How to Arm Oneself Against Bad Arguments
I'm not sure if the course of action suggested by our Commander in Chief is the right one in Astan. But allow me to identify some of the bad arguments being tossed out there.
While most R's support the troop increase they do not like the deadline for withdrawal. Let's be honest, no red-blooded American likes withdrawing at a certain point. If O is serious about withdrawing no ifsandsorbutts after so many months, that's bad and the R's have good reason to take him to task.
But I think the bigger risk here is setting this date, knowing that he may have to keep troops in longer and consider shifting them around, depending on Taliban numbers, and regional needs...and I think it is possible this president (depending on the circumstances) might even consider a troop increase.
I completely understand why some cultural conservatives think this president does not understand them or respect their values. But just because he doesn't understand that component of American life to the satisfaction of some, he can still have a sense of duty and what is to be done for the sake of American security here and abroad. I think this administration has shown more careful deliberation and serious thought re: A-stan and America's long term security needs than the last bunch in the White House.
The arguments coming from certain D's, academics and the anti-war crowd both encourage me and rile me up at the same time. I am encouraged because I think it is important for serious men to not worry about the agendas of their supporters once they become president. I think that it is better for the country as a whole when a president keeps their supporters at arm's length once they take their place as the nation's chief executive.
But what riles me up are these anti-war dogmatists who think the effort in A-Stan is symbolic and misses the point of engaging terrorism at the global level.
What makes the arguments against the president from the anti-war dogmatists, especially among the academics....what makes their arguments so bad is how thoughtful they think their defective position is.
It is something like 'Does the president really think he can defeat The Base (or is it the Bass) by winning in Afghanistan? This is merely symbolic. AlQ can simply move to Somalia, The Philippines, Minnesota...anywhere it wants. The best course of action is to end the war and pump resources into international policing'
It is more than symbolism re: keeping the terrorists from regaining a solid grasp on A-Stan. A-Stan offers America's enemies greater opportunities to organize and enrich themselves than Somalia, the Philippines and Minnesota. Consider the possibility of revue from unfettered drug trafficking and the ease of moving resources from other parts of the Middle East through A-Stan. If you are someone who thinks that Somalia or the Philippines offer the terrorists the same opportunities as the poppy trade and the proximity to the warlords/druglords of E. A-Stan you ought to consider that...especially in Somalia (and other parts of Africa), terror groups have to contend with several other criminal and military factions all with very different agendas and alliances. Maybe the Philippines offer some chances to make drug money, but the base is much farther away from the largest portion of their financial base and that is a disadvantage.
And with respect to Minnesota, they have their baseball team playing outside and their football team playing inside so they have no fucking clue.
I am not foolish enough to think that a war on terror is ended forever with victory in Afghanistan, but their is more at stake there than certain critics would have us believe.
More later...maybe
While most R's support the troop increase they do not like the deadline for withdrawal. Let's be honest, no red-blooded American likes withdrawing at a certain point. If O is serious about withdrawing no ifsandsorbutts after so many months, that's bad and the R's have good reason to take him to task.
But I think the bigger risk here is setting this date, knowing that he may have to keep troops in longer and consider shifting them around, depending on Taliban numbers, and regional needs...and I think it is possible this president (depending on the circumstances) might even consider a troop increase.
I completely understand why some cultural conservatives think this president does not understand them or respect their values. But just because he doesn't understand that component of American life to the satisfaction of some, he can still have a sense of duty and what is to be done for the sake of American security here and abroad. I think this administration has shown more careful deliberation and serious thought re: A-stan and America's long term security needs than the last bunch in the White House.
The arguments coming from certain D's, academics and the anti-war crowd both encourage me and rile me up at the same time. I am encouraged because I think it is important for serious men to not worry about the agendas of their supporters once they become president. I think that it is better for the country as a whole when a president keeps their supporters at arm's length once they take their place as the nation's chief executive.
But what riles me up are these anti-war dogmatists who think the effort in A-Stan is symbolic and misses the point of engaging terrorism at the global level.
What makes the arguments against the president from the anti-war dogmatists, especially among the academics....what makes their arguments so bad is how thoughtful they think their defective position is.
It is something like 'Does the president really think he can defeat The Base (or is it the Bass) by winning in Afghanistan? This is merely symbolic. AlQ can simply move to Somalia, The Philippines, Minnesota...anywhere it wants. The best course of action is to end the war and pump resources into international policing'
It is more than symbolism re: keeping the terrorists from regaining a solid grasp on A-Stan. A-Stan offers America's enemies greater opportunities to organize and enrich themselves than Somalia, the Philippines and Minnesota. Consider the possibility of revue from unfettered drug trafficking and the ease of moving resources from other parts of the Middle East through A-Stan. If you are someone who thinks that Somalia or the Philippines offer the terrorists the same opportunities as the poppy trade and the proximity to the warlords/druglords of E. A-Stan you ought to consider that...especially in Somalia (and other parts of Africa), terror groups have to contend with several other criminal and military factions all with very different agendas and alliances. Maybe the Philippines offer some chances to make drug money, but the base is much farther away from the largest portion of their financial base and that is a disadvantage.
And with respect to Minnesota, they have their baseball team playing outside and their football team playing inside so they have no fucking clue.
I am not foolish enough to think that a war on terror is ended forever with victory in Afghanistan, but their is more at stake there than certain critics would have us believe.
More later...maybe
posted by edP | 4:03 PM
1 Comments:
If I approached my bosses with a project plan and said, "Okay, I'm going to need additional resources for my team," they would say, "For how long?" If I said, "I dunno... depends..." I would, at best, not get those resources. There is nothing wrong with setting a deadline (given your current expectations) and changing it later should conditions change. What's asinine, is entering an open-ended conflict. "We'll stay there until we're done!" Done with what? When terrorism is over? Terrorism is an act. How can you declare war on an act. You can't shoot an act. Furthermore, the act is the result of extremist bad ideas. How do you defeat a bad idea? You can't blow it up... The way to beat a bad idea is to have a better one.
Terrorists are the ones you're after, and terrorists (as a group) are not a sovereign state, so how can you declare war on them. They're criminals. They should be dealt with like criminals. Rather than huge troop deployments to a specific location, we should be sending small teams all over the world to track and find the terrorists. It's like the cold war all over again - spy vs. spy. Think of all the cool movies that could be made about it.
Plus, part of the war-fatigue Americans are facing is due to the fact that we've been mired in Bush's war further east. Fat-shit-load of good that war's done (for the US or Iraqis). When's that war going to be done? We don't know because we never defined what success was. I'd get fired for that, too... "Okay, I'm going to need more resources to work on this open-ended project. Oh, and by the way, I don't really know what the project is going to deliver... We cool?"
Post a Comment
<< Home