Should we do more in Afghanistan?
January 13th, 2009 at 6:20 pm by David FarrarPablo at Kiwipolitico makes the case for an increased NZ Defence Force presence in Afghanistan:
The questions are whether NZ should contribute more troops, in what role, and can it afford to do so both politically and economically? Most progressives would say no to all three. I beg to differ.
The answers should be yes, combat and combat support as well as PRT and yes. The reason is that rather than a (neo) imperialist intervention, the mission in Afghanistan is a multinational nation-building effort in the wake of state failure. That state failure was brought about by the medieval theocratic Taliban regime, whose record on human rights and support for external terrorism made it arguably the most oppressive regime of the late 20th century. Under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine elaborated by the UN in the wake of Rwandan and Serbian ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, the international community has a duty to protect populations from the depredations of their rulers as well as from others. As a supporter of the UN mandate, NZ subscribes to this philosophy. It is thus obligated to be involved in Afghanistan and the NZ progressive community should welcome its involvement.
Yet many do not.
From a progressive perspective, the fight against the Taliban is just. Their retrograde perspective condemns those who live under their rule to primitive lives of limited opportunity and fear. Needless to say, the Taleban oppress wimin, but so do they ethnic minorities, non-Muslims, and males who exhibit “softness” of character (who are often the subjects of sexual predation). In sum: the Taliban are a human scourge. Allowing them to restore their presence in any part of Afghanistan will encourage them to do the same in the tribal homelands in Pakistan (as indeed is occurring at the moment). Destabilisation of Pakistan, now ongoing, will lead to larger regional conflict, not just with respect to India, but in a number of other Central Asian republics grappling with Islamicist irredentism. That can not be allowed to happen because the implications of a wider conflict are perilous for international stability. Thus, contrary to those who see the ISAF mission is an imperialist venture that suppresses the will of the Afghan people, it can better be seen as a make-or-break nation-building and international stabilisation effort against a formidable adversary hell-bent on returning those who live under its rule to the 15th century whether they want to or not. Thus even the pacifist Left needs to support the ISAF effort on “lesser evil” grounds. It may be uncomfortable for them and other elements of the anti-imperialist Left to do so, but it is the morally correct thing to do given the alternative.
A superb argument.
In light of this, New Zealand has to start walking the walk. It can no longer simply engage in reconstruction roles while the bulk of combat duties are carried out by troops from other countries. It needs to complement the Bamyan PRT with a restored combat contingent able and willing to help take the fight back to the Taliban. It has the capability to do so. Failure to act makes NZ appear unwilling to fully commit to its international obligations in this UN-mandated, NATO mission, which raises questions about its political character and fighting spirit.
It will be interesting to see what the Government does.
Related posts:
- NZ Herald on Afghanistan
- Will NZ stay on in Afghanistan?
- Afghanistan Electoral System
- Labour on Afghanistan
January 13th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
If we start fighting for america we might as well let the nuclear ships back in which will enevitably lead to nuclear power here.
The next step will be a draft. I don’t believe our troops would have a heart in this fight. Most US soldiers don’t (though under Obama they might be reinvigorated)
Guotanamo Bay is on the verge of being emptied and US troops are going to start filtering back stateside. This is not the time to lose Kiwi lives for them.
The good work our men do over there and the input from the SAS in engagements is enough. Esp for a country our size.
WE remember the waste of Kiwi lives in Gallipolli every year for the Brits. Do we really want to do the same for the Yanks?
I say we need to be prepared for the potential of the Muslim menace within us!
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
The arguments are pretty good.
The tragedy is that the writer cannot see they applied to Iraq in a vastly more important fashion. Saddam’s killings of average 24,000 per year dwarf the worst predations of the Taleban, his nuclear and WMD ambitions and developments were immeasurably greater and his potential to disrupt the Middle East of far greater concern to the world.
The differences between the invasions of both countries are also interesting. The one that the writer is so keen on was instituted purely for revenge, and after an initial punishment was underfunded and undermanned. The other, Iraq, was undertaken in sobriety and in accordance with a belief that it posed the greater impact and danger.. not surprisingly, it has been the war that was won, and the other is currently a losing cause because, in relative terms, there was never a progressive reason to invade, no great issues at stake and limited rewards for success.. indeed, compared to the intelligent and adaptable people of Mesopotamia Afghanistan has been a bitter fruit for its invaders in history.
There’s another difference in the two places.. in Iraq you buy a Sheik who will spread the largess within his tribe.. and in Afghanistan you buy a Chieftain with a Viagra pill or ten so he can spill his seed on a young wife.
JC
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Sounds like someone was mugged over the Xmas holidays.
Wimin?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
The Taliban are a bunch of bastards who need a bloody good kicking.
Vote:The SAS,a artillery battery, or a company of infantry attached to the Aussies would no doubt be welcomed.
In some ways I bloody wonder why the hell we are always expected to fight Europe’s bloody scraps for them.
The combined population of Nato must be well over a billion, yet they need the Aussies and us.
So whom among you young types who are keen on our troops going will also be taking the Queen’s Shilling ?
January 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Of course Bush is going and suddenly the wimim of Afghanistan are important.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Not our fight, not our war, when i see the democratically elected government of Afghanistan come to New Zealand and request assistance from her people then we can discuss what the terms and conditions will be for our involvement in eliminating the Taliban.
There is no point going to Afghanistan when firstly the people of New Zealand have not been consulted on the terms and conditions of our involvement in this war and secondly how it will be fought, if they want us to eliminate the Taliban and bring the rule of law to their country then we don’t stop at the Borders of Pakistan or Iran we hunt the fuckers till they are utterly defeated, anything else is just a waste of life and energy.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“WE remember the waste of Kiwi lives in Gallipolli every year for the Brits. Do we really want to do the same for the Yanks?
I say we need to be prepared for the potential of the Muslim menace within us!”
I dont think we would be doing it for the yanks, we would be doing it because it’s right, and in keeping with your last sentence
anyway – by the time the Herc gets there it could be all over
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Somebody once said “The only sensible foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy”. The person who said it was a nasty piece of work, but I still support the insight. I think all the USA’s problems come from ignoring this edict, as they preach freedom while supporting dictatorships. This has come back to bit them, with a vengeance.
The Left faces this problem too. They may celebrate the progress for women under Labour, but are they happy to implicitly support oppression of women in Afghanistan? Here the USA does better – it used a female fighter pilot to knock out a key transmitter in Afghanistan, and gleefully proclaimed the fact to the warlords.
So is the Left’s foreign policy an extension of it’s domestic policy? What do they think on Afghanistan?
PS. I reviewed Steven Pressfield’s The Afghan Campaign here. It’s a great read, and I recommend it.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
noble sentiments and lovely that this chap wants to get involved (or get others involved…) but he has a fundamental lack of understanding that the NZDF cannot make a comittment of this nature – formations like infantry companies are deployed for six month rotations, we simply do not have enough manpower to deploy infantry companies or artillery batteries for more than a year or two before it becomes unsustainable. So yeah, lets send special forces in small teams and lets keep the PRT (they are doing a great job) but anything else while we are also in Timor and the Solomon Islands and other places is simply wishful thinking.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Ahh yes but involvement in the Afghanistan disaster has nothing to to with the love of human rights. Unfortunately.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Perhaps someone can enlighten me, what or who is a “wimin” and how does one oppress such things…..?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I think you have to consider whether these goals are achievable, I don’t think it is realistic to think we can go in there and somehow change their culture overnight. Also we need to make sure we are supporting the right people, the Taleban have managed to comeback by virtue of being less corrupt than the western supported leaders and providing basic law enforcement. , if we end up propping up leaders who are exploiting the situation for their own personal gain then I can’t see the war in Afghanistan being won.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I remember wimin from my days at Massey, I think it’s for people who say woman instead women[wimin], and there are lots of them.
The question remains though would any kiwi politician have the courage to commit New Zealand troops to a war?
Remember Helen Clark’s hysterical “John Key would have killed 60 soldiers in Iraq” claim from the election campaign, expect another chorus of that nonsense.
Phil Goff is very different of course and his family has already given blood in this cause.
It would have to be bipartisan decision with National and Labour farewelling the troops and wishing them well.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I don’t agree with sending our troops over to Afghanistan, into the grinder. They could do much more than prop up a puppet for the USA. What a waste.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Based on these arguments we should also be in to Darfur et al in Africa. No, we are not the world’s police and look how the US suffers from trying to be so. Use economic forces – it works.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Setting aside the moral arguments of whether we should be stepping up our military commitment in Afghanistan for a moment I’m not sure that we have the ability to.
Our military – in particular our army – are pretty stretched at the moment rotating contingents through Afghanistan, Timor and the Solomons along with the ongoing commitments to other UN mandates (like Sinai) and the ongoing training & development needs here at home.
So I don’t know that we could maintain an increased operational tempo that goes with supporting another 120 or so soldiers in Afghanistan. Any deployment like that basically calls for 3x the number of soldiers overall … one deployment in the field, a second deployment resting after just returning from the field, and a third deployment training & preparing to go into the field.
We could call up more of the TF to raise the extra 360 or so soldiers. But I’m not sure that enforcing a UN mandate like this merits calling up the TF. We might be better off saying “We’re already doing our part in Timor & the Solomons as well as Afghanistan, and we’re just tapped out right now”.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Before committing some one else’s son to die, do as I have just done. Take a walk through a cemetery in a small country town, look at the memorials to those 18, 19 and 20 year olds whose lives were wasted on the Great War and ask “Is this what I would want for my son”?
Go, by all means, but don’t expect others to do your dirty work.
Well, how’d you do, Private Willie McBride,
D’you mind if I sit down down here by your graveside?
I’ll rest for awhile in the warm summer sun,
Been walking all day, Lord, and I’m nearly done.
I see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
When you joined the glorious fallen in 1916,
I hope you died quick and I hope you died “clean,”
Or, Willie McBride, was it slow and obscene?
CHORUS:
Did they beat the drum slowly, did they sound the fife lowly?
Did the rifles fire o’er ye as they lowered ye down?
Did the bugles sing “The Last Post” in chorus?
Did the pipes play the “Floors1 O’ The Forest”?
And did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind
In some faithful heart is your memory enshrined?
And, though you died back in 1916,
To that loyal heart are you forever nineteen?
Or are you a stranger, without even a name,
Forever enshrined behind some glass pane,
In an old photograph, torn and tattered and stained,
And fading to yellow in a brown leather frame?
Well, the sun’s shining down on these green fields of France;
The warm wind blows gently, the red poppies dance.
The trenches have vanished long under the plow;
No gas and no barbed wire, no guns firing now.
But here in this graveyard it’s still No Man’s Land;
The countless white crosses in mute witness stand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man.
And a whole generation who were butchered and damned.
And I can’t help but wonder now, Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you “the cause?”
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame,
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain,
For Willie McBride, it’s all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again.
Eric Bogle
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Afghanis were ready to give up being ruled by the Taliban, until massacres of men -similar to those of WW2, had them scurrying back to join the ranks of the Taliban. Apparrantley the Karzai puppet and the USA torturers are far worse than the fundamentalist Taliban. What does that say?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“Taliban regime…arguably the most oppressive regime of the late 20th century.”
Has Pablo heard of North Korea? Cuba? Zimbabwe? Certainly on a par with the rotten old Taliban.
“In sum: the Taliban are a human scourge”
Yes but they are also a part of the Afghan population , a product of the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. One could try and kill them all but your going to end up killing an awful lot of people who will have a brother, sister, cousin etc who will want revenge thus putting our soldiers in an unending war.
One last thing: The Taliban use boy soldiers in their ranks. Do we really want to send our military off to Afghanistan to kill kids? That will look good on the 6pm news…..
Its best we stick in Afghanistan to reconstruction, medical assistance and building trust.
Vote:If I may echo Banana Llamas comment: Not our fight, not our war.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Absolutely not.
New Zealand needs to get its own back yard in order before dreaming of playing big boys geopolitics in the sexy middle east war zone.
Focus on Fiji and the Sth Pacific to ensure our position in the region is not usurped by China.
Period.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
The Taliban use boy soldiers in their ranks
Plenty of US kids aged 18, and 19 years old, being sent into the Mid East grinder too mate!
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
David: Thanks for linking to the post. I would urge people to read the full post and attendant commentary because I argue against the ISAF mission being seen as a “US prop” and for why NZ should get more involved on ethical grounds. My belief in the danger of the Taleban winning the Afghan conflict is due mostly to their prosletyzing medieval ideology, and due to their role model status for other jihadist groups (because of their military success against the Soviets and now ISAF and Pakistani forces. Geopolitical and strategic factors also matter because of where they operate–again, the full post explains that. Cuba and North Korea may be tyrannical but are contained. The Axis were comparable in terms of their totalitarian ideology and homicidal practice (as was Stalinism) but I am talking about today’s fights, not yesterdays. Darfur is a closer parallel, but the level of regional and global threat posed by the jinjaweed is far less than that of the Taleban (hence Western military disinterest). My general point being, and readers of this blog can ponder it to their heart’s content, that it is both progressive and in NZ’s national interest to get more involved in Afghanistan. If and how it does so is a matter for the public and government to debate.
The use of the term “wimin” as noted by a reader above, conforms to accepted practice in English-language academia to remove all gendered or gender-biased references in writing. Wimin takes the “man” out of the female identifier, which may seem like PC nonsense to some but is in fact just another evolution in contemporary writing styles. Sorry if it caused consternation; misogenyst ridicule is expected.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
no prizes for guessing who’se opposing this – the isolationist/nationalist right and the anti-american left.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Until something better comes along then the Taliban shall remain in power for a long time yet.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Afghanistan is important, not just because of the Afghans but because the problems that have beset it have found fertile soil in Pakistan. And if Pakistan goes under, Iraq will look like a Sunday school picnic.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Middle East, good place to keep out of.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“A superb urgument”, DPF? I’m surprised by your endorsement (followed by an uncharacteristic sitting on the fence?).
Pablo’s line of thought could be used to justify our futile invasion of most Muslim countires, and many others as well. Richard Hurst’s comments above provide compelling parallels. I’m not prepared to accept the specious line that NZ has “international obligations” through the UN to fight the good fight in Afghanistan.
The USA had good reason to clean up the Taliban after 9/11, but it failed to follow its operation through before distracting itself elsewhere. Now the issues of Afghanistan are purely internal. We may not like the Taliban style of overlording, or the prospects of Karzhai’s shaky government, but it’s for them to work out and to live with for the long term.
I also note that Pablo fancies himself as a “progressive”. Perhaps he uses that word of positive connotations to re-define himself and fellow-travellers, namely those of a socialist persuasion. (Many are traditional pacifists as well, as Pablo implies in his comments.) Why is it though that only socialists are “progressives” while presumably the rest of us – by implication – are “regressives”?
[DPF: Having overthrown a Government, I think there is a morel imperative to hang around and help a stable government for the future - as happened in Japan post WWII]
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Do women know about this? Seriously, I think it’s not long before it moves from university to schools then to business. It was used in 1984 in Auckland Uni when they had a place called “wimminspace” where men weren’t allowed. It gave them relief, I imagine, from those whom they perceived in their fantasy as their hated oppressors.
You know as a white middle-class male sometimes I really wish I had actually oppressed someone, sometime, somewhere. At least then I could understand why I was being blamed for everything.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Have you read much of “Pablo’s” work, calendar girl?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
.passed legislation preventing courts deciding who should own the seabed and foreshore
.put NZ troops into Afghanistan and Iraq ****************
.released an wonderful disability strategy, and completely failed to implement it
.failed to address climate change in any meaningful way
Everyone knows that NZ service personell went into Iraq and then Afghanistan not long after.
Perhaps it woould be better for the IDF to get involved. reid and the others would love to see lots of lovely jewish blood being spilt.
As for the bollocks about ANZAC losses at Gallipoli, Horrible kia and wounded rates. Think you will find it was the Colonial Staffers that were eager to chase glory on Churchills crap strategy.
Also just have a good lok at the comparitive British and French losses. Not forgetting the Axis numbers.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
One issue I would have with Afghanistan is the possibility that the US use the wrong strategies and NZ becomes tainted with the brush.
Obama looks like he may decide to switch focus from Iraq toward Afghanistan, well past time too. However the US aren’t known for their ‘winning hearts and minds’ approach, in contrast to the British. That to me is the only approach that will work long term. I’m not of course talking about taking on the Taliban, they need to be met head on, ruthlessly. But after you’ve cleared the area you need to occupy it, and that’s when hearts and minds become the key.
If we could resolve that question I’m all for it. I rather think the NZDF wouldn’t mind a bit of action, too. Must be boring building schools and hospitals and nothing but.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Why do you think that, Gluteamus?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
You are purely one dimensional.
So you think it pragmatic to:
“I’m not of course talking about taking on the Taliban, they need to be met head on, ruthlessly.”
By a country extremely remote from the region, with a tenuous connection through the British Armed Forces from yesteryear.
Yet when we suggest the Israel should actually defend itself from relentless attacks, we and they are wrong.
The Afghans doen’t do TV/Radio techniques very well. However I can guarantee that UN/Nato Force combinations have killed a lot more civilians in the last 5 years than have been murdered in that ‘most densely piece of ground in the World, called Gaza.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Newsflash Glutaemus: Israel is not Afghanistan, look at a map.
You clearly are puzzled why I object to Gaza, it’s not the thread to discuss in detail, but in short, it’s because the actions of the Israeli govt, and the IDF, are counterproductive, in that their actions won’t stop the rockets, and they enhance the chance of more of them coming over. It won’t work, it was never going to work, and this had to have been obvious to them at the time.
Anyone who thinks that is criticising the Jewish people has a screw loose. I won’t respond on this thread to anymore Israel q’s. You want to argue, take it to the TVNZ report on Gaza thread.
Back to Afghanistan.
Wouldn’t know, Gluteamus, casualty figures don’t mean anything to me except insofar as political effect and degradation on enemy potential. You seem to though. We’ve all read the media reports about wedding parties being killed by US bombs etc. What effect do you think that has had in Afghanistan? I truly don’t know.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Patrick Starr regurgitates current leftist agitprop when he writes: “WE remember the waste of Kiwi lives in Gallipolli every year for the Brits. Do we really want to do the same for the Yanks?”
In World War 1, the (overwhelmingly Pakeha) NZ troops at Gallipoli regarded themselves as British, not as fighting for the British. Most NZ troops in World War 2 regarded themselves as British too. And before Starr sneers about fighting for “the Yanks” he might acknowledge the US Navy pilots and US marines and GIs who died in the Pacific keeping the Japanese out of Australia and NZ.
It’s amazing how many Lefties now want the West out of Afghanistan when they backed the Soviet Union when it fought the Taliban’s predecessors. I think the Lefties are correct this time, however, because the Taliban may be unbeatable by foreigners. The Pashtun have been driving off foreigners for centuries. They are excellent guerrillas and the terrain suits their fighting style. After three unsuccessful invasions the British just bought off the Afghans. It was far cheaper and saved British troops’ lives and it worked. Fighting the Taliban on the ground after the Soviet Union failed is like Germany invading Russia to show posterity it could do what Napoleon couldn’t.
As for the repeated calls to send our SAS again. It may have top quality soldiers, but it’s tiny. About a fifteenth the size of Australia’s, about one hundredth the size of Britain’s special forces, and about 0.2 per cent the size of America’s special forces. We also lack the equipment (helicopters etc) and other logistics to support them in Afghanistan ourselves.
The leftist military genius Clark all but stuffed our already small armed forces. We ought to look at pooling our armed forces with Australia’s — if the Aussies would have us.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Patrick Starr didn’t write it, I quoted it, from ‘wikiriwhis business’ (1st comment on this thread) and commented on it
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Jack5, that is my worry too. One article I read awhile ago said it was the anvil on which invading armies had been broken for centuries. I don’t know if there has ever been a successful invasion/occupation?
However, what are the choices? We can’t leave it alone. It’s a fact the Taliban were active in supporting Al-Qaida, unlike Iraq which was much more tenuous. The US foreign policies over the last 8 years have delivered a situation where this nation is now in no state to be left alone – that would be fatal and simply lead to a repetition of what we saw in the 90′s.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Patrick Starr: My apologies. I should have realised you were quoting wikiriwhis business in order to refute him. Sorry about that.
Reid: I think a British commander said recently after serving in Afghanistan that negotiations would have to be part of the solution. If the Taleban as it has resurfaced is largely a coalition of tribes, perhaps the way to do it would be to finance a new coalition or buy off the current one, with ending of support for Al Qaeda as part of the aim in negotiations. If the price is high enough someone must bring in a few heads.
Any way, if the drones and missiles which seem to be having success kill off Bin Laden and a few more at the top soon, Al Qaeda may no longer be such a big problem.
Another point is the larger members of NATO decline to send their forces to the provinces where the Americans, British, Canadians (if they haven’t pulled out), Aussies and a few smaller contingents such as Latvians and Danes are doing the real fighting. Should NZ join in this heavy fighting when Germany, Spain, Italy, etc, won’t? Does anyone else think part of this problem is that Germany’s neighbours are discouraging Germany from getting into the real fighting because they fear it might interrupt Germans’ latter-day peaceful mood and get them in marching mood again?
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Reid: No, I haven’t read “Pablo’s” other material, and will now seek to do so following your suggestion. Hopefully his writings will have themes broader than inducing us into foreign military adventures.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 7:03 am
So we should fight because the left’s ideology is in danger?
Sounds like the argument a few days ago that Hamas was evil only because they didn’t uphold gay/women’s rights.
“Nation building” does not happen by external armies wandering in and telling the population how to live. That’s called occupation. Just another lefty delusion, in the same way they think they can shape “culture” through legislation.
This Pablo, is he Paul Buchanan, or is it just a co-incidence? There’s only one reason for NZ to fight in Afganistan and that’s to gain sorely needed combat experience. Why don’t we have the balls to admit it? But of course, the left don’t have the balls to admit anything. It’s always wrapped up in “saving the children”, or the gays, or women or some other puffy dreamboat.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Jack5, drones and missiles don’t always work well with these guys, not on the terrain they operate in. The fact they have support bases in Pakistan doesn’t help either.
Apart from the Pakistan-Taliban situation in those border provinces, in the interior you have the tribal faction-warlord situation.
See the way I look at it, winning this battle requires skills the US has never displayed but which the British have in spades. It’s exactly similar to an old-style colonial occupation where you first create stability then build infrastructure and simultaneously setup workable institutions that over time bring peace and prosperity for the majority. This process usually takes several generations since for it to stick, it involves the next generation having a better life than the one before it. If you don’t allow for that then the old ways will return and you’re back to square one.
The US have always eshewed the colonial ways for easily understood reasons, however that’s what Afghanistan needs. The modern US methods of ‘nation-building’ won’t work and so far, they have refused to take any lessons from the British book.
Hence my concern expressed above that if NZ gets involved, it will simply be more of the same quagmire we’ve seen since 2002. Notwithstanding, we badly need somehow to re-establish our previously reliable and respected international reputation as a small but effective senior member of the commonwealth of nations. Withdrawing from defence participation which began with our voluntary exit from ANZUS and acting as if we’d prefer to belong to the non-aligned nations group, is not the right answer for NZ’s best security interests.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Correction: hasn’t displayed since the post-WWII occupations of Japan and Germany.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Why not address what Pablo (yes, it’s Buchanan) said? e.g.
More in the full post, apparently.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am
wikiriwhis business your ignorence is spectacular. We do not remeber the lives lost at Gallipoli every year, we honour our fallen for their sacrfice. It is not a day we say never again as you screaming socialists who haide out as students during every conflict like to claim. That is the call of the Jews in relation to the attempted genocide of their people. ANZAC Day is they day we remeber those who died for our freedoms and maintain our ounderstanding that those freedoms are hard won and that going to war is not to be undertaken lightly. When we do it we must be commited to it.
Our anti-nuke legislation – which have NEVER been given an oportunity to vote on by the way – is not a targeted anit-American legislation. It does not keep American ships out of our harbours, its keeps ALL warships out of our harbours except our own and for reasons not yet explained to my satisfaction the Chinese, who also for reasons not explained to my satisfaction see fit to land armed troops on my country in violation of international law. Yet without a whisper for your socialist idols.
Evil America was offically asked by the New Zealand government on the 4t5h of March 1942 to give aid in the defense of New Zealand as our entire comabt able force was located in North Africa and Chruchill would not rlease them. Evil America cut the orders for the movement of 40,000 Marines and support elements to New Zealand on the 10th March 1942. During the next 18 months US forces in New Zealand peaked around 50,000. From here they left to fight throughout the Pacific theatre with thousands of them dying there and many more being returned to the US hospitals at Silverstream and Cornwall Park. For far too many of them this was their last friendly shore.
It was tactically not to the advantage of the US to defend New Zealand as it extended their supply lines and drew off sdome of their best troops from psotions better suited to defend the US itself. they paid for everything and gave New Zealand the contract for supplying rations to their forces in the Pacific making New Zealand one of only two countries to come out of WWII having made a profit.
They also undertook many public works while they were here. They offered to build a multilane highway through transmission gully and a tunnel through to Wainuiomata but our foresighted Labour government wanted those works for boosting post war employment. Hows those projects coming along Helen?
In thanks for the direct aid, millions of US dollars and thousands of American lives our Labour goverment nationalised everything larger than a willies jeep and demanded a tax of 100% of its value if the Americans decided to take home the heavy equipment they had brought with them. Our waterside workers – leed by men with pommy accents who were excused the draft by the same pommy accented government who were objecters during WWI helped out by going on stike and making the Marines who were carry out the first reversal for the Japanese expansionism by taking Guadalcannal off them had to load their own ships, thus missing out on valuable training time before going into combat. Training that most certainly would have kept a few more of them alive.
The only visual record of the Marine presence is a plaque on the Wellington waterfront which details the cmapaigns that the Marines took part in in the pacific and notes that iot was at that point that they emabrked for these fights. It also includs the words “If you ever need a friend you have one”. It was put up by the Second Marine Division.
So you and your communist mates can keep stroking yourselves about evil America and drag up the ghosts of clusterfucks past in order to try and cover up for the debt we owe the United States and for the shabby manner in which these people who put themselves in harms way for us were treated but I for one know who my friends are and if I get a choice the grey funnel line parking in my area will have the stars and stripes on it. Not the communist flag thanks all the same.
No one ever won dick by waving a placard, freedoms were won by people getting harms way so pricks like you could bad mouth them later.
Have a nice day.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
David you must be gratified to have so many military experts amongst your readership who gained their knowledge via commando comics and playing video games. Some of are so stupid we actually had join up.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Because the whole posting is tinted with the man’s politics. The Taliban are not fighting a isolated “conflict.” There is no Afghan conflict for them, just defence of their own existence, a defence mounted from their positions within their own country. Roles models, terrorist co-ops, historical victories…all western interpretations based on western culture and thinking. Preety poor showing from a supposed intelligence operative.
We can either believe that a former CIA intelligence officer has been undone by working for a NZ university, his objectivity and skill shattered by methods more effective than any effort the KGB could had mounted during the cold war, or we have to believe that this is trojan propaganda from the Left.
If he were to come out and say why NZ could enter Afganistan in purely a combat role, he wouldn’t be able to push the progressive political ideas as well: Human rights, UN philosophy, progressive communities, “oppressive medieval regimes”, “retrograde perspective”, suggested gay/metro rights, the fight is just phrasing, subjective moral judgements galore… all these things are present in propaganda statements. He knows it, I know it, you can be fooled if you like.
The article is about politics in the western world, not fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
So Paul, why are you surfing with the Left? Whats the game plan? Useful idiots will be shot, remember? So you’re not travelling that far, huh? Just enough to regain some institutional cred after the “western guilt” incident? Fair enough.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
No army is invincible, it comes down to what you are prepared to do to win the war. The Boer War would have stretched on indefinitely had the British not responded with total brutality to the civilian population who were keeping the Boer soldiers supplied. Would western politicians be willing to have Afghans rounded up to starve the Taliban into submission?
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I still stick by my comments.
Expat said the same thing in a different way and you agreed.
Obama will bring the troops home and you want Kiwi lives wasted, where are your heads.
many nations have already pulled out and you want us to be 5 min wonders.
I don’t think so.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Actually Murray, I agree with everything you say and am well aware of the NZ govt turning down project initiatives from the US. I am not a socialist and you are not the first to confuse me with one.
But as I said above, I unreservedly stand by my comments.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
NZ cannot police the world so I tend on balance to agree with expat. But even if we wanted to increase our presence there the NZDF would be hard pressed to sustain an active combat presence. The so called Provincial Reconstruction Team conjurs up an image of engineers doing good works … except they arn’t engineers. The NZDF could not deploy an engineer squadron for anything over six months. The PRT comprises men and women from all three services and whole variety of specialties from infantrymen to seamen, from military police to drivers and everything in between.
The smallest possible idependent combat unit is a infantry battalion and even in a low level threat environment like Timor the army was gutted to provide manpower over successive rotations. It simply could not sustain an infantry ballalion in a medium to high level threat environment.
So the only realistic option is a sub unit group (artillery battery – we only have one) or an infantry company (six on paper).
Buit it would not be an independent command and it would be part of an (Australian or UK) unit and under their direction.
Possible in an ANZAC context (but there are some equipment issues); less likely as part of a UK unit where there are major differences in equipment and SOPs.
Possible alternative is one or two C130s which would have the advantage of maintaining a distinctly national presence – but again, with a total inventory of only five and allowing for increased maintence wear and tear it would probably leave us with only one operational a/c back in NZ at any one time.
I continue to somewhat suroprised at what the general public think the NZDF can do. In reality its not very much but that’s not to denegrate them. NZ (successive governments) has long wanted Defence on the cheap and they get what they pay for. Project Protector is a prime example.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Raw footage: Demonstrators clash with police in London 03/01/2009 pt.1
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Then don’t talk like one ignoring the facts to suit your agenda.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Paul G. Buchanan said:
“…..it is both PROGRESSIVE and in NZ’s national interest to get more involved in Afghanistan…..”
I heartily recommend this short essay by the prominent liberal Paul Berman: “A Friendly Drink In Time Of War”:
“A friend leaned across a bar and said, “You call the war in Iraq an antifascist war. You even call it a left-wing war-a war of liberation. That language of yours! And yet, on the left, not too many people agree with you.”
“Not true!” I said. “Apart from X, Y, and Z, whose left-wing names you know very well, what do you think of Adam Michnik in Poland? And doesn’t Vaclav Havel count for something in your eyes? These are among the heroes of our time. Anyway, who is fighting in Iraq right now? The coalition is led by a Texas right-winger, which is a pity; but, in the second rank, by the prime minister of Britain, who is a socialist, sort of; and, in the third rank, by the president of Poland-a Communist! An ex-Communist, anyway. One Texas right-winger and two Europeans who are more or less on the left. Anyway, these categories, right and left, are disintegrating by the minute. And who do you regard as the leader of the worldwide left? Jacques Chirac?-a conservative, I hate to tell you.”
My friend persisted.
“Still, most people don’t seem to agree with you. You do have to see that. And why do you suppose that is?”
That was an aggressive question. And I answered in kind.
“Why don’t people on the left see it my way? Except for the ones who do? I’ll give you six reasons. People on the left have been unable to see the antifascist nature of the war because . . . “-and my hand hovered over the bar, ready to thump six times, demonstrating the powerful force of my argument.
“The left doesn’t see because -” thump!-”George W. Bush is an unusually repulsive politician, except to his own followers, and people are blinded by the revulsion they feel. And, in their blindness, they cannot identify the main contours of reality right now. They peer at Iraq and see the smirking face of George W. Bush. They even feel a kind of schadenfreude or satisfaction at his errors and failures. This is a modern, television-age example of what used to be called ‘false consciousness.’”
Thump! “The left doesn’t see because a lot of otherwise intelligent people have decided, a priori, that all the big problems around the world stem from America. Even the problems that don’t. This is an attitude that, sixty years ago, would have prevented those same people from making sense of the fascists of Europe, too.”
Thump! “Another reason: a lot of people suppose that any sort of anticolonial movement must be admirable or, at least, acceptable. Or they think that, at minimum, we shouldn’t do more than tut-tut-even in the case of a movement that, like the Baath Party, was founded under a Nazi influence. In 1943, no less!”
Thump! “The left doesn’t see because a lot of people, in their good-hearted effort to respect cultural differences, have concluded that Arabs must for inscrutable reasons of their own like to live under grotesque dictatorships and are not really capable of anything else, or won’t be ready to do so for another five hundred years, and Arab liberals should be regarded as somehow inauthentic. Which is to say, a lot of people, swept along by their own high-minded principles of cultural tolerance, have ended up clinging to attitudes that can only be regarded as racist against Arabs.
“THE OLD-FASHIONED LEFT used to be universalist-used to think that everyone, all over the world, would some day want to live according to the same fundamental values, and ought to be helped to do so. They thought this was especially true for people in reasonably modern societies with universities, industries, and a sophisticated bureaucracy-societies like the one in Iraq. But no more! Today, people say, out of a spirit of egalitarian tolerance: Social democracy for Swedes! Tyranny for Arabs! And this is supposed to be a left-wing attitude? By the way, you don’t hear much from the left about the non-Arabs in countries like Iraq, do you? The left, the real left, used to be the champion of minority populations-of people like the Kurds. No more! The left, my friend, has abandoned the values of the left-except for a few of us, of course.”
THUMP! “Another reason: A lot of people honestly believe that Israel’s problems with the Palestinians represent something more than a miserable dispute over borders and recognition-that Israel’s problems represent something huger, a uniquely diabolical aspect of Zionism, which explains the rage and humiliation felt by Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. Which is to say, a lot of people have succumbed to anti-Semitic fantasies about the cosmic quality of Jewish crime and cannot get their minds to think about anything else.
“I mean, look at the discussions that go on even among people who call themselves the democratic left, the good left-a relentless harping on the sins of Israel, an obsessive harping, with very little said about the fascist-influenced movements that have caused hundreds of thousands and even millions of deaths in other parts of the Muslim world. The distortions are wild, if you stop to think about them. Look at some of our big, influential liberal magazines-one article after another about Israeli crimes and stupidities, and even a few statements in favor of abolishing Israel, and hardly anything about the sufferings of the Arabs in the rest of the world. And even less is said about the Arab liberals-our own comrades, who have been pretty much abandoned. What do you make of that, my friend? There’s a name for that, a systematic distortion-what we Marxists, when we were Marxists, used to call ideology.”
Thump! “The left doesn’t see because a lot of people are, in any case, willfully blind to anti-Semitism in other cultures. They cannot get themselves to recognize the degree to which Nazi-like doctrines about the supernatural quality of Jewish evil have influenced mass political movements across large swaths of the world. It is 1943 right now in huge portions of the world-and people don’t see it. And so, people simply cannot detect the fascist nature of all kinds of mass movements and political parties. In the Muslim world, especially.”
Six thumps. I was done. My friend looked incredulous. His incredulity drove me to continue.
“And yet,” I insisted, “if good-hearted people like you would only open your left-wing eyes, you would see clearly enough that the Baath Party is very nearly a classic fascist movement, and so is the radical Islamist movement, in a somewhat different fashion-two strands of a single impulse, which happens to be Europe’s fascist and totalitarian legacy to the modern Muslim world. If only people like you would wake up, you would see that war against the radical Islamist and Baathist movements, in Afghanistan exactly as in Iraq, is war against fascism.”
I grew still more heated.
“What a tragedy that you don’t see this! It’s a tragedy for the Afghanis and the Iraqis, who need more help than they are receiving. A tragedy for the genuine liberals all over the Muslim world! A tragedy for the American soldiers, the British, the Poles and every one else who has gone to Iraq lately, the nongovernmental organization volunteers and the occupying forces from abroad, who have to struggle on bitterly against the worst kind of nihilists, and have been getting damn little support or even moral solidarity from people who describe themselves as antifascists in the world’s richest and fattest neighborhoods.
“What a tragedy for the left-the worldwide left, this left of ours which, in failing to play much of a role in the antifascism of our own era, is right now committing a gigantic historic error. Not for the first time, my friend! And yet, if the left all over the world took up this particular struggle as its own, the whole nature of events in Iraq and throughout the region could be influenced in a very useful way, and Bush’s many blunders could be rectified, and the struggle could be advanced.”
My friend’s eyes widened, maybe in astonishment, maybe in pity.
He said, “And so, the United Nations and international law mean nothing to you, not a thing? You think it’s all right for America to go do whatever it wants, and ignore the rest of the world?”
I answered, “The United Nations and international law are fine by me, and more than fine. I am their supporter. Or, rather, would like to support them. It would be better to fight an antifascist war with more than a begrudging UN approval. It would be better to fight with the approving sanction of international law-better in a million ways. Better politically, therefore militarily. Better for the precedents that would be set. Better for the purpose of expressing the liberal principles at stake. If I had my druthers, that is how we would have gone about fighting the war. But my druthers don’t count for much. We have had to choose between supporting the war, or opposing it-supporting the war in the name of antifascism, or opposing it in the name of some kind of concept of international law. Antifascism without international law; or international law without antifascism. A miserable choice-but one does have to choose, unfortunately.”
My friend said, “I’m for the UN and international law, and I think you’ve become a traitor to the left. A neocon!”
I said, “I’m for overthrowing tyrants, and since when did overthrowing fascism become treason to the left?”
“But isn’t George Bush himself a fascist, more or less? I mean-admit it!”
My own eyes widened. “You haven’t the foggiest idea what fascism is,” I said. “I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathist boots stomping on their faces-that is what fascism means! And you think that a few corrupt insider contracts with Bush’s cronies at Halliburton and a bit of retrograde Bible-thumping and Bush’s ridiculous tax cuts and his bonanzas for the super-rich are indistinguishable from that?-indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend . . .”
But this made not the slightest sense to him, and there was nothing left to do but to hit each other over the head with our respective drinks.”
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
reid (1767) Vote: 2 1 Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
“Newsflash Glutaemus: Israel is not Afghanistan, look at a map….”
While we’re about it, Reid, check out the SIZE of Israel, compared to the size of all the Muslim/Arab nations in the region, where the “Palestinians” should have been resettled a couple of generations ago if the said nations were representative examples of basic humanity.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Slijmbal said “Use economic forces – it works.”
Can you give some examples of economic sanctions working? I can’t think of any offhand.
Violence, on the other hand, has a long history of working.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
wikiriwhis business (228) Vote: 1 0 Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“Actually Murray, I agree with everything you say and am well aware of the NZ govt turning down project initiatives from the US. I am not a socialist and you are not the first to confuse me with one.
But as I said above, I unreservedly stand by my comments.”
MURRAY:
This guy is a Libertarian. There are a few points on which it is a common misunderstanding that they get confused with socialists; supporting foreign wars is one such point.
William F. Buckley in the USA put a lot of effort into trying to stitch together some unanimity between the various anti-Socialist political groupings, one of the reasons the socialists are so successful is that the opposition to them is fragmented, and some of the most effective ones, like the Libertarians, spoil their usefulness by taking irrational dogmatic positions on some issues. This issue is one that they should give away; Ron Paul in the USA, for example, would make a fine President one day if he would do this.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Paul Buchanan is one of the best political analysts in this country. He did something the PC Psychobabble brigade took advantage of to stick the knife in, regardless of whether or not this was justified. The fact he hasn’t been reinstated, yet, shows the appalling state of our tertiary institutions in terms of what they regard as being important – expertise, or ability to toe the PC line.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Murray your 10:12 was one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this blog and thank you for that.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
reid: Cheers for the support. More on point, check out the thread over at Kiwipolitico about my post, and feel free to add a thought or two. There are some excellent observations made by the commentators, without the snide asides one tends to get in other forums.
Vote:Murray: you read me all wrong.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Of course, the international intervention in Afghanistan is the moral thing to do, and I expect Liberals are all in favour of intervening in Afghanistan and bringing democracy and human rights and the great benefits of UN membership to the Afghan people.
The issue for a conservative though is whether it is also realistic.
The Karzai government is the most corrupt in the world – it is utterly ineffectual. Attempts by international organisations to undertake projects themselves or implement security programs have weakened the corrupt government even further. The billions in international development aid have been almost entirely wasted.
The Taliban are not just rogue insurgents – we might lament the fact that the Taliban are “hell-bent on returning those who live under its rule to the 15th century”, but the problem is that a significant number of the Pathan people want to go back to a medieval past.
The Taliban enjoy bases in Pakistan, and the majority of suicide bombers are Pakistanis seeking paradise.
European countries are grudging participants who refuse to fight, and even Canada and the Netherlands are uncertain. Even close allies, the US and Britain, are divided in how to deal with Afghanistan – see the debacle over Musa Qala.
The nonsensical “Domino theory” about how failure in Afghanisatn will lead to “Destabilisation of Pakistan, now ongoing, will lead to larger regional conflict, not just with respect to India, but in a number of other Central Asian republics grappling with Islamicist irredentism” is just panic-mongering. The Taliban are Pathan – the neighbours are not – they are historical enemies of the Pathans, and the Taliban are unlikely to “spread”.
We are wasting our time and should stop wasting money and risking the lives of our servicemen.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Jack5 (228) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 1 Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
As for the repeated calls to send our SAS again. It may have top quality soldiers, but it’s tiny. About a fifteenth the size of Australia’s, about one hundredth the size of Britain’s special forces, and about 0.2 per cent the size of America’s special forces. We also lack the equipment (helicopters etc) and other logistics to support them in Afghanistan ourselves.”
I think you will find that NZSAS have a capacity out of all proportion to their size and can do things that other armies, including the US/UK AUS, cannot and any equipment/logistics issues are made up by others as a result. Out side of a ww3 situation its not size that counts and we should not take on a ‘Little New Zealand’ attitude, whereby we restrict ourselves on the world stage simply because of unfounded ideas that our size some how equals some sort of ineptitude.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
reid, I agree with you again “Murray your 10:12 was one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this blog and thank you for that”
Murray, you have put this into a very easy read for the masses. I encourage you to submit this (after a tidy up) to many of the MSM as a contribution, Maybe under the heading “Who are the USA to NZ”
Vote:Unfortunately many of our young do not realise what a debt we owe the great US of A
January 14th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Stuart Mackey wrote: ” … we should not take on a ‘Little New Zealand’ attitude, whereby we restrict ourselves on the world stage simply because of unfounded ideas that our size some how equals some sort of ineptitude.”
I’ve never before heard a suggestion that our small size equalled some sort of ineptitude. But it’s also dangerous to think we are a race of supermen.
There are great soldiers in the American, British, and Australian special forces, and in the special forces of many other countries. And there are great soldiers in these countries’ ordinary services too. As for derring do, it’s hard to beat the feat of Royal Marines strapping themselves to the sides and skids of gunship helicopters that came under fire in Afghanistan so that they could rescue comrades. Then their corps declining to put their names forward for decorations while pilots and support staff were given medals. Part of the job, was the marines’ attitude.
New Zealanders can be proud of our SAS, who in a smaller way reflect the superb fighting of Kiwi infantry in France in World War 1 and in North Africa in World War 2, and of the heroism of our air crews in Britain. But it’s just arrogant and wrong to think we can always do the same things as those in bigger, better equipped forces. Also, with all due respect, we should acknowledge NZ didn’t invent special forces.
Vote:January 15th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Hey Murray, I owe you an apology. It was not you but goodgod who read me wrong. I think goodgod needs to hook up with calender girl given their views and ability to digest complex information.
Vote:January 15th, 2009 at 2:18 am
# Jack5 (229) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Stuart Mackey wrote: ” … we should not take on a ‘Little New Zealand’ attitude, whereby we restrict ourselves on the world stage simply because of unfounded ideas that our size some how equals some sort of ineptitude.”
I’ve never before heard a suggestion that our small size equalled some sort of ineptitude. But it’s also dangerous to think we are a race of supermen.
”
I never said our forces were Supermen or anything of the kind. But People like you, ‘Little New Zealanders’ for want of a better phrase, seem to use the excuse that because we are a small nation that we should not be involved in a significant way or do this task or that project, and this inferiority complex is sickening.
snip irrelevant sycophancy
“But it’s just arrogant and wrong to think we can always do the same things as those in bigger, better equipped forces.”
Really? As I pointed out above, with some help on the logistics side we do better than those who are bigger and better equipped, its not arrogance its an observed fact from those I have spoken to have been there and done it, to say nothing of history.
” Also, with all due respect, we should acknowledge NZ didn’t invent special forces.”
NZ forces were involved at the formation of modern special forces, namely the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) in WW2, albeit to the annoyance of General Fryberg.
Vote:January 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“Then don’t talk like one ignoring the facts to suit your agenda.”
My agenda is too keep Kiwi’s alive, not to be used as US cannon fodder.
How can I be misunderstood about that?????
Vote:January 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 am
Wiki said: I don’t believe our troops would have a heart in this fight. Most US soldiers don’t (though under Obama they might be reinvigorated)
You obviously don’t know the US military very well, do you…. They overwhelmingly supported McCain during the election. I know of many who are afraid to serve under Obama, because he reeks of Clinton. One even retired, as soon as the election results were announced.
Vote:January 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 am
I should clarify what I mean by being “afraid” to serve under Obama.
Obama doesn’t know crap about national security. He’s been in office for less than two days and is already planning the mass release of 250 enemy combatants held at Gitmo. Many of those who have already been released due to a lack of sufficient evidence have been followed by US intelligence- and have returned to their life of terror and crimes against humanity.
Obama spent 10 minutes a the Commander in Chief ball on Tuesday, acknowledging our currently serving military. He completely shunned the Heros ball, for former military, including dozens of Medal of Honor recipients, marking the first time in 50 some odd years the new president has failed to show up and honor them.
Under Clinton, our military was slashed so deeply they didn’t have ammunition for simulation drills. They ran around yelling “BANG BANG… YOU’RE DEAD” instead. No lie. Even if Clinton had ordered a retaliatory strike against AQ for the bombing of the Cole or the first World Trade Center bombings, we wouldn’t have been able to.
The risk-adverse hippies in the US have forgotten everything our country was built upon and have embraced a culture of “peace, not war” and entitlement. It’s sick to watch.
And Murray… I swear. One of these days I’ll make you an honorary citizen. You’ve never forgotten us.
Vote: