By Hanlon, on December 2nd, 2009 at 07:58 PM
 After my previous apologizing for the troop increase in Afghanistan, and specifically after B-O’s big honkin’ speech last night, I’ve finally come to the light on the current war.
If you didn’t sit through that speech, here’s the full text of it. If you did sit through it, then chances are you noticed the rather alarming difference between it and every other speech the man has made. For one, it lacked the usual uplifting timbre of a Barack Obama speech. For another, it came across as horrendously disingenuous.
Read through it a few times. Let it really sink in. Then re-read it, but imagine it in Dubya’s voice. Maybe pull out a few of the more long-winded sentences and replace them with more direct language. Eerie, isn’t it? There’s almost nothing that really differentiates this from a boilerplate Bush speech explaining why the war is important and that challenges lie ahead, these are hard decisions and blah de bloo.
Remember all that change we were hoping for? Welcome to change.
Okay, so that didn’t explain my change of heart. What finally hit me over the head was the following question: what exactly are we doing over there? Now before you say “fighting terrorism”, ask yourself who our target is. Al Qaeda? Hardly. Suddenly everyone’s been talking about the Taliban, employing the same sleight of hand that took us from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. The Taliban are growing, they’re setting up camp in Pakistan, they aren’t eliminated.
So what? The Taliban didn’t attack. They may have let Al Qaeda live in Afghanistan, but they neither trained nor funded them. The Taliban has never, at any point, been a threat to the United States. Focusing the “war” on following the Taliban around is just a way to avoid actually pulling out.
Then there’s the historical side of things. Afghanistan is the “Graveyard of Empires”, where formerly cocksure superpowers watched their influence vanish in the sandy hills. After getting embarrassed in the 1980s, the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence collapsed, and now we’re looking to do the same. All because our Hopey McHope president is afraid to stand up and bring about the change he’d promised us.
The Afghanistan conflict started with noble intentions, but has devolved into a travesty. Increasing the number of troops isn’t going to change that. The sooner we leave, the better.
By Hanlon, on October 30th, 2009 at 07:57 PM
 As far as I’m concerned, every single drop of blood spilled in Pakistan as a result of the Taliban is on George W Bush’s hands. Every one. Every bomb that goes off, bullet fired, even the US drones that go off course and kill a handful of civilians.
If it’s the case that the violence is ramping up and looking to be the worst it’s ever been, then the blame lays squarely on the fact that when Bush had the chance to burn out every last remnant of Al Qaeda at the Taliban, he decided it was more important to go rampaging into Iraq on a fool’s errand.
Tensions have soared across Pakistan following a spike in Taliban-mediated violence killing more than 240 people this month alone. Peshawar, a gateway to the northwest tribal belt where the Pakistani Army is on a major offensive against Taliban militants, is a perpetual target for violence. But now, as the line between military and civilian targets blurs, the bloodshed has shaken even the most resilient Pakistanis. It has shattered any illusion that the Pakistani army is successfully quashing the Taliban. And if Wednesday’s strikes tell us anything, it is that there is much more violence to come. Pakistan is at war, and civilians are no longer immune.
…
It’s a big change from a month ago, when there was a hint of optimism in the war against Taliban. Then, the Pakistan army claimed to have routed the Taliban from the Swat Valley. A drone attack in the Waziristan area, the Taliban’s stronghold, had killed the Pakistani Taliban’s chief and U.S. and Pakistani intelligence officials said that his successor, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed in a duel to replace him.
Not only did Bush leave two direct wars for Obama to deal with, he left behind two indirect wars in Iran and Pakistan.
As soon as the 9/11 attacks happened, the right went on the warpath, saying that the problem was that Clinton lacked the wherewithal to finish his little skirmish with bin Laden, so I can only imagine how angry they’re going to be at the maelstrom in Pakistan that could have been avoided had the war in Afghanistan not been treated like an annoying distraction.
By Hanlon, on October 21st, 2009 at 10:48 PM
 Ask the average American where problems are concerning the US, foreign policy, and where we’re dumping our money, and the usual list of suspects pop up. Specifically, the big three: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel. While there are certainly points to be made there, we have a fourth suspect lately: Pakistan.
As the “War on Terror” spent its time moving west while we moved east, that can come as little surprise. What might surprise you is to see what’s happening to what efforts we are making in that area. We may not be fighting, but we’re giving economic boost to their government, so what’s that getting us? Not as much as we’d like. Big quote ahead, with a pair of bolded cuts I think are worth taking together.
1991-2000: But even while Pakistan was serving a strategic Cold War purpose, concerns persisted about the country’s nuclear ambitions. That gave President George H.W. Bush an easy out from the massive funding commitments in 1990, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Aid over the next decade withered to $429 million in economic assistance and $5.2 million in military assistance, a drop-off Pakistanis still cite bitterly, accusing the United States of leaving them high and dry during the decade.
2001-2009: Since 9/11, the United States has once again bolstered its funding commitments, sending nearly $9 billion in military assistance both to aid and reimburse Pakistan for its operations in the unwieldy border regions with Afghanistan. Another $3.6 billion has funded economic and diplomatic initiatives. But U.S. officials and journalists’ accounts have raised concerns that such funds are not being used as intended, and not just because of the typical concerns about corruption. Documented military and civilian government deals with Taliban elements, like a 2004 agreement with Waziri militant leader Nek Mohammed, have confirmed that money intended to fight the Taliban is, in many cases, being used instead to pay them off. (Islamabad is currently battling Taliban fighters in Waziristan.) When the deals fall through, as rapidly shifting alliances in Pakistan’s tribal regions often do, that money ultimately ends up funding the insurgency. U.S. officials have expressed particular concerns about the Pakistani government’s links to the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, which reportedly has ties to Al Qaeda. At the same time, former president Pervez Musharraf has recently admitted to using U.S. military funding to strengthen defenses against India.
I often worry that the problem isn’t that we lack the resources to deal with the problems we face, but that the people in charge of moving those resources around are all looking in the wrong places, and they have been for over eight years. These situations are constantly seen in simple terms. This country’s got the good guys, these have the bad guys, these bad guys are moving into a good country and we need to stop it. Things ain’t quite that simple, unfortunately.
By Hanlon, on July 16th, 2009 at 11:44 AM
 Watching the right bitch-fest grow the elephantine proportions (appropriately enough) is starting to test my endurance. The level of shrill hysterics flying out of some of these idiots is just too much to bear, so just give me a few moments to vent. Specifically at one column by dumbass du jour Burt Prelutsky.
It’s yet another in the long line of apocalyptic anti-Obama columns that presents 2009 as the absolute destruction of the United States. I dunno if he was being intentionally misleading or if he’s just got a few blood clots in his brain, but either way it’s unbelievable what he typed out and thought to be respectable.
Whenever the slide began, in the months since Obama was crowned, we’ve slid faster and further than I would have dreamed possible. Obama keeps huffing and puffing and the federal government just keeps expanding like a gigantic balloon. It’s only a matter of time until it blows up in all our faces.
I want to point out that the Bush administration saw the greatest increase and consolidation of executive power in United States history. Obama has not added to it in the slightest save how he’s continued the stimulus policies that began under Dubya. Take your pick. Even as of 2004, Bush saw the greatest increase in government spending since LBJ. His was a time when presidents could skirt Congress by way of signing statements and Vice Presidents could tell the CIA to keep Congress in the dark, since he existed in a quantum-like fashion between the legislative and executive. Plus, hey, let’s not forget that Reagan pretty much owns the national debt.
Not in my wildest nightmares would I have imagined that an American president would travel to countries we’ve bled and died to defend, and apologize for our arrogance. Neither would I have ever expected that the same man who casually dismissed our special relationship with England would curtsy to a Saudi prince; refer to a blood-thirsty Muslim cleric, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the Supreme Leader; and butter up a Russian tyrant who cut his eye teeth working for the barbaric KGB.
This is the kind of person who would probably bitch at John Paul II for apologizing for the Catholic Church’s past actions. And I’d be careful about talking about deference to Saudi Princes considering the Bush family has had Saudi balls on their faces for, oh, quite a few decades now. Khamenei’s actual title is “Supreme Leader”. That’s who he is. He’s the Supreme Leader of Iran. There are lots of Ayatollahs over there, Khamenei’s the Supreme Leader. It’s like bitching at Obama for calling Gordon Brown the Prime Minister.
I also find it hilarious that people actually admire Bush’s policy of calling other world leaders “evil” and saying that’s what he saw in the eyes of Putin. I don’t think neoconservatives get the fucking message that when you spend all your time throwing handfuls of your own shit at the world and calling them evil, they’re going to want to hurt you. One of my favorite quotes of Abraham Lincoln is “The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.”
Obama’s groupies in and out of the media used to cry “Foul!” during the campaign whenever people would question the character of a man whose intimate circle included a corrupt Chicago lobbyist, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, a racist minister and a spouse who announced that America was a mean country. It seems that in the past several months, his circle has grown in size, but unfortunately not in character.
Again, Obama and Bill Ayers weren’t best friends, he publicly denounced Wright’s remarks, and I love this bullshit notion that conservatives can bleat about American being a pussified nation of victims (hey, remember McCain’s economic guy calling everyone whiners?), but if Michelle Obama says American is mean suddenly it’s the end of the world. And that’s the only legitimate comment in the list. The Rezko story was pretty much all hot air. We’re seeing the Clinton Murder fantasy part two, and it’s starting early.
Oh and by the way.
As hard as it is to accept, there’s no getting around the fact that Al Franken is a U.S. Senator. On the upside, just as people used to say that any boy could grow up to be president, now people can say that any comedian who’s smug, obnoxious and not the least bit funny, can grow up to be a senator. That being the case, I guess it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that Sen. Franken might one day be joined by the likes of Bill Maher and David Letterman.
Ronald Reagan was an actor and Arnold Schwarzenegger became a governor practically on a whim, not to mention Jesse Ventura the senator. If I hear anyone bitching about Al Franken being a “comedian” again I’m going to start punching people in the throat. The dude has been involved in politics for at least 13 years, when he first wrote Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. He started the progressive talk radio station Air America and has been a tireless promoter and worker in the political realm. What the hell did the “Governator” do before he ran? Made Terminator 3.
Also, Franken has a political science degree from goddamn Harvard where he graduated cum laude. Oh yeah, this guy can’t possibly know politics. Remember, Rush Limbaugh flunked out of college and Hannity dropped out twice. Just food for thought.
And the coup de grace:
Before signing off, I found myself wondering the other day why it is, now that Afghanistan is Obama’s war, I don’t hear the Democrats or their lap dogs in the media referring to it as a quagmire, pointing out that the Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11, and demanding that President Obama announce his exit strategy?
I legitimately can’t figure out if this is a joke or not. I mean, liberals during the Bush era were mad at him for not focusing on Afghanistan. The big argument was that the Iraq War distracted us from Afghanistan. You know, the one against the government which was offering haven to Al Qaeda. I’m not really sure what this asshole thinks liberals have been saying for the past eight years, because he went beyond a straw man argument and just started making shit up. At least a straw man argument has a tenuous connection to a real argument, this is just batshit crazy.
Okay, I’m done.
By Hanlon, on June 6th, 2009 at 06:21 PM
 I’m as happy as anyone that some of the bad guys are dead, but I dunno. It’s starting to sound like the Taliban is engaging in what George Carlin might call job title inflation. I do have to say, I find the irony of militants attacking a security convoy and causing the prisoners to be killed rather delicious.
Pakistan security forces were transporting Amir Izat Khan and Maulana Muhammad Alam from Malakand to Peshawar when their convoy was attacked by militants, the military said.
Both prisoners were killed in the battle. It was unclear whether they were killed by the Taliban or security forces. The men were senior members of an organization run by Sufi Muhammad.
Muhammad represented the Swat Valley Taliban in the recent failed peace efforts between the Pakistani Taliban and the local government. He is also the father-in-law of Maulana Fazlullah, leader of the Pakistan Taliban in the Swat Valley.
Bet that was an awkward report back to home base.
Still, it feels like the Taliban is giving out leadership titles like TGI Friday gives out “associate” nametags. I don’t think I’ve heard a single news report saying “Six Taliban peons killed in attack; all six said to be at the bottom of the ladder and were of no importance to either side”.
By Hanlon, on April 29th, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Whenever I see a story like this, it feels like it’s come from the past. Like somehow I accidentally opened up my Google Reader’s archive and read a story from 2002. The headline US Aims to cut off Taliban’s bankroll, all by itself, explains how badly the United States lost its way in the “war on terror”.
Buckle up, things get hilarious.
Through extortion and taxation, the Taliban are believed to reap as much as $300 million a year from Afghanistan’s opium trade, which now makes up 90 percent of the world’s total. That is enough, the Americans say, to sustain all of the Taliban’s military operations in southern Afghanistan for an entire year.
Yeah. The Taliban, who we supposedly totally decimated and drove out of Afghanistan, are pulling in more money than the board of AIG from friggin’ opium trade alone.
We landed in this mess thanks to an administration that wanted to claim that these guys were a threat to civilization itself, but that the war could be fought on the cheap with minimal resources. As unpalatable as a bombing of Dresden style assault might have been in 2002, 2009 might be going a little more smoothly had the Bush Administration treated their war like a damn war and not a quick pit stop before Iraq.
I dunno how Obama thinks we’re going to get out of this one, and right now I’m not really convinced he knows either. The “hey let’s just throw a bunch of troops in there” thing hasn’t exactly proven to be the magic bullet.
By Hanlon, on April 25th, 2009 at 12:33 PM
By Hanlon, on March 31st, 2009 at 07:06 PM
At the risk of sounding like a namby-pamby, this really does seem like a case of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Haji Gran, a 70-year-old poppy and wheat farmer, wants a pump for his well.
U.S. Marine Sgt. Joshua Randall has an answer: “If (you) start telling us where the Taliban is and where they’re placing bombs on the road, I can start asking for water pumps,” he tells Gran and his family through an interpreter.
Gran, wearing a white turban and shalwa kameez, the local dress of loose pants and shirt, says he will be glad to provide information about the Taliban. “The bombs are not good for us either,” he says.
Ain’t that something? Work with the people and they’ll talk. No need for waterboarding.
See that’s the thing. Terrorism is a response to the perceived “evil” of the “enemy”. The way to combat terrorism (that is, prevent it from spreading) is to prove to the people that the United States is a friend. That way when the militants talk of the Great Satan, the people will go “are you kidding, they bought me some farm equipment! They’re good people!” When you capture and beat them and then hold them for years without hope of release, that tape with Bin Laden talking of America’s evils starts to sound pretty convincing.
By Hanlon, on August 26th, 2008 at 08:41 PM
It’s the heaviest civilian casualty operation since 2001 over there, but hey, at least there was a pretty decent children-to-badguys rate.
The United Nations the team visited the scene and interviewed survivors and local officials and elders, getting a name, age and gender of each person reported killed. The team reported that 15 people had been injured in the air strikes, which occurred in the middle of the night.
The numbers closely match those given by a government commission sent from Kabul to investigate the bombing, which put the total dead at up to 95.
Mohammad Iqbal Safi, the head of the parliamentary defense committee and a member of the government commission, said the 60 children were between three months old and 16 years old, all killed as they slept. “It was a heart breaking scene,” he said.
There’s a kind of totaler krieg attitude emerging lately that the best way to fix everything going wrong is to bomb the hell out of everyone, or that this is what we should have done in the first place. While that kind of strategy might have worked then, having a terrifying number of civilian casualties while attempting to root out “terrorists” just does not work.
Here’s why. When you fight a proper war, the “enemy” is the government of the country the fight’s in. Bomb a load of civilians and the government sees you have no hesitation to go all out, and rather than let their own be slaughtered will go for a hasty surrender. In this case, the extremists stand to lose nothing when civilians are killed, and likely will use that as proof that America is evil and strengthen their resolve (imagine that, we’re emboldening them). Plus it undermines the “we aren’t waging war on the people, just the terrorists” idea.
These two wars really should be studied by every single administration from here on out as a manual entitled “How Not to Fight Terrorism”.
|
|
|
