OT: Here we go again...

What was our initial function in Vietnam? Do you remember?

And in Iraq, what task was supposed to be complete in 6 months, according to Rumsfeld and Bush, but took 3-4 years instead? Do you remember?

Great. Train Sunnis to catch Sunnis.

That's going to work really well.

In a related story, Farmer John is training wolves to keep wolves out of the henhouse.

Your library should have this book, considering how highly regarded it's been since its publication.

I own the book. I've read it three times.

I snipped everything else you wrote for three reasons:

1) You didn't mention the one concept that connects Vietnam to our training mission in Pakistan. 2) You turned this into a left/right argument, which it is not. 3) You said "my friend Stanley Karnow", which suggests that you share some of dbu's disdain for books and historians. 4) If your own mother wrote the exact same book, you wouldn't read it because you are too lazy and you think there's nothing left in the world for you to learn.

This discussion is now over.

We should help ourselves there because Pakistan's government doesn't want to fight al Qaeda. OTOH we should make Pakistan think that they're taking the initiative against al Qaeda. But how can Pakistan really fight al Qaeda when its intelligence service, the ISI, and its nuclear weapons program, are full of pro-al Qaeda people in its leadership?

Why haven't we been able to get Osama? Do you think it has anything to do with our lack of success in developing Afghanistan? The answer can be seen in the amount of opium grown there and our lack of a realistic solution to that rather simple problem.

The Communists also won a fairly free election whose results we rejected. So there went our moral authority.

So why did President Eisenhower decide against a major escalation in US forces in Vietnam? After all he wasn't an isolationist, and he certainly wasn't naive about Communism, war, or the world.

The problem we

But don't swing at every pitch, and stay out of other people's ball games (that's not isolationism, unless you refuse their invitations to their games).

Not even when the civilian leadership has betrayed the nation and the military and given our GIs practically no chance to win?

That's not the way things do or should work in a free country. The problem hasn't been the press but the incompetence of our leadership.

Our laws have allowed monitoring calls since 1978, without requiring warrants ahead of time, and we don't need to give phone companies immunity from lawsuits when they don't demand retroactive warrants.

Don't be so conventional. That's the worst time for terrorists to attack. It's far better and safer for them to wait until just after the Super Bowl, when people are flying back home, and then blow up several planes at once.

Would foreign Christians do better than native Pakistanis?

You missed the point, which was the futility of such an arrangement.

We have a legion of examples of just how much the "word" of any Muslim involved in Afghanista, Pakistan, or Iraq is worth.

Look at the corruption within the Iraqi police, though we're there trying to train the untrainable. How many times are U.S. soldiers going to die due to the "word" of a Muslim supposedly sworn to his duty?

I really get angry when anyone tries to defend the indefensible.

the truth is that the conflict in Afghanistan began in February, 2001- an oil pipeline was to be built across the sands of Afghanistan, backed by US companies. The Government objected, but the US shrugged their shoulders and stated "we dont recognise the Government of Afghanistan". Essentially Americans thought that they could do what the British did in the former Colonies- treat the locals as Aborigines, classless, uncivilised "savages", and exploit from them their resources.

7 months later, the US recieved their answer. To this day, Canadian soldiers are trying to build a highway which will facilitate the construction of this pipeline- is it any wonder that their is reistance? o yes, and we are in their land! ask yourself- if the situation were reversed, would you not do the same?

There is always the Bomb'em Obama Plan. Any problems with that?

Excellent post, Jeff. One of the best I have EVER read recapping events of the last several decades. The surrender monkey LIEbrawls virtually guarantee defeat when they publicly bleat about how imperfect their government is, etc..

So, problems with a government should be kept quiet? Good idea, comrade.

WINNING a war justifies WHATEVER IT TAKES. Something you cowardly surrender monkeys should learn.

Yes. Did you? :)

As usual our good friend Joe has it wrong, again. Actually the war with Iraq ended rather quickly. It is just our good luck that Al Qaeda has been coming into Iraq for us to kill, so we don't need to go after them in Afghanistan, that is taking longer ;)

That was also my point.

Then why have each of those nations experienced long periods of peace and stability throughout history?

They wouldn't be so bad if the war had been won decisively in a matter of days, as the neocons and John McCain said it would be, and we hadn't laid off the Iraqi military and police.

But didn't you twice vote for...?

Not a correct synopsis. The idea for the pipeline was from the Saudis. It was THEIR assumption that the pipeline would actually help the Taliban stay in power. and ensure that bin Laden had a safe haven. Our State Department went along with this, and encouraged Unocal to participate. Flour Daniel willingly jumped in to help. State gave their blessings.

As soon as it was all lined up, the Taliban added additional demands in the form of a road from Torghundi to Spin Boldak, and monetary "investments" in the Kahdahar schools - mosque schools. Saudi Arabia was already sending Afghanistan and Pakistan 150,000 barrrels of oil every day in lieu of cash, which was an established Saudi practice. They simply wanted to increase the amount and ease with which this was done.

Historically, this kind of "aid" to Pakistan by the Saudis amounted to the $1 billion dollars used to help the Paks develop their A-bomb to counter the Hindu bomb possessed by India. All done with the tacit consent of State. After all, the Saudis were our friends, right?

This aid also found its way to the Taliban right up until 9/11. The CIA screwed up big time by looking the other way, and labeling the Saudi/American companies connection a "domestic" issue outside of their purview. Those within the agency who were concerned had little chance of getting the President's ear in 1999-2000. The joke was that all the CIA had to do to get an appointment with Clinton was to show up with a box of his favorite Cuban cigars like the Saudi ambassador did with regularity.

The entire arrangement broke down when increasing demands upon American companies were too much. Not because the Taliban all of a sudden got patriotic.

When was that?

I did, and have freely admitted this gross error. All I have to console myself with is the fact that a Republican vote for president in the state of California is merely symbolic. Electoral votes always go to the Dem candidate here.

Though the idea of voting for Gore or Kerry is still nauseating.