The earlier British and Soviet Union attempts in Afghanistan were attempts at domination. Our effort in Vietnam was the same in that it continued French colonialism while the French withdrew to focus on retaining Algeria as a colony (also unsuccessful). That is why it is vital that we support the Afghans and Pakistanis in their efforts to control their territory rather than try to control it ourselves. Nations have a sovereign right and responsibility to exert a monopoly on violence inside their borders. Our aim should not, must not extend beyond that goal. That accomplishment will meet our goals. Had we focused on this, we might be done by now.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are new phenomena. Conflict that occasionally saw expression in violence is not new to the region, of course. It is not new, or rare even, anywhere. See Ireland or Spain, for example. However, violence is an unnecessary means to resolve conflict in the modern world. It is only among those who reject modernity (a very few) and those who reject Democracy (slightly more) that violence is important. That Afghanistan and Pakistan are advancing Democracy as a means to manage conflict is to be applauded and is complementary to our goals.

And this effort is looking more and more like Vietnam every day, e.g. keep fighting and dying, but achieving nothing. I have to wonder how hard it should be for a major military power to defeat a ragtag, ill-equiped group like this. What is really going on here? It smacks of theater and deception. Can the UN and the US really not take control of what it wants?

I, as many others, am appalled by the news of the schoolgirls being attacked, and I condemn this repressive and cowardly act. However, realize that this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years and it cannot be changed quickly. But we can slowly change it if we do it in the right way.

Business exists for one reason, to make a profit. If the product is poor, it will not profit. If the business is bad, it will cease to exist. I find it sad that people today would rather compete on a fraudulent notion like nationalism, rather than the merits of their work. The Japanese culture today is that of the US back in the 50’s, when we still knew what hard work and competency was and how it empowered an individual to create. If the Japanese products are better, then I will buy them. Anyone foolish enough to buy a bad product because somebody in Detroit needs health insurance is a fool.

You assume that a need is commensurate with a right. If somebody needs a job, do you assume they should have a job? What if they are lousy, unproductive, and lazy? Unions provide for the depraved, underproducers. They are manipulated for the purpose of extorting companies for the sake of those who don’t have the courage and the will to make their own destiny. They are perfectly content as a parasite, living off of others. They offer their contrived theories of selflessness, and “greater-good”, and hide their greed in the pity for which they beg. I would rather have the selfish business man, or woman who creates wealth, who creates good and services that spawn new industries.

It is our reluctance to change, to adapt to meet the flow of capitalism coupled with laziness and ignorance that challenges progress. If Detroit must fall, then let it. Our purpose in life should not be to need others, but to need to find the greatness that is within us…to be individuals, to put our selfish needs first. Self respect, self determination, self esteem are all first rate characteristics of the spirit of American Entrepreneurs. Me, me, me…it all starts there, and we have all benefited greatly from this selfish American trait.

By the way, lets not forget the tyranny that is begotten from Nationalism…Altruism is a cancer.

It is difficult to imagine why Iraq and al Qaeda would want ties beyond the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my friend rational. An alliance would provide more justification for attacking both. That is, an alliance would make each of them less secure just as support for al Qaeda endangered the Taliban. We know there is no credible evidence of a connection. There was never sufficient evidence to believe there was.

Al-Qaeda is not a government anywhere, not even in Afgahnistan. Therefore, one cannot severe diplomatic ties with it. You recognize this and try to connect the two:

“Al Qaeda and the Afghanistan Taliban are bound like brothers. The fighting in Afghanistan began because the Taliban refused to hand over al Qaeda leaders. That is, their relationship is so close, so tight, that even the threat of a massive attack by the United States could not separate them. Self-preservation was not motivation for handing over Osama bin Laden.”

However, there are several flaws in your connection. First, even though they may have been closely linked in Afghanistan they are not the same organization. Therefore, Iraq could have maintained or received contact from Al Qaeda even if they dropped ties with the Taliban. Second, even if formal ties were dropped between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, many governments still maintain informal contact. I’m sure the US uses the Europeans and others in the Mid East to get messages to the Iranians. It is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda was the back channel connection to the Taliban for Saddam. Third, the Taliban might not have known about Iraq-Al Qaeda connections. In fact, Al Qaeda may have used the fervent, misguided piousness of the Taliban for its own cynical purposes.

There are numerous reasonable explanations for why Al Qaeda may have been in contact with Iraq, but formal ties between Iraq and the Taliban broken.

I take your case to be:
1) Iraq and Taliban didn’t like each other.
2) Al Qaeda and Taliban were, for all intents and purposes, one and the same.
3) Therefore, Al Qaeda and Iraq didn’t like each other.
4) Therefore, Iraq couldn’t collaborated with Al Qaeda.
5) Therefore, the claims that Iraq was involved in 9/11 were false.
6) Therefore, Bush-Cheney lied.
7) Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was illegitimate.

However, Number 2, as I mentioned above, is seriously flawed. Which then unravels 3 & 4. And therefore the rest starts to fall apart under this argument.

However, I’ll grant that #5 (Iraq being involved in 9/11) never made sense to me anyway. Yet, and I’ve mentioned this in the comments of this blog before, the Iraq war was not a narrow response to 9/11. It was always part of the larger war on terror. Further, the justification was not simply the connection with Al Qaeda, but also Saddam’s past actions. And a widely-held belief, in hindsight incorrect, that he maintained stockpiles of WMDs.

Nevertheless, your central thesis of this post is entirely suspect.

I found this through your comment on NPR.org. Well done!

As you know I’m a bit of a history buff and the one thing I’ve always read is that for every war we’ve been in, there was opposition here in the U.S.. Many called WWI, Wilson’s War. Just as they called WWII Roosevelt’s War and the Civil War as Lincoln’s economic war on the South. The Spanish American War was even somewhat attributed to publisher William Randolph Hearst and all his paper articles that condemned Spain for the sinking of the Maine. Regardless of who started it, wrote about it, or whether time considered it justified, the guys and gals in the cemeteries didn’t bring it on nor should they be used to make a point.

Tomorrow the weather is suppose to be nice here in Germany and France so I think I’ll hop on the Harley and ride over see the men and women at the Lorraine AmericanCemetery in St Avold, France. I’m sure some of the 10,484 men and 5 women buried there will love to hear the rumble of a Harley. As I sit on the bench in front of the Chapel that overlooks 10, 489 headstones, I’ll tell them you are thinking about them.

Mike

P.S. I did not use my real email addy because I know how venomous some anti-war/anti-Bush folks can be. Al knows how to get a hold of me if you want to comment.