. 4:Hard times are coming, Fred. How hard? Hard enough. Prepare for worst-case scenarios and be pleasantly surprised if things don’t turn out quite that bad.
Nov 15, 2008 - 10:29 pm 22. cjm:russia+iran+pdrk == manny, moe, and jack
Nov 15, 2008 - 10:41 pm 23. M. Simon:Well the Drug War chickens have turned into pterodactyls and they are chasing us:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/11/from-drug-war-to-real-war.html
Why not do something strategic: end drug prohibition and make the Afghan farmers dependent on government food until they can find another line of work?
Nov 15, 2008 - 11:09 pm 24. whiskey:Winning in Afghanistan requires more than hope and change. It requires massive amounts of money, many deals that include massive threats that are credible (to nuke Pakistan summarily out of existence, in short to realistically threaten to kill about 170 million people), much bloodshed (around 20,000 US dead minimum) and massive amounts of troops on the ground, supplied by a cowed and beaten Pakistan.
This is not in the cards, no one believes that Obama will put America first over Pakistan, to be blunt about it. Not even Obama’s own people. He’s stated he will if forced to choose, side with Muslims over America. His own words.
Of course we will go down to bitter, awful defeat. like the Alamo and Wake Island combined, most of our forces there wiped out, the worst defeat in American history. Obama will play the race card, like he always does, but it will only enrage the rest of America and lead to huge turmoil. With Obama getting impeached, likely, along with Biden and some figurehead appointed by emergency.
The other issue is Pakistan’s nukes. It might not be America that is the target. Denmark or Germany make inviting targets, both have “offensive” people who do things that enrage Muslims, without the ability to retaliate. If either Berlin or Copenhagen get nuked out of existence, expect every nation in the world to frantically build it’s own ICBM forces, and trade to just STOP. A new Dark Ages where every available cent is spent on nuclear forces to hit anywhere in the world.
The Alternative to Pax Americana is not the Age of Aquarius, but the Dark Ages.
Nov 15, 2008 - 11:19 pm 25. NahnCee:Fred, disagree. I think the moonbats are a tiny percentage and that the silent majority will immediately roll over on Obama if he doesn’t nuke in retaliation. Which, I agree, that he will not.
Although I now dislike Peggy Noonan, her article about America choosing to throw long and risk voting in Obama speaks to me. Many of the Obama voters I have heard have talked about “giving him a chance” and “wanting a change, even if I don’t like what that change is”. I think most Americans are carefully watching Obama and will allow him to place his cronies and play Chicago politics for a while.
But if America is hit again and he does nothing but talk talk in return, his days are numbered in the White House.
Nov 15, 2008 - 11:21 pm 26. Dave:M Simon your #23: Buy the opium plant—-the whole thing, not just the buds—-. Convert it all to petroleum.
You will get a nominal 3 barrels per acre. Two barrels for sure considering the circumstances. That will pro-rate to 2000 barrels a day over the course of a year.
Treat the input with bacteria and the output per acre goes way up.
I too would like to scrap the drug laws. As that does not appear to be in the works, let us see if we can nuetralize some of their ill effects by methods such as these.
Nov 16, 2008 - 12:05 am 27. Eggplant:Hdgreene said:
“… if George Bush gets out of office without a 9/11 repeat then Obama has a problem: How does he prevent one on his watch?”
NahnCee said:
“… if America is hit again and he [Obama] does nothing but talk talk in return, his days are numbered in the White House.”
For what I’ve got my fingers crossed is that al Qaeda will not be able to launch a major terrorist operation in America or Europe until after George Bush has left office. Then as Hdgreene and NahnCee had said, Obama will either have to continue in President Bush’s policies against al Qaeda (which Obama can’t really do since he campaigned against those very policies) or do something different and then suffer the political consquences after al Qaeda launches their next attack.
Obama has really painted himself into a corner. The moonbats are expecting some sort of socialist utopia to appear by magic due to Obama but that’s not going to happen because there’s no money for it. Likewise people expect Obama to do something about the economy but that’s really outside of his control (that problem belongs to the US Congress and the Federal Reserve). Finally, people will demand that Obama do at least as good a job as Bush did for national security but again that’s not going to happen because Obama campaigned against effective anti-terrorist policy.
Even before assuming office, Obama is already in checkmate.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Nov 16, 2008 - 1:36 am 28. buddy larsen:I blame Bush. He has protected the US mainland all these years just so he could make Obama look bad.
Nov 16, 2008 - 4:10 am 29. Paul:Obama will either have to continue in President Bush’s policies against al Qaeda (which Obama can’t really do since he campaigned against those very policies) or do something different and then suffer the political consquences after al Qaeda launches their next attack.
President Obama: “As I’ve said all along, we must treat countries that harbor terrorists just as we would the terrorists.”
Media Lap Dogs: “President Obama repeated his calls for a tougher anti-terrorism policy to avoid the mistakes th Bush Administration made ….”
Nov 16, 2008 - 6:34 am 30. dull as dirt:The USA is moving quickly into a posture of pacifism and isolationism. – Mike Sylwester
Fine by me as long as we’re sitting on a bad-@ss military. I wouldn’t mind a “take five (years)” breather to allow some quality face time for the rest of the world to catch up.
Mika argues that man cannot govern when weapons are part of the equation. As an ultimate end point, I think that’s accurate, but as a near-term objective, no. The saintly side of mankind may yet win out, but today, it’s the sinner that has center stage.
Nov 16, 2008 - 7:04 am 31. Jay:The Obamites are now talking about forcing Israel to agree to a phony peace and get rid of their nukes. Obama is a friend of the Muslim world. Rahm will help facilitate this policy shift.
Nov 16, 2008 - 8:53 am 32. fred:Yes, I also heard the Oobonga administration wants Israel to give up its nukes AND the Golan. The pretty much want Israel to be a** raped by dar al Islam. Even though Israel has never threatened its neighbors with its nukes and its arsenal is strictly a weapon of deterrence.
Plus, these knuckleheads consider our own arsenal as an offensive weapon. So, there goes MAD – a policy that has kept us safe from the Soviets and other predators. They don’t even believe in the ballistic missile shield. So, they pretty much are down with the reality that we could be a** raped too.
Giving up the Golan to Syria pretty much finishes off the Jewish state, since Syria will then have an amazing position from which to finish off the Zionist entity.
Nov 16, 2008 - 9:43 am 33. NahnCee:No one thinks that Israel (/America) is gonna nuke Iran before Bush leaves office? And maybe Syria at the same time?
… wishful thinking …
Nov 16, 2008 - 11:16 am 34. buddy larsen:Fred –yes, not just the elevation but the water.
Nov 16, 2008 - 11:40 am 35. Habu:DAVE…..”Buy the opium plant—-the whole thing, not just the buds—-. Convert it all to petroleum.”
That would make it hight test wouldn’t it?
Nov 16, 2008 - 12:59 pm 36. Stew:What am I missing? Rahm’s a Jew. Is he going to sell out his own?
Nov 16, 2008 - 5:50 pm 37. NahnCee:The ARabs don’t think so. All the Middle East on-line newspapers are up in arms over his appointment, certain-sure that he’s been named just to be mean to the Palestinians.
Nov 16, 2008 - 7:08 pm 38. Eggplant:NahnCee asked:
“No one thinks that Israel (/America) is gonna nuke Iran before Bush leaves office? And maybe Syria at the same time?”
No way. Bush is now a complete lame duck. If he gave such an order it would be ignored. Iran is now Obama’s problem (heaven help us).
Nov 16, 2008 - 10:31 pm 39. 11-17-08 | Drive Time Happy Hour:[...] Richard Fernandez: David Kilcullen writes that Afghanistan is still winnable. But only just…The bottom line here is that the War on Terror is far from over. Whether we are, as Churchill once said, not at the beginning of the end, but at least at the end of the beginning ultimately depends on whether there is a consensus in the West that can sustain the long campaign that Kilcullen describes. [...]
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:27 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.