Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn today's Wall Street Journal, a top hawkish Democrat -- a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the primaries whose hardline views on Iraq forced Hillary to break with him -- gives Barack Obama some advice he doesn't need. This time, it's on Iraq.
In "How to Win in Afghanistan," Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution writes:
President-elect Barack Obama has wisely promised an increase in U.S. forces for Afghanistan. But his proposed minisurge of perhaps 15,000 more troops, on top of the 30,000 Americans and 30,000 NATO personnel now there, will not suffice as a strategy. More is needed. ...Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finally reached a decision late this summer to help the Afghans double the size of their Army, a policy that will bring their own total security forces to 200,000. Coupled with the two to three additional brigades of American GIs expected to go to Afghanistan in the coming months, we will collectively reach some 275,000 total coalition troops -- an improvement, but still less than half of what has been needed in the smaller country of Iraq.
O'Hanlon doesn't say exactly what he means when he claims that 275,000 troops, including 75,000 US and NATO forces, is only "half" of what's needed. How many are truly needed? He doesn't say. Suffice it say, however, that O'Hanlon's advice is utterly wrong. That doesn't mean that Obama won't take it.
Generals, at least the ones in Afghanistan and at Centcome, want more, more more. No surprise there. But there are many people who believe that sending more troops isn't the answer, and one of them is the British ambassador to Afghanistan, who argued recently:
"It is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan. [Sending more troops] would have perverse effects: it would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would multiply the targets [for the insurgents]."
The British and French, working closely with Saudi Arabia, have been pushing hard for talks with the Taliban to end the war. Key leaders of both Pakistan and Afghanistan have been involved in those talks, too. Now, bringing the despicable Taliban into a power-sharing deal in Kabul would be distasteful, to say the least. And many powers in the region -- including Iran, Russia, and, especially, India -- would be horrified by the idea of the Taliban coming to power again in Afghanistan, and so they would have to be brought into the deal, in support of more liberal (and mostly non-Pashtun) political cliques in Afghanistan, to underwrite a deal that works. And, of course, all of that depends on the Taliban making good on its promise to make a complete break with Al Qaeda.
General David Petraeus, who's cooking up a new strategy for Afghanistan, is said to be open to the idea of talking to the Taliban. (If I were a leader in India, Russia, or Iran, though, watching Petraeus at work, I would be afraid, very afraid.) Petraeus' strategy, and one which many Obama advisers buy into, is "surge and negotiate." General Surge, as Petraeus ought to be called, believes that more troops are needed in Afghanistan now, because the Taliban won't negotiate at present because they think they're winning. So, the argument goes, send a bunch more American troops over there, so we can really sock it to the Taliban, and then -- finally, then! -- we can talk to them.
I have a news flash for Petraeus. The Taliban think they're winning because they are winning. Sending more troops won't help. It will only inflame right-wing Muslims to support the Taliban more strongly, build Pashtun nationalism, destabilize Pakistan, and kill a lot of Afghan civilians. Here's an alternative strategy for Obama: "withdraw and negotiate." As Obama wants to do, sensibly, in Iraq, he can offer the insurgents in Afghanistan a deal: a timetable for an American and NATO withdrawal, linked to a jirga-style negotiation process to bring the Taliban and other Islamist formations into a deal. It will take skillful diplomacy, support from Afghanistan's neighbors, and a lot of cash up front (to bribe the tribes and Taliban-types). And it will take a sincere effort by Obama to convince Muslims that he is putting an end to the reckless and ham-handed Global War on Terror.
RSS
The answer is somewhere in-between, Mr Dreyfuss (as usually is the case).
BOTH negotiating with the Taliban....seems you and the Right would support General Petraeus if he's onboard for negotiations with them....
and securing the Kabul government.
True, "there are many people who believe that sending more troops isn't the answer"...but many that do and it's already a campaign promise of Obama's so it's likely to happen.
What must be done is try to use that to open up negotiations.
Bush almost lost Afghanistan by ignoring it for Iraq. It may STILL be "lost", but just GIVING IT BACK to the Taliban isn't going to be the answer, nor one anybody should promote (as you seem to be). They were brutal, oppressive dictators and the TRUE supporters of Al Qaeda (not Iraq)...it's why the Iranians helped us early in 2001-2002.
If, as you say, "they ARE winning"...they're not going to just "be nice" and negotiate away what they can just "wait out" for the whole pie.
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 09:50am
Truly dumb, perhaps even malicious advice.
Pray, Obama ignores this ignorant suggestion.
The Soviets had several times that number of troops in Afghanistan, and look how they ended up.
The US is currently at war with the Pashtun people -- half the Afghan population -- bribing the warlords of the other two quarter, Tajiks & Waziris, to stay on the US side.
How many Pashtuns does O'Hanlon compute the US must kill before they're brought to their knees?
The Soviets killed a few hundred thousand. Not enough.
Shall we aim for a half million? More? And to what end? How will this improve US security?
It will do nothing for Obama's job security. If he doesn't withdraw from Afghanistan, having spread wealth around to all there on the way out, Obama may very well be a one-term president, successfully challenged from within his own party by ... guess who? O'Hanlon's political patron perhaps?
They're setting you up, Mr. President-Elect. Don't fall for it, please. You can much better.
Posted by sloper at 11/14/2008 @ 10:03am
Fortunately what "sounds better" to Mr. Dreyfuss is not under PE Obama's consideration right now.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2008 @ 10:17am
Fortunately what "sounds better" to Mr. Dreyfuss is not under PE Obama's consideration right now.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2008 @ 10:17am
Seems 'ole Hillary may be in line for S of S. Might not be rid of the old elitist after all, but at least its not an economic or social oriented position. In fact, this could just be what breaks the terrorists back!-Just wait till they meet THIS one!
Ha HAAA!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2008 @ 10:22am
Chalmers Johnson's book Nemisis: The Last Days of the American Republic discusses how US laid the groundwork of Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan as a means of giving the Soviet's its own crippling Vietnam War. US was apparently concerned about Iran, post exit of the Shah, and Soviet meddling and influence. Strange how we fail to learn from our past mistakes. After the Soviet collaspe, our myopic military leaders failed to take advantage in Afghanistan, and left it to "warlords" to fight it out for control.
President Obama does not have the resources to carry out the vainglorious visions of the military industrial complex and neoconservatives, and allied support is moving distinctly against escalation and toward negotiation - an acknowledgment that this is a war that does not have a viable military solution. That allied support further is acknowledging the dying of the imperialist sugar daddy, and they are moving forward on their own initiatves, something that President Obama is apparently failing to do, excepting the bailout grab for the UAW which of course must be done before the money runs out.
Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2008 @ 10:23am
In fact, this could just be what breaks the terrorists back!-Just wait till they meet THIS one!
Ha HAAA!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/14/2008 @ 10:22am | warn this person
New US weapon - broadcast Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign speeches over megaphones - that will clear everyone out real fast. Aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......nooooooooo...........make it stop.........turn it off...........................
Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2008 @ 10:38am
remember kids, Afghanistan is twice the size of Texas. I believe the soviets had 200,000 troops there. they too were cruel to the population there. our air war is very cruel, as it targets civilians. and rockets from drones, directed from a nice airconditioned office, how sanitized.
Obama is wrong on this one. fortunately he has shown he is a quick study
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 10:54am
Even if it was a good idea, where would the troops come from?
Happy won't go.
Ponti won't go
Chip won't go
ACOOK won't follow her son
Luvvy is too old and broken.
Redriver won't go.
palin won't follow her son.
The military has already lowered it's admission rules to let in convicts and drop outs, but still does not have enough people to do much beyond keeping the status quo.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 11:10am
ACOOK won't follow her son
Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 11:10am
Sure I will, I've already told you that before. I'd give up treating civilians in a heart beat.
Posted by ACook at 11/14/2008 @ 12:03pm
Pull completely out of the middle east. Save the money and use it for projects at home. Monitor what occures when we are no longer there. Then after a year or so rethink deployment. In the mean time we have saved lives and saved money. Of course there will be those who say that the killing will increase and a larger disaster will happen. Maybe, but we won't be doing the killing or the dying, we will be saving all the way around.
The middle east will continue to be a killing ground regardless of who is in charge or not. Do we really expect to see democracy flourish anywhere over there? Come on, get real!
Posted by Truthman at 11/14/2008 @ 12:16pm
Having lived in Afghanistan for quite some time in the 1970's I can say this.
The area of Afghanistan has seen a variety of invaders and would be conquerors for a long,long time. And the tribes of that region have never been conquered. I reinterate the word "never". The men do practically nothing but fight other clans and any foreign invader. That is their preoccupation and vocation. They have a very high regard for honor and loyalty to the tribe.
They are fabulous horesman, that would put any American Cowboy to shame. For recreation they play a version of polo called Buzkashi. But they don't use a ball they use a dead goat or calf. The rules of the game are mostly uncertain and can continue for days. Death during gameplay is not uncommon.
The point is, it's a gross mistake in judgment to think that sending in more troops is going to do anything but piss them off. The one thing that does work however is bribery. A much respected institution in Afghani culture. And it doesn't have to be a lot of money. Better to pay them to get what you want. Far cheaper in lives and money than another "Surge".
Just my humble advice..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 12:16pm
Just my humble advice.. Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
good points all. let's remember that the US paid the Taleban $50 million as reward for cracking down on opium cultivation. this was, I believe, in the summer of 2001.
we could possibly have paid the Taleban to kick out AL Qaeda and Bin Laden.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 12:35pm
Pull completely out of the middle east. Posted by Truthman at 11/14/2008 @ 12:16pm
Not trying to be an ass, but Afghanistan is not part of the Middle East. It is Persia. Entirely different area, culture and people. Common mistake.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 12:16pm
Curious...how would "1970s Afghanistan" compare to the previous (or a potential future) "Taliban Afghanistan"?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 12:40pm
Sorry about the mistake of geography. Shows you how emotional thinking affects the mind.
Posted by Truthman at 11/14/2008 @ 12:47pm
50 million as reward for cracking down on opium cultivation. this was, I believe, in the summer of 2001. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 12:35pm
As far as Opium production or for that matter Cannabis. I sincerely doubt that any payment to halt production of the main cash crops in Afghanistan would do much good for very long. Although if they accept bribery money to do or provide something, they are honor bound to make an effort.
Afghanistan is perfect for the cultivation of these crops, but little more. And Afghani men are notoriously lazy when it comes to work. Opium and Cannabis require a minimum of labor and care to grow. With a high monetary return per acre.
Industrial projects would likely fail as Afghani men generally show up to work when they feel like it or not at all. But they are tireless and vicious guerrilla fighters.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 12:48pm
A surge is a temporary increase in troops, and, at best, can only bring security to a limited area for a limited time. The basic problem with using small numbers of troops is that you are forced to rely on firepower to dominate the battlefield. There is an increase in collateral damage the more you rely on firepower. In other words more civilians will be killed. Counter insurgency is a labor intensive operation, in that you can only bring security to an area that you physically control. A large number of troops are need to provide security for a large area. General Shinseki recommended about 400,000 for Iraq. I do not know the number needed for Afghanistan, but I imagine it would be comparable to Iraq. You will not win in the sense of stopping all attacks, but they can be reduced considerably. You need a full mobilization, including the draft, for such an operation. The volunteer army doesn't cut it when you are fighting a long war.It is my view that even in peace time there should be a draft. If you are not prepared to use overwhelming force, don't go to war! War is always the last resort!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/14/2008 @ 12:49pm
If bribery works, it would be cheaper!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/14/2008 @ 12:52pm
Looks like guns & BUTTER are now back on the Congressional menu. We all know the composition of pork & beans. "Occupation with that cluster bomb?" Please, not again. The last thing thats needed at this time is unification of the disparate elements of Afghanistan. It will not stand in our favor.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/14/2008 @ 12:59pm
we could possibly have paid the Taleban to kick out AL Qaeda and Bin Laden.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 12:35pm
JR, you are more informed than to make that kind of comnment
"Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted man, and Mullah Mohamed Omar, supreme leader of the Taliban regime, had a lot to discuss. A few days earlier, at 8.45pm on 30 September, US and British cruise missiles had started hitting targets across Afghanistan in retribution for the terrorist attacks that had killed 5,000 people in New York and Washington nearly three weeks earlier. Now death and destruction had come to villages, cities and military camps throughout Afghanistan. Several missiles had landed near the village where the two men were meeting. Many more had landed on the southern city of Kandahar, the spiritual and administrative base of the Taliban. The two men were there to decide their response to the war they had suddenly found themselves fighting.
Partly it was because the two were in agreement on almost everything. Mullah Omar reaffirmed his support, affection and respect for his Saudi-born friend. Bin Laden replied in kind. The two swiftly reached a decision on tactics. They would jointly resist any aggression, they would work to create and exploit divisions in the coalition ranged against them, and they would exploit the humanitarian crisis - and any civilian casualties - to create global anger against the bombing campaign."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2001/oct/28/world.terrorism
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2008 @ 1:09pm
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 12:40pm
Oddly enough the Taliban is a backlash or reaction in large part due to western influence and progressive ideas that began in Kabul. Women were openly dressing in western attire and becoming more educated and shedding the Burqa. And life in the captital was becoming more westernized. Movie theatres, dancing, television and the like.
This was filtering out to the countryside aswell. The men were getting uneasy. In Afghanistan the women do most of the real work and are kept sequestered even within the family.
In the 1970's this was just beginning and the reaction to change resulted in the Taliban.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 1:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2008 @ 1:09pm
So much for winning the hearts & minds, make it the parts & hinds.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/14/2008 @ 1:32pm
THE SUN. IT'S HOT!
<i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i><i>
Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT
TALEBAN IN TEXAS FOR TALKS ON GAS PIPELINE
The 1,300km pipeline will carry gas across Afghanistan's harsh terrain A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.
</i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i>
THE SUN. IT'S HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2008 @ 1:37pm
"They would jointly resist any aggression, they would work to create and exploit divisions in the coalition ranged against them, and they would exploit the humanitarian crisis - and any civilian casualties - to create global anger against the bombing campaign."
Mission Accomplished.
Although, I can't imagine stoking this kind of uprising is all that difficult, give our penchant for using drone attacks against weddings and funerals.
Posted by HAL9000 at 11/14/2008 @ 1:40pm
The bottom line is. The United States needs to stop meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations. It is our ignorant foreign policy that caused 9/11 in the first place.
Until we give up the idea of dicking around with other cultures and flexing the dubious power of our military we will at risk of attack by those we call "terrorists".
Until we realize we are the terrorists when we meddle and cease being a threat to other nations we will be plagued with the continual repurcussions.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 1:40pm
"Until we realize we are the terrorists when we meddle and cease being a threat to other nations we will be plagued with the continual repurcussions."
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 1:40pm
Amen, Brother.
Posted by HAL9000 at 11/14/2008 @ 1:45pm
where would the troops come from? Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 11:10am
I wonder if Beijing is driving this at all. I suspect they are eyeing Muslim militancy with concern.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 1:11pm
So if the Taliban come back....what of the women of Afghanistan?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 3:20pm
Not trying to be an ass, but Afghanistan is not part of the Middle East. It is Persia. Entirely different area, culture and people. Common mistake.
certainly NOT Persia. C'mon now.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this personAfghanistan /æfˈgænɪstæn/,[4] officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Pashto: د افغانستان اسلامي جمهوریت, Persian: جمهوری اسلامی افغانستان), is a landlocked country that is located approximately in the center of Asia. It is variously designated as geographically located within Central Asia,[5][6] South Asia,[7][8] and the Middle East.[9
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:22pm
certainly NOT Persia. C'mon now. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:22pm
Afghanistan as a country is really at a crossroads. The area that encompasses it was at one time a part of the Persian Empire. The term the "Middle East" was only coined by the British around 1850.
Probably the best way to describe it without much disagreement is to say it is part of "Asia". OK?
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 3:41pm
The area that encompasses it was at one time a part of the Persian Empire.
so was Palestine.
don't defend an inane remark.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:48pm
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 3:20pm
The women in Afghanistan have always been treated like crap. If the Taliban regains total control of the region they will be treated even worse.
It is sad to see. Believe me. I could hardly stand it when I was there. But the unfairness and brutal treatment of women there will not end because we have troops there. It is something that the Afghan people will have to work out for themselves. There is much injustice in the world, and there are no easy answers.
Actually the women in Afghanistan are very brave. They had schools operating in secret at the risk of their lives to educate women. A grassroots effort by Afghani women may be the best solution. After much suffering they will eventually wear the men down. The spirit of women is not easily broken.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 3:55pm
don't defend an inane remark.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:48pm
So what is your point? What do you want to call it? If it's not Persia or Asia then what do you want it to be?
Seems to have rankled you for some reason..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:48pm
But it is not the "Middle East". As I said that term was coined by the British to describe a different area in 1850.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 4:02pm
Posted by chaoszen
goddamn it, it's not Persia. just admit that you are mistaken. it don' hurt. I've done it many times here.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 4:12pm
I would be glad to admit a mistake, if I had made one. I will admit that I made the mistake of not saying "Persia or Asia" in my original post. And I will admit that I made the mistake of arguing with you in the first place.
My whole point was that many people lump an entire region of the world that is so vast and diverse into the misleading term "Middle East". Persia is the name of the area compromising the Iranian Plateau which is today's Iran and Afghanistan. Jesus, look it up. You depend way to much on Wikki.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 4:27pm
You depend way to much on Wikki. Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are an ass. Wiki by the way is mostly based on an Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911. the country hasn't moved since then.
why E.B. of 1911> because it is in the public domain.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 4:41pm
"Afghanistan is not part of the Middle East. It is Persia."
hahahahaha, whatta jerk
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 4:44pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_plateau
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 4:44pm
Check out the above link. It from your bible Wiki.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 4:55pm
the article describes the Persian plateau, a geological term. that wasn't what you said at all. you are a worm wiggling.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:01pm
I will admit to the Encyclopedia Britannica being a source I consult often, as well as reading it for pleasure. I own a 60s Britannica, which is a favorite of many. unfortunately it is in my other apartment, the one condemned by the Dept of Buildings.
chauszen, do not, repeat do not ever admit an error. we like you just the way you are, perfect in every way.hahahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:05pm
Dreyfuss, even when he is right, is wrong.
Of course a surge would work. Enough troops and enough Daisy cutters can again decimate the Taliban and again drive them into their holes. But then what? Even if you shower the country, the roads and schools and hospitals, at some point it must stop and then the Afghans will say, what have you done for us lately? That is when the Taliban will return.
They are like a Pennsylvania coal fire. You can flood it with an ocean, it will smolder on in underground crevices and eventually burst forth again.
The idiot left instinctively blames the generals. But it has nothing to do with them. It is Petraeus' job to take his orders from the civilian leadership. When it says, we believe it important to prevail over the Taliban it is the general's job to make it happen, if they can. Petraeus thinks he can. He is earning his salary.
The problem is with Obama and the Left. They cling to their original fiction that the real war against terror must be fought in Afghanistan. This tack was used to oppose the Iraq war without seeming wimpy. It isn't that we don't want to fight the islamist danger, they argued, but that means concentrating the US military against Osama in Afghanistan, not against Saddam in Iraq. The way to defeat Islamism is to keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan, not to insert a democratic Iraq into the Middle East.
The problem now is not just that that lefty argument was ideology and rhetoric and nonsense, but that the momentum of that commitment continues. God help us if it is really put into effect.
Because the ultimate arument against fighting in Afghanistan is that the US has no national interests there. For us the place is not strategic. There is nothing there that will reward a victory.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/14/2008 @ 5:14pm
Of course a surge would work. Enough troops and enough Daisy cutters can again decimate the Taliban and again drive them into their holes.
not a chance. the soviets had 200,000 troops there. wasn't enough. the Taleban are popular. we will not surge our way out of this one.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:18pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:05pm
Amazing, even when confronted with evidence you still want to laugh at me, when it is yourself you are actually laughing at.
You have provided scant evidence to support your assertion (I guess) that Afghanistan is part of the "Middle East". Then you go about belittling me for supplying you with evidence to the contrary. Sounds like you need to grow up. You suffer from hubris and a high opinion of yourself. You sound a lot like a Republican.
You show little understanding of geography as most of it is based on geological terms. Thus the name geography.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 5:21pm
there was no serious effort made in Afghanistan. the US invaded with 15,000 troops. omigod, hahahahahaha
the war in Afghanistan was a stalking horse for the war against Iraq.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:23pm
You show little understanding of geography as most of it is based on geological terms. Thus the name geography.
it gets more and more absurd
Geography and geology are two separate disciplines. you are and remain an ass. hahahahahaha.
go on wiggling you worm. it's almost entertaining.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:25pm
Geography (from Greek γεωγραφία - geografia) is the study of the Earth and its lands, features, inhabitants, and phenomena.[1] A literal translation would be "to describe or write about the Earth". The first person to use the word "geography" was Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.).
Definition of Geology:
Geology is the study of the Earth, the materials of which it is made, the structure of those materials, and the processes acting upon them. It includes the study of the organisms which inhabit our planet. A very important part of geology is the study of how Earth's materials, structures, processes and organisms have changed over time.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:32pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:25pm
Actually your ignorance is quite entertaining. If Geology and Geography are unrelated diciplines why does almost every University in the world have a Department of Geology/Geography?
You sir are a dolt.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 5:39pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:32pm |
No you just posted definitions that show anything BUT separate diciplines. LOL.
You are your own worst enemy in an argument.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 5:41pm
If Geology and Geography are unrelated diciplines
you can't read, can you. I said separate not unrelated. and it's disciplines you schmuck.
"why does almost every University in the world have a Department of Geology/Geography?"
this is false. a quick search of universities shows it.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:52pm
like shooting fish in a barrel. sorry, everyone else, it must be tedious for you. moi? I don't suffer fools gladly.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 6:14pm
this is false. a quick search of universities shows it.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:52pm
Over 300 universities until I lost count.
you can't read, can you. I said separate not unrelated. and it's disciplines you schmuck.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:52pm
Separate and unrelated are pretty damn close Mr.Nitpicky. And if I misspell a word it could be that I only have the use of one arm when typing at the moment, I just had surgery yesterday and am a bit impaired with pain killers.
But the bottom line is Afghanistan is not a part of the "Middle East" but is part of the geological and geographical area described as Greater Persia.
It is not the "Middle East". That is all I have to say on the subject, and you are free to wallow in your stupidity. And if you want when I heal up I would be more than happy to whip your ass in any other argument of your choice.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 6:20pm
must be the painkillers talking. you're a putz nonetheless.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 6:40pm
emile duBois specializes in: "the war in Afghanistan was a stalking horse for the war against Iraq." Such gibber has absolutely no meaning.
And what little information he has, he screws up. The Soviets with around 100,000, not 200,000 men, chased the muhajidin across Afghanistan for almost 10 years and came away with 17,000 to 20,000 dead.
Several hundred US Special Forces and some Daisy Cutters broke the Taliban hold on Afghanistan within two months in 2002.
Now however, those fanatics no longer fight in the open and this time we hold the country and must defend it from their assaults. That does not mean that we can't beat them again, and again. But we can't be sure of beating them once and for all.
The real question is for what? What do we gain from a victory there? We have no investments there, no national interests. There has been talk of a pipeline since the 90s. But who will venture a pipeline in an area at the mercy of any warlord who wants a payoff.
It is Obama and the Left who have always insisted that the central front of the war on terror needs to be in Afghanistan, and it's the Bush White House that has always seen Afghanistan as incidental.
But this Emile is a dribbling idiot not worth talking to.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/14/2008 @ 7:14pm
Go smoke a bowl, emile. Relax.
then come back and apply yourself to HUGO.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 7:16pm
The word "geology" was first used by Jean-André Deluc in the year 1778 and introduced as a fixed term by Horace-Benedict de Saussure in the year 1779.
The first person to use the word "geography" was Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.).
geography precedes geology by 2,000 years.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:17pm
mea culpa, 100,000 soviet troops it is. I admit my mistake. there. doesn't change the point however. we sent in 15,000 troops.
"Several hundred US Special Forces and some Daisy Cutters broke the Taliban hold on Afghanistan within two months in 2002."
this is nonsense. we kicked the Taleban out of Kabul. we definitely did not break the Taleban's hold on the country. why else would we still be fighting six years later. end of argument.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:24pm
Huggy, you make more than one grand assumption, but allow me to address one:
"The Left", as far as I can tell, does not see Afghanistan as the "central front" of the GWOT. Most of "the left" view it as an attempt to remove the Al Qaida from Afghanistan by removing their former government supporters, the Taliban, If things had been done with even a modicum of competence a restoration of civil agencies and infrastructure could have won the hearts and... well you know the line. Most "lefties" view the GWOT as a propaganda tool more than a strateegery. Removing the Taiban is also seen as a way to bring a liberal democracy to Afghanis, but that is probably a pipe dream given the predilection toward clan rule.
IMHO.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 7:24pm
Go smoke a bowl, emile. Relax. then come back and apply yourself to HUGO. Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 7:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
if I had one, I surely would. maybe tomorrow. did you catch my post on the victory of the war on the war on drugs, this last election?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:25pm
geography precedes geology by 2,000 years. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:17pm
the Earth is only 6,000 years young. What for we need geology?
;)
Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 7:27pm
here it is again,
http://www.alternet.org/story/106141/
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:28pm
did you catch my post on the victory of the war on the war on drugs, this last election? Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:25pm |
nope.
din din has arrived. Might be back later.
Peace.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 7:31pm
Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 7:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
we can't even bring liberal democracy to the USA.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:36pm
Peace. Posted by crabwalk at 11/14/2008 @ 7:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and to you, my brother.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:37pm
"Now however, those fanatics no longer fight in the open and this time we hold the country and must defend it from their assaults. That does not mean that we can't beat them again, and again. But we can't be sure of beating them once and for all."
complete nonsense and wishful thinking. revisionist history before the history of that war is even written, by a braindead poster.
just read what defense sec Gates has been saying about Afghanistan.
it's basically a civil war between the Northern Alliance, read warlords, and the Taleban, which are so far from being defeated that they are now threatening Pakistan, which just kicked them out of Peshawar.
I don't post here for these troglodytes, I post for all y'all.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 7:43pm
must be the painkillers talking. you're a putz nonetheless.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 6:40pm
I suppose with you anyone would be a "putz" when you are proven wrong.
So since you are likely to roll out the insults on anyone that disagrees with you, I won't take it personally.
All Hail the Opinions of Emile!
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 8:26pm
The only fool he suffers is himself!
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2008 @ 8:28pm
the war in Afghanistan was a stalking horse for the war against Iraq. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:23pm
This makes no sense to me. I think it was a macho ultimatum to Cheney and Rumsfeld's pipeline friends after it appeared they had been screwed (9/11).
And you are mighty free with the epithet "jerk." You know, one finger points, three point back...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 8:31pm
the war in Afghanistan was a stalking horse for the war against Iraq. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 5:23pm This makes no sense to me. I think it was a macho ultimatum to Cheney and Rumsfeld's pipeline friends after it appeared they had been screwed (9/11).
they had a rationalization for the Afghanistan war, Al Qaeda training camps, and the presence of Bin Laden. once there were troops in afghanistan they pulled a switcheroo and attacked a country that had no connection to 9/11, Iraq. the rest is history. I don't think the planned pipeline entered into it.
perhaps I am too free with epithets, but if you look further you will see that I am often the target of epithets myself.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 8:41pm
again 15,000 troops into a country twice the size of Texas. NYC has 30,000 cops to maintain order, just as a comparison.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 8:43pm
Oh, OK. They pulled a "switcheroo." They needed a "stalking horse" for that? I think you've been listening to a "talking horse."
Certainly not reflective of Occam's Razor. A metaphor contrasted to naked embarassment?
again 15,000 troops into a country twice the size of Texas. NYC has 30,000 cops to maintain order, just as a comparison. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 8:43pm |
This simile has been made before by another. I think the "Allied" aggregate is somewhat larger.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 8:56pm
And to tell the truth I still regret the time I told a poster he was on my "whacko" list. The ideas were whack, not the poster, a creation of the cosmos... (So are black holes, but hey...)
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 9:09pm
This simile has been made before by another. I think the "Allied" aggregate is somewhat larger. Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it was me who has made that point before. the allied aggregate was 5.000 strong from 28 countries by 2002, most of which were not combat troops. my point remains the same. we sicced the Northern Alliance on the Taleban, and it was they who made most of the military gains initially.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 9:10pm
And to tell the truth I still regret the time I told a poster he was on my "whacko" list. The ideas were whack, not the poster, a creation of the cosmos... (So are black holes, but hey...) Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 9:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you're a saint.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 9:12pm
Oh, OK. They pulled a "switcheroo."
they needed something to pull a switcheroo.
there was in this country a war fever after 9/11. the war against the Taleban fed that fever. it is my opinion that without that war, the iraq swindle would have been far more difficult.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 9:14pm
you're a saint. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 9:12pm
No, I'm not. I behave like a jerk lotsa times. Then I feel guilty. Do guilt feelings make someone a saint? Man, I doubt it. I just try to learn from my self-defeating behavior. It's a matter of survival, I would guess.
Your observation re: difficulty of aggression "transference" is logical, I'll admit IF the primary objective was always Saddam and who gives a crap about the WTC. Sick stuff.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 9:24pm
pax, I was teasing, gently.
the facts are out there. how we interpret them is what makes opinions. Hugo had his facts wrong, and so his opinion stinks.
chao too had his facts wrong and made things worse with every wrong headed post. rereading his posts is hilarious.I mean really, geography and geology.
I have no problem being shown wrong on facts. that's how I learn.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 10:34pm
I was recently in London, Just before the elections. A minicab picked me up in central london to drive me to Heathrow. The driver seemed friendly and after we hit the A4 highway. he said
" where are you going sir?". I said "San Fransisco" He " Do you live there?" Me "Yes" He " You don't look American" ( I am from India but immigrant from 1958}
Me: " America is a melting pot of all nationalities"
He " Now tell your president Bush to get out of Afganistan. America will be like Russia."
Me: Why. where are you from and how long have been in UK
He: I am from afganistan and I am 55 years old. I came to UK 10 years ago.I am a good taxi driver, but America is wrong. you cannot win.
My thoughts froze. Here is a afgani in UK. Fully assimiliated in the capitalist society - hating the west
Best to keep quite. Drive me to the airport in one piece.
God help Obhama and the next administration!!
Posted by nd001 at 11/14/2008 @ 11:01pm
From the BBC: Attackers in Afghanistan have sprayed acid in the faces of at least 15 girls near a school in Kandahar, police say. They say the attack happened shortly before at least six people were killed in a bomb blast near a government building in the city. Doctors say the six girls were wearing Islamic burkas or veils which provided them with some protection. Correspondents say the attack is likely to have been carried out by those opposed to the education of women.
I'm with Blanche Dubois. Let's bail on that disaster area. We can't change them, and we have no business trying to bring "democracy" to such a backwards bunch of yahoos. Females of Afghanistan: Sorry we can't stay. The Brits say it's a lost cause. hope you haven't forgotten what a foot on the back of your neck feels like.
Posted by twillie at 11/14/2008 @ 11:13pm
What makes you think the driver hates the west? It sounds to me like he was telling you he hated Bush's policy in Afghanistan.
I met a Jordanian man, an elderly man, who came to New York to work selling newspapers to drivers on Pelham Parkway at red lights. He told me he hated New York, but he never said he hated America. I wished I could have given him some idea of the breadth of the country, but it seemed enough to him that I listened to him bitch and moan. His biggest gripe I think was the cold arrogance of New Yorkers. I wished him the best and he thanked me warmly and said the same. I think he was a totally normal New Yorker in retrospect.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 11:16pm
From the BBC: Attackers in Afghanistan have sprayed acid in the faces of at least 15 girls near a school in Kandahar, police say. Posted by twillie at 11/14/2008 @ 11:13pm
Today? I don't see it on the beeb website at this time
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 11:27pm
It was in the local paper, too. Google it.
Posted by twillie at 11/15/2008 @ 12:50am
crabwalk, soundtrack for your next bowl.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxn9jhypHfo
repugs, soundtrack for your gnashing of teeth, it's gonna be a long four years for you losers.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 11:50am
Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 11:50am
Starting to look like we're all losers.
...maybe in 8 more years...
Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 2:10pm
...at least is has a good beat and you can dance to it.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 2:12pm
Withdraw and negotiate? Sounds like a moron to me.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/15/2008 @ 6:20pm
how o'hanlon is still giving "advice" is beyond me....
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2008 @ 01:20am
If not for the economy, Irag would have been the focus of the election.
How many times has Obama stated "I was against the war.?
He campagined on a quick withdrawal, he HAS to do it.
It's the right thing anyway.
No back peddling!!
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/16/2008 @ 07:36am
WASHINGTON, June 26, 2005 – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld clarified widespread media and legislative confusion over the status of U.S. and Iraqi security forces when he appeared today on NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," and "Fox News Sunday."
Iraq now has 168,500 members in its security forces, Rumsfeld said. "Not troops -- security forces. That's what we always say," Rumsfeld told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "They're a mixture of police, border guards, special commando battalions, counter-terrorist units (and) army units -- mechanized and not mechanized. Another 50,000 to 70,000 Iraqis serve as site-protection personnel, he noted.
"You can't look at it that way," Rumsfeld continued. "You have to say, 'What are you trying to achieve with what types of units? And where are they in their progress? And the answer is they're progressing every week, every month, to a greater degree of sophistication."
The bottom line, the secretary said, is that progress has been achieved, and progress continues. "The Iraqi security forces are getting better every day," he said. "There are more of them, and they're better equipped and better trained." Consequently, by October, as Iraq gears up for a constitutional referendum and new elections, there should be "in the neighborhood of 200,000" Iraqi security forces, he said.
"Coalition forces, foreign forces," Rumsfeld explained, "are not going to be able to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment (in which) the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency."
Iraqi and coalition forces are winning now in Iraq, the secretary asserted, and will win in the end against the insurgency.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2008 @ 09:13am
Today:
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 53 mins ago
Proponents of the security pact with the Americans, including al-Maliki's interior and defense ministers, say a continued U.S. military presence is needed until Iraq's nascent security forces are capable of taking charge of security in the war-devastated nation.
Sunday's Cabinet session began shortly after a roadside bomb killed three people and wounded seven in a northern Baghdad district, the latest evidence that violence continues to plague Iraq despite the dramatic improvement in security over the past year.
----
So. 3 years ago Iraqi security forces were almost ready, 3 years from NOW, they might be ready. In 2011. Maybe
Victory is just around the corner.
Maybe.
Bring em home.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2008 @ 09:18am
certainly NOT Persia. C'mon now. Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 3:22pm
Wikipedia (that source of wisdom) says that the term"Greater Iran (in Persian: ایران بزرگ Irān-e Bozorg, or ایرانزمین Irān-zamīn; the Encyclopedia Iranica uses the term Iranian Cultural Continent[1])" can be used for all the "regions that have significant Iranian cultural influence" and "roughly corresponds to the territory surrounding the Iranian plateau".
Afghanistan, as a partly-Persophone country influenced by Persian culture, possibly fits this description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate_society http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Dari_(Eastern_Persian)
Chaoszen wasn't wrong, after all.
Posted by SkylarkNation at 11/16/2008 @ 12:36pm
I hope President elect Obama will bring our troops home from Iraq ASAP...we had no business being there in the first place. It's true though about Afghanistan, the Russians were there for years and had to leave in the end and with no victory that I'm aware of. Negotiations may be the answer there also, we can't keep fighting everybody everywhere forever...there has to come a time surely when the world can be at peace. Now that would be a novel idea wouldn't it...peace and harmony all over the world??
Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:43pm
I hope President elect Obama will bring our troops home from Iraq ASAP...we had no business being there in the first place. It's true though about Afghanistan, the Russians were there for years and had to leave in the end and with no victory that I'm aware of. Negotiations may be the answer there also, we can't keep fighting everybody everywhere forever...there has to come a time surely when the world can be at peace. Now that would be a novel idea wouldn't it...peace and harmony all over the world??
Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:44pm
Chaoszen wasn't wrong, after all. Posted by SkylarkNation at 11/16/2008 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't expect any concession from emile. He insisted the invasion of North Africa (100,000 troops) was larger than the Normandy invasion (175,000 troops). he's resistant to facts.
Posted by twillie at 11/16/2008 @ 11:43pm