Community Comment

Investing in the War in Aghanistan…

Posted by Dave

Dec. 3, 2009 7:56 a.m. • 45 comments

Good morning, Netizens…

It’s another wonderful day in the frigid Northwest this morning and cartoonist David Horsey is painting a picture of the obvious after President Barak Obama’s Tuesday night speech on the War in Afghanistan. Until that speech it could easily be said that Obama inherited the Afghan war from his predecessor which, although a thin line of rationale, is a line nonetheless.

However, now that President Obama has tentatively agreed to send more troops to that Stygian wasteland called Afghanistan, he has put his fingerprints all over the war he inherited.

The real questions now as when the war began are:

Where is the head of Osama Bin Laden?

When will we capture or kill him so we can finally see closure for the victims of 9/11?

So as I step through the frost this morning, I cannot help but wonder what others think of President Obama’s plan?

Dave

45 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

JeanieSpokane on December 03 at 10:48 a.m.
I am worried - but on the other hand, I have always, always felt we failed all the victims of 9/11 by NOT feverishly finding and killing Osama Bin Laden. Who is STILL a terrible threat to America.
Fuschia on December 03 at 11:11 a.m.
Pottery Barn “You break it, you buy it”.

I did notice mention of an “exit strategy” albeit, I didnt see it.

Kinda reminds me of the KXLY Dream Team of House Renovators. They run in, fix it all up in 48 hours, pat each other on the back and take lots of pictures, and then leave the poor owner to deal with it.

I hope they see the movie Charlie Wilson’s war.

Afganistan is just one BIG nasty country. 800 x 400 miles. Almost the size of California and Nevada combined.
Bordered by the “Stan brothers to the north”, Iran to the west and Pakistan to the ESE and China to the far east. Any one ask their neighbors if its ok to INVADE? 1/2 the Country is over 10,000’ high. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_topo_en.jpg

Its the Middle in the Middle east where the Silk road ran for nearly 1500 years.

The Soviets couldn’t tame them. It was their Vietnam.

I dont think 30,000 troops will do the job. Only about 1/3 are trigger pullers/grunts and thats not going to do the job.

We have failed to find Bin Laden (however Bin drinken and bin driven are foundin Spokanistan), let alone contain him. Just how dangerous is this toothless tiger?

We voted for change and Obama promised it. He didnt promise to finish up the Bush Playbook for Global Enterprise.

I want to see the Mission Statements published by the JCS, NCA and the National Security Advisor before we go jumping into the quicksand.
arliacne on December 03 at 2:17 p.m.
I worked long and hard on Obama’s campaign, did a lot of calling, a lot of emailing and siphoned in a lot of my own money to get him elected. I am extremely disappointed that Obama decided not to support the troops and bring them home. I certainly don’t think we owe anything to the Afghan people.

I don’t see how applying a military solution to a religious war is going to succeed. A zealot’s faith doesn’t shake easily just because the other guy is pointing guns your way. We certainly aren’t going to be changing thousands of years of religious belief. Just get out and start the clandestine hunt for Bin Laden.

Only my opinion.
Diana on December 03 at 4:28 p.m.
As a candidate, President Obama always said he would escalate in Afghanistan. This should come as no surprise to those who worked on his campaign.

This is very complicated situation, made nearly untenable by the dismal tactical decisions during the Bush administration, not the least of which the invasion of Iraq (greeted as liberators, indeed) and turning back from the battle of Tora Bora, thereby allowing Bin Laden to escape.

The Middle East has no appetite for American democracy or occupation, any more than we do for their way of life. I want our troops home, too, but believe our President is doing what has has to do under the circumstances. Pakistan, anyone?
spokelooneh on December 03 at 4:30 p.m.
“I am extremely disappointed that Obama decided not to support the troops and bring them home. “
-arliacne

“The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there”
-Obama
” And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it’s a — it picks up on a point that’s already been made. Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I’ve been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it’s been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place — al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don’t have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

So here’s what we have to do comprehensively, though. It’s not just more troops.

We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I’ve said this to President Karzai.

No. 2, we’ve got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

No. 3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.”

Presidential Debate Sept. 26, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

Numerous times Obama said he believed more troops needed to be sent to Afghanistan. Whether that’s the right thing to do or not is a different question, but no one who was a big Obama supporter should be surprised or disappointed by his action on Afghanistan. He did exactly what he said he would do.
arliacne on December 03 at 4:55 p.m.
Well, we choose to hear what we want to hear. I like the Tom Clancy view of the world where you can go in and “surgically remove” a single bad apple. Too bad real life isn’t so neat and tidy.

Here’s some major problems as I see them … Social Security is almost non-existent, the economy is trashed, every one of us probably knows more than one person who has lost their job, we’re spending billions we don’t have on two wars we shouldn’t be involved in. We are giving our children’s and grand-children’s economic future to the Chinese. Most of us saw our 401k, IRA and other stocks lose 33% to 50% within a single week in 2008. All of this is directly (and perhaps indirectly) attributed to a war in Afghanistan and an illegal war in Iraq. I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say NO ONE can give me a clear, concise and plausible reason why we are in either country nor why we should stay in either country (oh, yeah - other than oil interests — sheesh!). Go ahead, give me one.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on December 03 at 5:08 p.m.
Pipeline… Super Highway…

what more does one need… Mr Obama’s words as a candidate and his words as a President are the SAME… Thanks Diana… for your on point comments… History in this region just seems to keep repeating and repeating and repeating… and it will with us as well….

Institute a Draft and Install a War Tax and see how many step up, particularly if our daughters are included this time…. easy to talk about “others” serving… as many do on the blogs.. but not a lot of us that have served are in line with war any more. or the Win/or Lose.. mentality.. john
spokelooneh on December 03 at 5:09 p.m.
Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq just as required by the Status of Forces Agreement agreed to by the US and Iraqi governments.

Obama is sending in more troops to Afghanistan just exactly like he said he would. Personally, I have much skepticism about this.

Obama’s RECORD is one of a centrist Democrat, not a progressive Democrat, despite some of his RHETORIC to the contrary, such as when he said a few years ago that we should have a universal single-payer health care system.

Our economy has been floating on personal debt and government debt for decades. People who were paying attention knew there was going to be a major financial crash and put their assets into cash and cash equivalents.
Fuschia on December 03 at 9:16 p.m.
Fiddles while Rome burns. Sounds familiar?

So Obamasan is gonna bring liberty and freedom to the Achmeds of the world by bankrupting good ol mom and pop here at home. Now thats strategemy (as Bush 2.0 would say).

I’d like to see the draft reinstated. A couple of Senators/Congresmen sons/daughters getting up on the front lines will bring this train wreck to a halt. The Reserves/Guard have been the back door draft since 911. The VA cant/wont handle them. How much in these War Funds is budgeted to take care of our Military after they come home? Not a penny.

The middle east has been invaded, re-invaded and re re invaded time and time again. Nothing has changed in 2000 years and its not going to change. I wish we has a few politicians whom had stayed awake in history class. What do you think we are gonna do? Put up condos in Kabul on the Candahar river and Walmarts and Starbucks next to every Masjid?

Someone has failed to realize the return on investmen in wars.. is negative. I’m failing to see if we are better after a year of Obama, and actually seeing we are worse. At least under Obama they aren’t lying about how bad it is.
arliacne on December 04 at 9:36 a.m.
Given the cost of both wars at approximately $938,960,000

http://costofwar.com

which is $117,370,000,000 per year, and given that there are 100,000 troops in Iraq and 68,000 troops in Afghanistan with an additional 30,000 going for a total troop deployment for both wars at 198,000 - we could bring those troops home, pay them each $592,777.77 for 2010 to sit around and do nothing but stimulate the economy.

Shoot, bring them home, add in the 11 million unemployed and divvy up that $117 billion, give each person right around $10,000 - tax free and stimulate, baby, stimulate!

And that isn’t just my opinion, that’s math.
Diana on December 04 at 2:54 p.m.
Yeah, arliacne, that would be great solution if the problem were as simplistic.
arliacne on December 04 at 4:00 p.m.
Fortunately the problem is simply this simplistic; war is not an answer. If anything it is an excuse not to deal with the real problem. Give me a single inarguable reason why an Iraqi or Afghani child should die. Justify that.
Diana on December 04 at 4:28 p.m.
You’re asking the wrong person. Ask Bush and Cheney.

If you are assuming I am a war hawk, you are quite wrong.
arliacne on December 04 at 5:33 p.m.
Don’t assume that I assume, I know you are no war hawk, and I thank you for your responses.

I also know that those who follow this blog who lean towards “might make right” have not responded to my challenges. Perhaps because there are no clear cut and inarguable justifications for the whole scale slaughter of innocents.

Collateral damage is a term dreamed up to make us feel better about killing children.
Diana on December 04 at 6:04 p.m.
4685 and 1534 Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, and estimated 100,000 Iraqis dead. Untold numbers of humans wounded, disabled, maimed for oil and GWB’s daddy issues.

Other than that, I’m not sure what your point is.
mhibbs on December 04 at 6:06 p.m.
I really don’t know just where I stand on this. There are so many contradictory statements, notions, facts, political postures, etc, etc, ad infinitum that I doubt Solomon could render a judgment to suit all. I had lunch this week with a young man who had just returned from Kabul and environs and the picture he paints is certainly different from that espoused by many of those whose footprints have not strayed from the beltway. On the other hand there are those who seem to understand the realities of dealing with a series of tribal cultures not that far removed from the stone age. Ignorant and truculent are the descriptors most often employed. Corruption beyond normal western understanding seems to be a fact of life. Vendetta among the tribes and factions is the norm and does not seem likely to change in our lifetimes. It may be that the best answer would be to call a Loya Jurga (sp?) and let the folk decide for themselves how they want to perish. I certainly don’t know and I’m sure none of the folks posting here do either. Think I’ll go spend some stimulus money and have a taste of something liquid and high budget.
arliacne on December 04 at 7:58 p.m.
“Other than that, I’m not sure what your point is.”

War bad.
Fuschia on December 04 at 8:52 p.m.
“Military action is the last resort of an incompetent Politician”

“no one starts a war-or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so-without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”

“If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient - at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve.”

- The aim of war should be the defeat of the enemy. But what constitutes defeat? The conquest of his whole territory is not always necessary, and total occupation of his territory may not be enough.

- Out of the dominant characteristics of both belligerents “a certain center of gravity develops, the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed.”

Gen. Carl Von Clausewitz. 1780-1831
spokelooneh on December 04 at 11:57 p.m.
Some 90% of the population of Afghanistan is illiterate. The population is quite rural and scattered, and basically the only form of authority recognized is whatever tribal chief or warlord or religious leader controls the particular valley where one lives. Anybody who is not from their valley, is an outsider, and not to be trusted.
Jeffrey_Grey on December 05 at 5:54 a.m.
Arli,

– Give me a single inarguable reason why an Iraqi or Afghani child should die. –

‘Inarguable’? Don’t think I have one because ‘inarguable’ assumes certainty and there is no certainty in war in general or in the war in Afghanistan in particular.

But ‘arguable’ - that I might have. How many American children died on 9/11? Now before you reply to that, please let me make it crystal clear that once again, there’s no certainty. Does our intervention in Afghanistan guarantee that another American children will never die as a result of terrorism? Any one who argues for that *certainty* is pushing an agenda, plain and simple.

Just as any one who argues *the certainty* that the intervention did nothing to potentially save an American child’s life is also pushing an agenda. And pushing it just as hard.

I can say with some confidence that Bush’s decision to intervene in Iraq was the wrong decision taken for all the wrong reasons. But his decision to intervene in Afghanistan…?

No, I can’t speak with confidence to that decision. The potential for ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ was just far too great to second-guess that one.

So now, for better or worse, here we are. And again the *very* thorny decision for how to proceed is every bit as much fraught with ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’ Because make no mistake, there are going to be hard consequences for staying, and there are going to be hard consequences for going, and there’s no way we’re not going to eventually be paying for whatever choice we make now somewhere down the road.

Like Martin, I don’t see any ‘right’ answer. I don’t think there is one. It’s a question of finding the ‘least worst’ answer. And with respect to Afghanistan, that’s the way it’s always been.
arliacne on December 05 at 6:39 a.m.
All true - there is no ‘right’ answer. I wondered how long, though, it would take someone to raise the 9/11 moniker.

jeff - “How many American children died on 9/11?”

This begs the question, how many middle-eastern children are worth each American child? One for one? 10 for one? 1000 for one? Then there are those who will respond that each dead middle-eastern child is a future terrorist who won’t be attacking us.

We are sadly mistaken if we think continuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, waging war in Iran, Pakistan is going to eradicate terrorism from the face of the Earth. The very theory behind cells prevents this.

When enough politicians sons and daughters come home in body bags these wars will draw to a quick conclusion.

Eh - enough of my opinions on this subject … next topic, please.
Jeffrey_Grey on December 05 at 9:23 a.m.
Arli,

I raised the specter of 9/11 only because - for better or worse and even though it’s become little more than a jingo-ist mantra for some - it’s nevertheless still applicable.

It is applicable because unlike our intervention in Iraq, there was in fact a casual connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan. As a result, it’s a fact that has to be borne in mind if we’re to approach the solution to this Gordian Knot with any kind of valid sense of perspective.

To your question of how many lives an American child is worth relative to the lives of children of other nationalities…

Well, first of all; anyone who’d engage in that kind of calculus has a seriously flawed soul. That’s the kind of thinking that ‘justifies’ things like 9/11. If we as a nation ever get to the point that that becomes the basis for our decision making, then I for one say we will have become the thing we once beheld in horror and it’s time for America to pass from this world to make room for something better. If we ever reach that point then this nation is no longer the America I once swore to protect and defend.

My America is and must always strive to be better than that.

Second - I agree with you in that I don’t think we will ever eradicate terrorism by trading in children’s lives. Or soldier’s lives. Or the lives of politicians’ children.

But I also think that if you decide not to pull the weeds in your garden because they’ll only eventually grow back, you can then plausibly expect not to be troubled by weeds.

On the other hand, getting out the lawn mower to address a few weeds growing amid the tomato plants probably isn’t the best course either.

The trick to a healthy garden, as with most things in life, is finding a workable middle course. Sadly, sometimes finding that course is an expensive process of trial and error and of paying the price for trying things that didn’t work.

Along those lines, several times in this nation’s history we have decided not to weed the garden. We have tried to live in the world by retreating into isolationism and pretending that what happens outside our borders doesn’t concern us.

The problem is that we live in a world that gets smaller and smaller every day and the fiction of isolationism that has never worked in the past has a likewise smaller and smaller chance of actually working in the future.

For better or worse, we live in the world as a whole. Therefore what happens to the world as a whole also happens to us.
Diana on December 05 at 9:58 a.m.
Just pass a new law that says whenever we’re considering getting into a war, government officials - including senators, lobbyists, etc., and anyone else with his hand in the pot - are the first to serve in the military, on the front lines. And that includes chickenhawk deferment-freaks like Cheney.
arliacne on December 05 at 10:43 a.m.
Jeffery - an excellent dissertation, thank you.

Diana - no sh*t..
richard on December 05 at 1:03 p.m.
Why am I not surprised - given the “thinking” I see on this thread - that someone needs to “apologize” for raising the spectre of 9/11 and the deaths of innocent Americans, while discussing why we are at war in Afghanistan.

Political Correctness Kills - just as certainly as there are 13 (more) dead Americans at Ft. Hood - despite what should have been crystallized in our brains on 9/12/01.

Please spare us the “oh-so” morally relativist speach.

And God help us if your “thinking” was so commonplace in 1943-44 when both theatres of war were becoming extremely difficult … and bloody. And thank God FDR knew the realities of war.

Either you defend yourselves … or you don’t. It is past the time to “debate” it.

If you decide it isn’t worth the effort to defend yourselves; then completely and totally extricate ALL Americans from the war zones and then deal with whatever the ramifications might be.

And if you do believe it is worthy to defend yourselves, then do it full-force and decisively. And do it unapologetically. There will be deaths. To do otherwise only begs for more unnecessary deaths and the eventuality of defeat. Can you say Vietnam?

Again, thank God FDR and Truman both knew these realities about war. You either win it or you don’t … there is no middle ground.

Good grief!
Diana on December 05 at 4:08 p.m.
It’s too bad Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld didn’t know the realities of war.
Uptight_Spokanite on December 05 at 8:19 p.m.
Shorter Richard: Kill em all and let God (the God of Christ not the evil Mohammad) sort em out.

Thanks Richard. As always your thoughtful, balanced, and non-pedantic posts have helped open my mind to other viewpoints and deeply appreciate the value of Word War 2 nostalgia in analysis and strategic visions of current geopolitical realities. I deeply appreciate your abiding refusal to post like a right wing extremist dilettante.
Jeffrey_Grey on December 06 at 5:37 a.m.
“Apologize”, Richard? Are you referring to my comments?

If so, I have to wonder how someone could read those comments as an apology.

I’ll say it again - although America’s response to 9/11 with respect to Afghanistan was problematic *from a purely pragmatic, ‘nuts and bolts’ viewpoint* if nothing else, I don’t say it was inarguably a ‘wrong’ decision. To say that there are no easy choices is not to say that a hard choice is by definition a bad choice.

We were attacked on 9/11 and we replied with force. My only point is that as a result of that at least arguably *valid* decision, we now face some consequences. More to the point - and the point that you in your rush to the bully pulpit for more fiery liberal baiting seem to have completely ignored - is that I freely stipulate and wholly agree with you that doing nothing but wring our hands for fear of offending political correctness would bear consequences of its own as well. Bad consequences.

‘If you don’t weed the garden, you live with a garden choked by weeds.’ Remember that part?

The point that I’d discuss with you (and perhaps not necessarily even disagree with you on) is this: – And if you do believe it is worthy to defend yourselves, then do it full-force and decisively. –

As I say, I don’t disagree. I just continue to argue that it’s a question of degree and of seeking appropriately measured responses. What are you asserting, Richard?

Do you think it’s a good idea to weed the tomatoes with a lawn mower? Do you agree we should just “kill ‘em all and let God sort them out”? What’s ‘full-force’? What’s ‘decisively’? Is there a line at which limiting our actions crosses over into a timid fear of giving offense? I’m sure there is. But where do you draw that line?

Where does party-line dogma and talking points about ‘political correctness’ meet the real world? More to the point, where does it meet it in Afghanistan?

Not as a rhetorical challenge but more to genuinely discover just exactly what we’re talking about in real-world terms, what should we have done differently in Afghanistan? What should we do differently there now and in the future?
Jeffrey_Grey on December 06 at 6:32 a.m.
Uptight,

Same question for you as for Richard. How do you define in real-world, practical terms the doctrine of “Kill ‘em All”?

Cluster munitions? Carpet bombing? Chemical agents? Bio-agents? (In a decidedly undeveloped, third-world country like Afghanistan I bet that one would be particularly effective - depending on how you define ‘effective’.)

Tactical nukes?

Have I strayed into absurd-ist exaggeration? Probably so. (At least I hope so.) But how do I judge where the actual line is drawn given only a sweeping generalization as the stated doctrine? What does “kill ‘em All” mean in practical, real-world terms?

Do we expand our military operations into Pakistan and be damned to the international repercussions? If the enemy employs the tactic of running across the border to hide, it would seem that ‘killing ‘em all’ would require us to chase them, and that would require expanding our operations across the border to a far greater degree than what’s currently going on.

What do we use to expand those operations to that degree? (Troops, material … money.)

Remember that while arm chair strategists talk in terms of strategy and tactics, real generals talk in terms of logistics. Our logistical tail has already gotten problematically long to stretch to Afghanistan. (Look how long it’s taking to get the ‘surge’ into place compared to what it took in Iraq.) What would be necessary to make that logistical tail reach even further into a now hostile Pakistan? (Or do you think the Pakistan government would just shrug and smile and conduct relations as usual while our troops run around in-country shooting up Pakistani property and Pakistani nationals? Or do you even take all the implications of a hostile Pakistan into consideration?)

You belittle ‘pedantic’? Okay, fine. Let’s define a nebulous doctrine like “Kill ‘em All” in nuts and bolts real world terms.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on December 06 at 7:44 a.m.
Richard… would you remind me again of where and when you carried a weapon and served in the Armed Service? John
Uptight_Spokanite on December 06 at 8:50 a.m.
Richard… would you remind me again of where and when you carried a weapon and served in the Armed Service? John

Seems he mentioned once he served during the Vietnam era in the 101st Fighting Chickenhawks - Maple Leaf Company under General Richard “Dick” Cheney.
Fuschia on December 06 at 10:33 a.m.
There are often those few at the pointy end of the spear and the rest of them are holding onto the shaft, albeit at some rear distance to the pointy end, and inversely proportional to their amount of blogging.

Uplite_Spokanite… would you remind me again of where and when you carried a weapon and served in the Armed Service?
I got a few old green and red ID cards I can loan you. Maybe even a singed draft card too.
Diana on December 06 at 12:47 p.m.
B-b-b-b-u-t…!
Uptight_Spokanite on December 06 at 1:58 p.m.
Those are two questions, Fuschia. I think you meant when and where I carried a weapon while serving in the Armed Services?

I’d like to answer that question, but a condition of my separation from “The Company” requires non-disclosure, even under a pseudonym.
richard on December 06 at 2:19 p.m.
Thanks Gus … actually I served in a very special, somewhat clandestine unit. It is quite an elite group actually, as it includes such notable former members as Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olberman, Frank Rich, etc. and about 95% of Obama’s white house advisors.

Why do you ask?
richard on December 06 at 2:22 p.m.
Uptight strikes again … and again … without ever uttering a lucid thought.

Do you have any positions on anything, Uptight? Or are you just “in it” to wage culture warfare, as you wear your oh-so “progressive” mantle on your sleeve?

I have not seen one comment of yours which actually addressed a solution or even produced any linear thought on a topic; I have seen your “bumper-sticker” thoughts on “feminism,” with its cynical view that feminism is but a “battleground” for waging war against men - so-called “right-wing” men, that is.

And how bigoted is it to automatically align me with right-wing Christianity? Your dependence on media-driven stereotypes of conservatism is just another example of the bigotry that progressives often so willingly adopt. Using stereotypes derived from others means you just don’t have to think very much. And that is nice; isn’t it?

And your most recent comments, with its Olberman-influenced descriptors intended only to diminish cogent thinking - thinking which apparently excludes the self-indulgent “sensibilities” which characterize most of the commentary on this pages - is apparently how you choose to counter a post you don’t like. Again, it is much simpler to merely do the equivalent of a drive-by shooting.

Now I could ask you straight-away to analyze and then explain where it is I go wrong in my critique about the ponderings and dithering over the moral implications of the war in Afghanistan; but that would require of you to actually offer a definitive alternative … and I am afraid that would take us right back to the self-indulgent posturing.

Besides, to do as I suggest would require that you “stoop” to a level you are ill-prepared to go just to out-wit a “right-wing extremist dilettante.”
Uptight_Spokanite on December 06 at 5:43 p.m.
Dick, I see no reason to use whatever rules of rhetoric and argument you wish to invoke from me, with a pseudonym who trolls a thread by typing the stunningly obtuse statement that because liberals skewer the cocktail waitress Governor-Quitter Sarah Palin they are misogynists. Seriously, you get what you give. And what you bring is the Glenn Beck playbook. Way to aim for the stars, Dick.

Now, I’m certain you’ll furiously type another overheated, formulaic, and stilted response to me. I’ll probably just ignore it. I’m learning to not play with my food so much.

Yawns.
Diana on December 06 at 6:55 p.m.
Richard, I’m surprised you associate yourself with such a group of liberal elites that you so despise.
spokelooneh on December 06 at 8:25 p.m.
The careful reader will not that Richard did not answer any of Jeffrey’s questions.
richard on December 08 at 1:07 p.m.
Sorry loone - I didn’t read Jeff’s post because he tried to answer a question I never posed to him. My comments about “apologizing” for mentioning 9/11 were not directed to him.

so, what is your point, looney? And why don’t you also “note” how Gus did not respond to my question?

Or “note” that Uptight, though she did offer verbage, she did not respond to any of my challenges. And she referred to me without using my name, which tells you a whole lot about Uptight and why she is!

She has few, few friends in life. But that is not my prroblem.

So, let’s see if I get a cogent response from you loone.
Diana on December 08 at 5:38 p.m.
Gee, Richard. I can see that you wouldn’t like someone calling you something other than your name, but I recall the you have done the exact same thing.

Does calling someone “Bobby” ring a bell?
Uptight_Spokanite on December 08 at 7:27 p.m.
I think I know the answer to the unanswered question:

Chickenhawk (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

“Chickenhawk” (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age.

The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that “chickenhawks” lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
Jeffrey_Grey on December 09 at 3:54 a.m.
Once we have all the appropriate labels nailed to the foreheads of all the people involved in the debate, will that yield a reliable answer to the question the debate is trying to resolve?
arliacne on December 09 at 11:33 a.m.
Vietnam. I was too young by just so much. I came home from classes one day to find my mom and dad had my back-pack packed and stashed by the back door ready to drive me to the border just in case (sorry Marty, but it was what it was).

So, since I opposed that war, the one in ‘91 and these current wars that would mean I’m not a Chicken Hawk and can spout my gods given rights all I want … with some sort of undeniable authority?

I hope not! I hope I never become so convinced of my own infallibility that I can’t accept others knocking me down a few pegs.
richard on December 10 at 9:06 p.m.
So who are you labeling a “chicken hawk”? if you mean me, please explain how you reached that conclusion since you know nothing about me.

If you are talking aobut Cheney … ok. I can see where you might call him that, but you really don’t know any of the facts about why he was not in the military. All you really know is what you have gathered from … the “conventional wisdom,” most of which comes from mainstream media. Although some even comes, these days, from fringe web sites.

Do you always believe everything you read or hear? Or just when it “fits” your oh-so progressive ideology?

One more thing … Does that make Bill Clinton a chicken-hawk? How about Obama; he certainly could have done his duty and joined the military. He is now “pushing” a foreign war.