Have We Learned Kiddies?

It was announced today that the last combat brigade has left Iraq, leaving appx. 56,000 non-combat soldiers behind. This announcement startled me a bit not because the decision is so atrocious but because you don't really hear anything about Iraq in the news anymore as Afghanistan is getting worse and worse by the day.

This is a curious development and devastating to liberals.

Afghanistan was the good war. It was approved by the UN and it became a joint NATO operation. It had all the telltale signs of a liberal wet dream. A community of nations coming together in agreement and harmony to vanquish a common enemy.

Iraq was the savage war of choice, unilaterally spearheaded by cowboys in DC and London and looked down upon by most of the world.

Which one has been going better? If liberal world view ideology was correct, Afghanistan should be a Utopian example of what can be accomplished through a little peace, love and understanding. The only problem is that Afghanistan is sliding back into a hell hole because the liberal world view doesn't exist. The initial part of the war went well because the United States is so good at destroying the enemy. The UN and NATO were more than happy to step aside while we kicked ass and we were happy to do so. However, when the time came for the real work, the political and societal rebuilding combined with security, they pretty much took a pass there too. With the exception of the Brits, who have been solid of course. The rest though didn't want to fight, they didn't want to provide security, they didn't want to pay for anything. They wanted the US to act unilaterally only with there approval and under the umbrella of the idiotic NATO/UN rules of engagement which are designed to lose wars.

There were no such illusions in Iraq. That was the killing war, the Shock and Awe war. Now don't get me wrong, the aftermath of combat operations didn't go well and the insurgency that followed was a horribly bloody affair. The difference was that the Iraq war didn't have to follow the intergovernmental, bureaucratic nonsense that they did in Afghanistan. While the UN and NATO happily sat on their ass and watched Afghanistan crumble, the US/UK coalition in Iraq made the tough choice to increase troop levels and increase violence to end the insurgent threat. No meetings or UN resolutions but more bloodshed. That's what stabilized Iraq.

If Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Somalia haven't taught the lesson, let Afghanistan do it. Intergovernmental agencies like the UN and NATO don't exist to get anything done. They exist to give all the nations of the world cover for doing nothing. It's an excuse to let bad things happen while world leaders talk endlessly about international law (which doesn't exist), treaties and the rights of mankind. It reflects most leftist programs on any level as they only give the appearance of compassion without the trouble of actually having to do anything.

I applaud what the coalition has been able to do in Iraq but it troubles me what is going on in Afghanistan. It would be far better to pull out of there now if it's only going to be fought on NATO terms. If the soldiers there aren't allowed to aggressively kill the enemy, they are simply providing life sized target practice for Taliban fighters which is an unacceptable situation to simply allow to exist in a war zone limbo. Let them do what they were trained to do or get the hell out of there and get ready for the next war, which will surely come after this particular display of weakness.

Timely. Poignant? Not So Much.

Quick, who said today that the possibility of failure in Afghanistan was a distinct possibility?

No, it wasn't my three year old daughter, it was razor sharp British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Now I know this is shocking. Not that he would say something so plainly obvious and ignorant but that he is still the PM. It seems like he has been running that country into the ground for damn near a generation. I guess bad times just move slower.

Clearly Mr. Brown is trying to drum up support for his Labour Party by beating the drums of war and trying to incite a little nationalistic excitement and pride but what exactly does he expect to achieve? The Conservatives are in a prime spot to make sure Brown and his Labour comrades never see the end of the Afghanistan conflict.

Even if they were still around how exactly will victory be achieved? The United States has completely back-burnered this issue. President Obama's handpicked NATO commander has set forth a plan of action which has been promptly ignored so that the administration can dive headfirst into the financial and social nightmare that Europe is currently trying to escape from. The United Kingdom is even broker than we are, public support is nil and apparently, their military isn't exactly a dynamic entity right now (another casualty of liberal policy). Germany isn't going to send more troops and possibly can't depending on how you interpret the Grundgesetz. France has no military capability to help even if they wanted to (they don't) unless NATO decides to drop a nuke on Kandahar. Italy is busy trying to convict its prime Minister of election crimes and Spain is still trying to hash out if they want to be full socialists or just partial.

Which brings us to the big problems for Afghanistan and by extension Mr. Brown.

NATO is a complete sham.

Any treaty organization whose members can enter or leave any conflict they want without reprisal from the other members is no organization at all. Many of its member nations cannot wage war. Many of the ones that can have absolutely no desire to do so for a variety of economic and political issues both foreign and domestic.

Why is this so bad for Gordon Brown and all the rest of his socialist democrat contemporaries around the globe, including here in the US? Because it shows the inherent weakness of the liberal international world view. Liberals like Brown and Obama constantly blame world conflict on the lack of global cooperation and understanding. They argue that peace can only be achieved through the greater globalization of all people around the world into one true global community through various multinational institutions such as NATO or the United Nations. This is pure theoretical folly. It makes the same mistake communism makes about the individual in believing that people are naturally cooperative and that a state of mutual respect and opportunity will eliminate all the worlds problems. It isn't so for people and it isn't so for nations states. At the end of the day, international law or treatises are only followed so long as they are beneficial to the individual nation state. When they cease to be beneficial, they are ignored and the nation, like the individual, takes whichever path leads to the most prosperity and security for them, the rest of the nations be damned. The competitive nature of man and the nations they create will always rule the day.

This is of course, the proper way it should be. After all, the French people elect leaders to protect their interests, not the entire worlds. If all the worlds leaders believed that then everything would be fine as all people would be represented on the world stage by their elected leaders and an honest competition could follow that would reward nations that excel while encouraging others that do not. Leaders like Brown and Obama are simply not content to mind the affairs of their own nation. They see an irresistible need to meddle in the affairs of other nations as well. They create massive, ineffective institutions to try and wedge all the worlds nations into one massive bureaucracy for the purpose of forced egalitarian equality, as defined by them of course. Unfortunately, the only place where this intended equality can exist is in the realm of mediocrity, which sounds about right for where Brown finds himself.

For the time being at least.

The Afghan - Worlds Worst Blanket

Listening to the running debate between Obama and his generals, it's tempting to just rampage on and on about the Presidents stunning lack of commitment to our troops or to the concept of victory. Well not surprising really but still disappointing.

However, while Obama should just send the reinforcements immediately or end the war completely, one group is getting off without so much as a public reprimand.

NATO.

You know, the group of nations united as one to fight common enemies, blah, blah, blah.

Last time I checked McChrystal was in charge of all NATO forces. If he says he needs 40,000 more troops, why exactly does the United States have to supply all of them? What possible benefit is there to forming an alliance with a group of nations that have no capacity or desire to fight? Most of these countries wouldn't actively fight the Soviets so the odds of them fighting some stateless terrorist is slim indeed.

This sordid situation is becoming all to common in NATO exercises and it is becoming clear that NATO is suffering from UN-itis. That is the disease that makes nations talk about unity out of one side of their mouth, then shirk all responsibility out the other.

If all of NATO can't get 40,000 troops together to keep a nation state from falling completely into anarchy, taking Pakistan with it, then the long term usefulness should be seriously reexamined.

Perhaps, like the UN, this is an organization that simply need not exist anymore.

Certainly not as is, being subsidized by American blood and money.

Voluntary Quagmire

Recently it has been in the news that American forces are turning over areas of Iraq to Iraqi military forces. Despite a predictable rise in insurgent (fanatical Muslin terrorist) attacks, the transition has gone smoothly.

While this is news now because the handover is becoming official, in reality American forces have been pulling back from some time now, allowing Iraqi forces to take the lead on and responsibility for securing cities.

Yet since the pull back began violence had started to flare up again, this time in Afghanistan. The Afghan war has been on the back burner for at least a couple of years but it seems Taliban/Al-Qaeda forces have decided that they have been regrouping long enough and have started the offensives again.

The real question is why NATO forces, especially with American forces from Iraq available, aren't kicking the hell out of these terrorists as we speak.

I know President Obama isn't exactly a warrior but the Afghan war was the one everyone agreed on in the beginning, so what's up?

I realize that chasing Ahmed through Waziristan isn't like invading a city but it seems that we know about where they are, after all, they have to be fairly close to kill U.S. soldiers.

Also, our forces obliterated that country with relative ease deposing the Taliban, even our limited forces should be kicking some serious ass.

I can't believe the problem is the military. Destroying things and killing people is what they do best. So the problem must be political and that problem lives in the White House.

After all that bitching from liberals about how W. forgot Afghanistan they are willfully doing the same thing. Why? Easy. Liberals in the American government have decided to burn all their political capital and our country's money on their social restructuring programs. If they committed to an Iraqi-esque surge or some special offensive, they would have to justify that to the American people. The administration has already burned every bridge with Republicans, even the moderate, sissy ones who became star-struck with Obama during the campaign. If they commit the money to really fight the war in Afghanistan, all the radical, anti-war leftists will be howling for their heads as well. Essentially, Obama decided turning our country into a European Socialism was a more pressing need than giving our troops the tools they need to fight the war and fulfill our promise to the Afghan people.

The second reason is Obama's warped foreign policy views. I'm sure he thinks his hands are tied given that many of the terrorists are in Pakistan now, specifically the border/Waziristan area. Following his pattern of letting unstable countries full of fanatics do as they please, he'll just wait until the Pakistan situation plays itself out then do something, maybe.

There are a few problems with that. First, Pakistanis lie to the U.S. all the time. They have no interest in clearing Waziristan. They can barely control the "civil" parts of the country. Besides, some Pakistani leaders like having those nut jobs around. They can be useful in the right circumstances. Secondly, they can't clear Waziristan if they want to. They have no control over that area. In reality, that part of the world is just a void. Not existing in a country, not sovereign, no recognized government. Just a black spot full of militants, plotting and planning their next violent action.

President Obama shouldn't give it any legitimacy by treating it as a territory issue with Pakistan. What he should do is break out the A-10's, B-52's and B-2's and give that a whole area an old-fashioned Dresden style bombing. Might as well see if you can bomb somebody back further than the stone age.

Putting this conflict on the back burner during the Iraq war is one thing but it's embarrassing that the Taliban has been able to regroup. The only reason Afghanistan is a third world country is because he we haven't defined a fourth yet. We should be mopping them up by now.

It's time to get it in gear, bloody some noses and let our troops put this thing to bed.


(Baitullah Mehsud, head Waziristan tribal terrorist. Planned assassination of Benazir Bhutto.)