Truth, lies and Afghanistan

February 6, 2012 11:41 PM

A lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army describes his latest deployment to Afghanistan in an article titled: Truth, lies and Afghanistan.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar (57 comments total)

The biggest lie about American involvement in Afghanistan is the one we were told from day one: that invading that country would ever bring it stability and/or freedom.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:54 PM on February 6, 2012 [8 favorites]

I'm shocked. Shocked!

("Your winnings, sir.")
posted by erniepan at 12:20 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

This pretty much coincides with what British Army people say, save that we've been saying for several years that a solution must be political.

I think we just have a different conception of what is possible; Northern Ireland was unsolved for 30 years, has a population of 1.7 million, an area of only 13,843 km2, and involved a garrison of about 21,000 at peak and around 10,000 most of the time. This produced a ratio of 80 citizens per soldier at peak and 170 citizens per soldier at other times. It should also be remembered that the police force were higher quality (in terms of ability to arrest) and the population was densely packed and urbanised. This crucially meant that soldiers per km2 could be as high as 1.384.

Afghanistan has a population of 29.8 million over 647,500 km2. There are thus immediate strategic issues, as a peak of only 130,386 soldiers did not provide for much cover per citizen or km2. Citizens per soldier at peak only stood at 228.55, meaning that realistic policing was impossible merely on that level. In addition, the coalition could only provide 0.201 soldiers per km2. This meant that effective law enforcement through patrols was extremely difficult, and supply lines were problematic. It's thus not very surprising that

a) the situation has evolved into armed enclaves that have a limited ability to project power but not to hold the ground, and
b) an utter dependence on the ability to provide effective local auxiliary police and military units.

The local units in Afghanistan are largely penetrated or corrupted by insurgents, and this is a crucial difference to NI. Afghanistan's insurgency is also somewhat supported by the ISI (and Iran in some areas), meaning that many of the bases that supply the insurgency cannot be directly attacked and (unlike NI) Pakistani law enforcement is both unwilling and unable to prosecute members of insurgent training and supply facilities.

Strategically, Afghanistan was doomed to failure pretty much as soon as the warlords stuck around, corruption in the security forces wasn't effectively tackled and the ISI stayed pro-insurgency. At some point a political compromise that provides a slightly more moderate theocracy will hopefully arrive. It should have done so almost immediately; at the moment the coalition has just rerun the Soviet failure of sustained rural force projection and law enforcement but without the Soviet ability to provide a liberal society in the major cities.
posted by jaduncan at 12:29 AM on February 7, 2012 [30 favorites]

I'm curious to ask how much the current situation is because of the U.S. invasion. I don't mean to ask that in a light that suggests I agree with our invasion and occupation, but I am rather curious if U.S. intervention is being used as a scapegoat for a long standing untenable system.

Basically, are there problems that need to be fixed outside of the context of 'America bombed and killed a ton of citizens'. Clearly that was really awful, but approaching a systemic problem from the wrong source doesn't usually produce results.
posted by Drumhellz at 12:52 AM on February 7, 2012

A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

Link to this report is here.

Can anyone comment as to the soundness of the Afghan NGO Safety Office / International NGO Safety Organisation?
posted by kithrater at 1:07 AM on February 7, 2012

Basically, are there problems that need to be fixed outside of the context of 'America bombed and killed a ton of citizens'

Do you mean like 'America armed and funded the theocrats to open a proxy front against the USSR'?
posted by pompomtom at 1:10 AM on February 7, 2012 [11 favorites]

that a solution must be political.

But it WAS a political solution.

The US economy was in trouble back in the early part of 2001. Round 'these parts the administration was considered 'in trouble' and much snark was made about vacation and brush clearing. The Pentagon had accounting problems - could not find 2 trillion dollars.

The above political things needed a 'solution' and one was found.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:15 AM on February 7, 2012 [9 favorites]

Drumhellz: Yes. Very much yes. Afghanistan isn't a nation state, it's a shifting set of coalitions of warlords. They will switch sides for cash and power, and in some ways conflict never really stops. Imagine Japanese Daimyo without a strong emperor. CIA paid them off/threatened them during the start of the conflict, they switched sides. When the coalition was losing, people stopped supporting them (outward statements aside). The game changer would have been to remove the power of the warlords.

Afghanistan's central issue isn't anything to do with the USA, it's that it has a kleptocratic ruling class of warlords (which, admittedly, the US worsened by arming them heavily) and the ISI to keep them flush when opposing power bases threaten. ISI allegedly needs an unstable or pro-ISI Afghanistan to act as a hedge against India. The coalition hasn't made a difference at all. It was an unstable set of alliances headed by the Soviets until they ran out of willingness to kill more soldiers and left. Then it was an unstable set of alliances. For a while the Taliban might have unified it under a pro-Pakistan set of alliances, but then we killed that system. Now it's an unstable set of alliances where the coalition/Kabul hasn't really managed to play emperor as the proxy forces aren't loyal. ISI did via the Taliban as proxy force, and a lot of the people who supported the Taliban were more in favour of peace however achieved than the Taliban per se.

Extra note: If you sign up local police without intelligence, don't be surprised when the majority of recruits are either people cycling through the system for the pay during training, criminals, warlord intelligence types, insurgent types, or people who want the pay but not to be shot. The coalition will be leaving in a couple of years; it isn't really the smart move to be well known as a coalition-funded soldier/police officer who shot members of the political forces who really run the area post-withdrawal.

rough ashlar: Heh. This made me smile ruefully.
posted by jaduncan at 1:18 AM on February 7, 2012 [6 favorites]

rough ashlar: Heh. This made me smile ruefully.

More than one party needs to change and be 'better people'. Mote, eye, planks and all that.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:23 AM on February 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

There was a time Afghanistan was becoming a Democratic Republic. Then the USA got involved, after the Russians wew invited in By Tareki. And then got involved again.
posted by marienbad at 1:54 AM on February 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

wew = were
posted by marienbad at 1:54 AM on February 7, 2012

I am an Obama supporter, but nothing he has done has disappointed me more than failing to get us out of this mess.

I can see no positive outcome for either the USA nor for the people of Afghanistan.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:19 AM on February 7, 2012

after the Russians wew invited in By Tareki

Tareki had seized power in a bloody (and Soviet-backed) coup in April 1978. He was then killed himself in an equally bloody coup by fellow communist Hafizullah Amin in September 1979. In December 1979 the Soviets sent in 700 crack Spetsnaz troops in Afghan uniforms to dispose with Amin and install a more pliant puppet in his place. Although some Soviet troops had indeed entered Afghanistan under both Taraki and Amin, the Red Army didn't enter the country in earnest until then. (Incidentally: the Soviets thought Amin was a CIA agent, while the Americans were already providing some low-level help to the insurgents against him. Possibly, he was simply indulging in the age-old Afghan game of bargaining for one's allegiance).
posted by Skeptic at 2:25 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

The parts about the scripted war games aren't a surprise, reminds me of the naval war games where a simple force of motor boats and low tech guerilla warfare were able to get through a carrier screen and sink said carrier. Those ships were refloated and the rules changed.

We desperated need more people that will speak out like this person. This just needs to stop, period.
posted by narcoleptic at 3:35 AM on February 7, 2012

"I see you've been in Afghanistan."
-- The first words spoken to Dr. Watson, by Sherlock Holmes.
posted by timsteil at 3:45 AM on February 7, 2012 [5 favorites]

I can see no positive outcome for either the USA nor for the people of Afghanistan.

Ahhh, but some Corporate people have done well. And the various (corrupt) palms greased to stop attacks, allow convoys through, et la see things as positive. The Masters of War who build all the planes and build all the bombs have 'positive outcomes'.

And some Russians must be giddy with Schadenfreude - so there is some joy for someone over this.

This just needs to stop, period.

But stopping means massive unemployment if Chalmers Johnson is to be believed.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:48 AM on February 7, 2012

The Afghan War is not unique of its kind for consisting of a series of large piles of bullshit, only in degree. Most of the US wars of the last 50 years have comprised such piles. The last two have set new standards for distance from reality. I would like to think that this experience would make our leaders refrain from stupid military adventures. That's what everyone said had happened after Vietnam, but here we are.

Politicians who advocate or approve war in any circumstance other than defense of our territory should be voted out of office in every instance, but that won't happen, either. Perhaps some of the returning veterans of the Mideast wars will make some small difference for a while, but in the end, a fundamental change of public opinion towards war is needed.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:16 AM on February 7, 2012 [6 favorites]

Politicians who advocate or approve war in any circumstance other than defense of our territory should be voted out of office in every instance...

The conduct of the war in Afghanistan is certainly an issue to be discussed, but are you claiming that there was no attack on our territory that precipitated it?
posted by Etrigan at 4:43 AM on February 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

The conduct of the war in Afghanistan is certainly an issue to be discussed, but are you claiming that there was no attack on our territory that precipitated it?


Not by Afghanistan.
posted by fuq at 5:00 AM on February 7, 2012 [8 favorites]

I am an Obama supporter, but nothing he has done has disappointed me more than failing to get us out of this mess.

There's a list of things you can criticize Obama for that's as long as your arm, and mine, and two dozen of your closest friends. I'm a frequent and loud Obama basher.

But he was very clear that he planned to stay in Afghanistan during his campaign. It's one of the rare times where what he said, so very eloquently, matched what his administration actually does.
posted by Malor at 5:12 AM on February 7, 2012

Not by Afghanistan.

If you're asserting in all seriousness that the Taliban regime was not responsible for the attacks and continued threat by al Qaida then I'll have to keep this thread in mind when I need an example of how history gets rewritten.
posted by Anything at 5:20 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

I am an Obama supporter, but nothing he has done has disappointed me more than failing to get us out of this mess.

Not only did he not get us out, he dramatically increased our involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, it was one of he very first thing his administration did. Two brigades from the 2nd MEF, and 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry. With support troops, it increased our troop commitment by nearly 60%. Then in early 2010, he sent nearly 30,000 more, including the entire 101st Airborne.

By May, 2010, our forces in Afghanistan outnumbered our forces in Iraq.

Iraq? That was Bush's war. Afghanistan is Obama's.
posted by eriko at 5:26 AM on February 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

asserting in all seriousness that the Taliban regime was not responsible for the attacks and continued threat by al Qaida

Last time I checked there were no Afghans that attacked us. There were 15 Saudis, 2
Emiratis, 1 Lebanese, and 1 Egyptian. I, personally, have never seen any evidence that the hijackers were even part of an organization called al-Qaeda, let alone that they originated from Afghanistan. Have you? Either way, if there ever was an organization called al-Qaeda that ever existed in any form other than a CIA/ISI asset they were long gone from Afghanistan after Tora Bora in December of 2001; along with any pretense of a justification for us being there in any capacity militarily.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:35 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Watch Restrepo, they should've paid for that cow.

Can't win hearts and minds without at least some humility and respect.
posted by Tom-B at 5:38 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

So should I take it that you're prepared to agree that the war was justified from October to December 2001?
posted by Anything at 5:42 AM on February 7, 2012

So should I take it that you're prepared to agree that the war was justified from October to December 2001?

Not really. I am against war, unless as an option of last resort.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:53 AM on February 7, 2012

The last two have set new standards for distance from reality. I would like to think that this experience would make our leaders refrain from stupid military adventures.

Or they set the bar for cynical, brutal realpolitik: wars designed to be impossible to win, because endless conflict in Muslim nations is essential to the highly profitable, population-cowing terrorist forever war.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:09 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Alexander the Great noted how easy it was to march into Afghanistan, but how very difficult it was to march out. Two thousand years later, there's a depressingly long list of imperial forces that have made the same discovery. I'm really not sure why anyone expected the outcome to be any different this time.
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 6:13 AM on February 7, 2012 [6 favorites]

...are you claiming that there was no attack on our territory that precipitated it?

No. As AElfwine pointed out, no Afghanis were directly involved. Why is visiting the ultimate horror of war on a country whose citizens had no knowledge of, let alone complicity in the event justifiable? Also please consider the difference between "defense" and "revenge."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:14 AM on February 7, 2012 [5 favorites]

Or they set the bar for cynical, brutal realpolitik: wars designed to be impossible to win, because endless conflict in Muslim nations is essential to the highly profitable, population-cowing terrorist forever war.

In any case, the stories told us about those wars are a fabric of lies, to an extent not seen before.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:17 AM on February 7, 2012

Or they set the bar for cynical, brutal realpolitik:

You are a piker, nothing but an amateur.

How's THIS:

Reasons for WWIII

To solve unemployment: Sending young people into battle means they must be supported by the folks back home who, because of kin in the trenches, will gladly pay higher tribute (taxes) and that, in turn, will fatten the purse of those who profit from the killing of humans with the War Industries.

To downgrade the northern hemisphere standard of living: While it is true that America enjoys a fine standard of living, we've been reduced to buying small (mainly electronic) trinkets from Asia and home industry has collapsed, including the home-building industry. War on American soil causes huge demand for replacement infrastructure. Think of the profits!

To thoroughly end global warming potential: A limited international exchange of nuclear weapons would send cubic miles of smoke and particulates into the upper atmosphere, thus, nuclear winter (lite) could easily drop the planet just the right number of degrees to ensure an end for several dozen years, to dangerous industrial emissions. Those are very what? Profitable!

To cover-up evidence of economic crimes: A war would go many miles toward preventing thorough investigation of in-your-face-theft of money invested by Americans in such outfits as MF Global. Indeed, an outbreak of nuclear war could cause whole pension funds to disappear, since records would be lost and how could such claims ever be reconciled? The profit from that alone would be humongous.

To prevent public recognition of a failing economic system: I have for years pointed out the uncanny coincidence of timing of 9/11 which came mere weeks before I believe the American public would have recognized that the collapse of the Internet Bubble really was about as "good as it ever gets." If you take the Dow's high in Y2K and correct for inflation, you'll see (not counting commission, dividends, or splits) that the Dow would need to be at least into the mid 15,000's range to have equal value. It hasn't. And even more troubling questions arise when you read the report over at ZeroHedge about the rise of the High Frequency Trading machines, which have become market feedback implements of their own. Should they be legal, at all? Best not ask those kinds of questions, I suppose.

And best of all: Make tons of money. War causes the destruction of people and things. This leads to massive opportunity at all levels for reconstruction to occur. The winners (such as they are in war models) definitely come out on top and hold onto their positions of power and influence. So if you do happen to catch a nuke going off in the future, don't think "Oh my God!!!" Try thinking "Ka-ching!" on the global cash register. Or cash register beeps, if you're under 40.

the stories told us about those wars are a fabric of lies, to an extent not seen before.

A long dead man says history doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. The 'official' version for any given war has counter narratives. Many of the counter-narratives have been 'found' to be closer to the "truth" than the official story. So there are "misstatements" (I'm being charitable here ok?) of the reasons to go engage in kinetic actions across the planet - how does such revelations help the dead?

What would be helpful is to educate oneself of the various past "misstatements" and when a new event happens, instead of embracing the narrative issued in the "passion" of the moment, one steps back, grabs a hand mirror, pulls up their shirt and thusly prepared looks upon the reflected photons from thine own belly but for a moment and ask "Hey, am I being played for a sucker?"

And if you don't want to believe me, why not spend some time meta-mailing Smedlyman and ask about a link to the book "War is a Racket" then ask about the Businessman Putsch.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:51 AM on February 7, 2012 [4 favorites]

The lesson of Restrepo was that the US had no fucking idea what it was doing. None. It's counterinsurgency strategy implemented by blockheads with no subtlety or sincerity. Force projection isn't presenting pretty targets and seeing who shoots, so you can call in airstrikes. That's at once suicidal and lazy and ineffective.

And what the hell was the end game? Canada East? New Hawaii? No, the endgame was always destroy Afghanistan as a base for global terrorism, capture or kill Bin Laden, and humiliate the Taliban by ripping their military forces to shreds. There was a very narrow window when all three were possible, and an exit considered a victory for the west. This window slammed shut when Bush invaded Iraq.

The terrorists are now all in Pakistan, Bin Laden is dead, and the Taliban is destroyed, replaced by anti-occupation insurgents, some of which call themselves the Taliban. Obama has achieved all three aims after inheriting a quagmire made of equal parts farce and tragedy, and is now pulling the plug, and it feels like defeat to some, about-fucking-time to most everyone else.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:57 AM on February 7, 2012 [5 favorites]

claiming that there was no attack on our territory that precipitated it?

There be a difference between an event taking place and figuring out who/what made that event happen.

Can you explain such a difference?
posted by rough ashlar at 6:58 AM on February 7, 2012

But he was very clear that he planned to stay in Afghanistan during his campaign.

Can you state the date when his campaign started?

the Taliban regime was not responsible

Can you post links showing they, the Taliban regime, WAS responsible?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:02 AM on February 7, 2012

Can you state the date when his campaign started?

February 10, 2007.

Obama's Afghan Position 2007-2008: A Reminder:

July 15, 2007: Sen. Barack Obama will propose deploying two additional U.S brigades to Afghanistan in a speech Wednesday mapping out his approach to combating terrorism, an adviser said.

August 1, 2007: When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

posted by kirkaracha at 7:32 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

The parts about the scripted war games aren't a surprise, reminds me of the naval war games where a simple force of motor boats and low tech guerilla warfare were able to get through a carrier screen and sink said carrier. Those ships were refloated and the rules changed.

As someone who's worked in military M&S for years, including as a software developer for primary simulator that drove MC02 (the game you're referring to), I would caution you to not believe everything you read, especially regarding Gen. Van Ripper.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 7:57 AM on February 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

Fidel Cashflow, could you provide more than that?
posted by jsturgill at 8:07 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Nthing Restrepo if folks haven't watched it yet. Visceral evidence in support of Davis' take. It's also worth following the link at his site to his October 2010 piece "War on the Brink of Failure" [pdf], which is more direct about what he thinks should be done:

WHAT WE CAN DO
Despite the unbroken trend of Taliban increase and Afghan government incapacity, many continue to plead for more time, assuring anyone who will listen that “this time” things will be different. It is time we acknowledge that our strategy has not and is not likely to change the dynamics on the ground. Owing to the fact that the fundamentals argue persuasively that the status quo will continue to stumble along as it has since 2004, we must therefore make a change in what we are doing — and that change must be dramatic if not radical. At a minimum, this dramatic change should include:

Transition to a counterterrorism focus.
It is time to admit that our vital national interests in Afghanistan involve finding and destroying transnational terror threats, not in fighting a regional counterinsurgency campaign. The U.S., in cooperation with regional allies and Afghan special forces, can wage a successful counter-terrorist campaign (and, indeed, currently do) to ensure that transnational terrorists pay a dear price for attempting to use Afghanistan as a base to plan operations against America.

Remove the bulk of conventional combat forces.
In keeping with the transition to a counterterrorism-focused mission, we should withdraw the majority of our conventional combat units from Afghanistan, transitioning instead to an effort to deepen the capability of the ANSF. We gain little by rapidly expanding the size of the Afghan force without deepening and broadening its capability. With smaller numbers of Afghan soldiers and more U.S. and ISAF troops to train them, we are more likely to develop a capable, sustainable force that is able to provide for its own internal security than our
current, larger effort.

Use money as a weapon to battle corruption within Afghan government
Without radical change in this most crucial area, we will not likely achieve the president’s objectives in Afghanistan. I do not dispute the fact that this course of action will entail significant risk, but our current, hands-off approach to Afghan governance is likely to produce failure. We should conduct our own independent investigation of the most critical ministries of the Afghan government, and whichever single organization is found to be the most corrupt, we should threaten — publicly and honestly — to withhold funding for that ministry unless dishonest officials are brought to justice (through appropriate Afghan constitutional means) and corruption curtailed to at least cultural norms. We should not withhold money wholesale from the Afghan government, but should target the most egregious violators. If we prove we are willing and able to show a strong hand in Afghan affairs, we may find other ministries more willing to do what is right and work in the best interests of their countrymen.

That he thinks it's clear things have only gotten worse since then must be incredibly frustrating.
posted by mediareport at 8:14 AM on February 7, 2012

Discussion of Davis' article at Tom Ricks' blog.
posted by Rangeboy at 8:22 AM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

...why not spend some time meta-mailing Smedlyman and ask about a link to the book "War is a Racket" then ask about the Businessman Putsch.

If you're talking to me, I don't need Smedlyman's help with those things, since I have a link to and have read the book, and am familiar with the plot.

For those interested, here you go:
War is a Racket
The Business Plot to Overthrow Roosevelt
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:31 AM on February 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

Anatol Lieven, Afghanistan: The Best Way to Peace.
posted by russilwvong at 8:38 AM on February 7, 2012

Fidel Cashflow, could you provide more than that?

Sure, to a degree. Large scale training events (like MC02) largely exist to train officers in tactics and doctrine, not to determine a winner or a loser. They are completely scripted, and the scripting is a feature and not a bug. You'll have officers/operators (usually not the same person) that exist in what's called a 'Red Cell', role playing the opposing force. They will know exactly what is supposed to happen according to the script, what location in the world they should be in at a particular time to drive the training goals. In short, they're actors that perform the script for the training benefit of 'Blue Cell' guys (i.e. coalition forces or friendlies), who are almost always the training audience.

Additionally, the simulation software, while really amazing (seriously), does not completely simulate the real world, and there are numerous corner cases you could exploit in software that would produce results in the simulation that could not happen in the real world. For example, I remember having to make a modification to a particular fixed wing aircraft behavior to prevent it from landing on the ocean (the model didn't care what the ground type was, and the operator was having a good time finding edge cases). Needless to say, this wouldn't work out in the real world.

Another large part of these training events is political - each and every branch of the service thinks it should be driving the 'training' bus, and that all the other branches aren't qualified to drive a law mower. So when you get someone like Van Ripper (an Army General) playing in a largely Naval training event, it would be in his interest to make all the Navy guys look like idiots so Army gets a larger slice of the training pie.

I really don't want to get into the mechanics of what Ripper did, but I have a really hard time keeping a straight face whenever I read on the internet that one wily General defeated an entire carrier strike group in a training exercise using motorcycle couriers and fishing boats.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 8:44 AM on February 7, 2012 [10 favorites]

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Oh, I don't know. Those "uniformed members" explicitly give up their right to independent reason and become tools of the leaders, uncritically doing whatever they're told. It's only natural that if such a tool is available it will eventually and continually be used.

Everyone knew from the start that this whole project was bullshit, and now everyone's feeling just a little guilty that, in a democratic country, they couldn't be arsed to do anything about it. There's always a leader to point the finger at and say, "you lied!" But if you elect the same "leaders," under the same rhetoric, every time, who do you really have to blame?
posted by klanawa at 8:52 AM on February 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

I tell you, the ending in 2014 is going to be so similar to Vietnam it will be mind-boggling. I wonder, what those last airlifts will be like - how many of our loyal friends will get to leave with us, how many will be thrown to the wolves?

The Afghan government forces will literally melt away once the Americans are gone. They'll just ditch their uniforms and go home. There will be Taliban reoccupying Kabul right on the heels of the last evacuating perimeter of NATO/US troops. The last flights out will be peppered with sniper fire.

I wonder if Karzai will get out, settle in the States? Or will he be shot like a dog in some street?
posted by Meatbomb at 8:55 AM on February 7, 2012

They're the classic blunders for a reason, don't ya know.
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:38 AM on February 7, 2012

The rag-tag covert ops team in American Will: No Stone Unturned (2017) is going to include a pair of Nth generation US infantry soldiers (a smooth-talking good ol' boy and a petite, wisecracking New Yorker), a Boston Bank robber (who builds armed robots), an embittered Wall Steet renegade (who did his best to warn everybody of the coming collapse), a California motorcyle cop/surfer, a black guy named Reagan Washington Lincoln, and hilarious twin Saudi princes.
posted by bonobothegreat at 10:23 AM on February 7, 2012 [4 favorites]

February 10, 2007.

Thank you for responding. (always good to determine what is being argued. In the past, some have argued the POV the campaign started at the end of the Democratic convention.)

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

So between July/Aug 2010 and Oct 2010 did the present Present have a change of heart? Or was the Oct 27th just more 'lips moved, noise came out' moment?
posted by rough ashlar at 10:38 AM on February 7, 2012

...the takeaway message from my blockbuster will be that the West was betrayed by Liberal timidity and excessive regulation. The war would have been won with more money, torture and robots.
posted by bonobothegreat at 10:45 AM on February 7, 2012

I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.

Was that not talking about Iraq? Certainly I'm not the only person who appears to think so. It was very much in line with the whole dumb war thing.
posted by jaduncan at 1:10 PM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Another example of Obama using "this war" to refer to Iraq.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:28 PM on February 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

NYTimes article about Davis: In Afghan War, Officer Becomes a Whistle-Blower
posted by homunculus at 1:42 PM on February 7, 2012

There were 15 Saudis, 2 Emiratis, 1 Lebanese, and 1 Egyptian

Because national allegiance is so crucial in identifying ideologically driven international terrorists who change passports and identities like socks?
Where was OBL from? 'Cause the Saudis took his citizenship from him and deported him in the 90s.
Nation of origin doesn't mean anything as far as individual motive and terrorist affiliation is concerned. I mean that only in the limited sense it's stated in. I'm not addressing the legitimacy of any kind of military action. But it would be great if people stopped propagating that kind of misinformation.


I, personally, have never seen any evidence that the hijackers were even part of an organization called al-Qaeda, let alone that they originated from Afghanistan

Believe it or not, terrorism and terrorist groups existed before 9/11. Maktab Al Khidamat raised money for terrorist training camps in Afghanistan long before.
The problem is, and has been for centuries, Afghanistan, because of its location has been a cats-paw for a number of external forces.
OBL's Afghan Arabs (the non-Afghan fighters who fought the Soviets, then did all the other crap in Chechnya, Somalia, the Balkans, etc) weren't Afghan nationals, no.

But what is the response when they're running an international terrorism campaign out of a country that can't (or won't) stop it?
So again, nationalism, not so much. Which is why politically it's been such a problem to pull off. Finding a political situation when you have no idea who is actually in charge - when, in fact it's under (often physically vigorous) dispute and often no one can be said to have political power, is difficult.

This is, again, not to address a given military action (I'll get to that in a minute).

In '96, when OBL was in Afghanistan, there's no question he was allied with the Taliban. They had bases in Nuristan, Kunar, Badakhshan, etc. But Joe Afghan didn't like them. Like most non-fanatics, people just trying to make a living doing their thing, etc., don't much get along well with extremists who want them to die for "the cause."

That's a concession to the idea that the average Afghani has no beef with the U.S. per se. But let's recognize that the shooting gallery was based in their backyard whether they liked it or not. And some did, obviously. And many didn't, and sure, what can you do against hundreds of millions of dollars in the hands of fanatics if you've got kids to feed?

Again, that said, there were a number of major terrorist attacks by AQ or at least a group calling itself AQ who bombed hotels in Aden, attacked U.S. troops bringing food and medical supplies to Somalia (which precipitated bringing peacekeepers, to cover doctors, logistics folks trying to feed starving people, etc, which was then screamed at as an example of U.S. aggression outside the U.S. and Clinton covering up Plo Chops from those bad asses who later couldn't be bothered to find OBL), supported Somali warlords - apparently at random to add to the general chaos they could, presumably, try to take advantage of.
Nice stuff that.
What else? Oh, tried to kill Mubarak, attacked bases in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh and the '96 Khobar towers thing (yes, directed by Hezbollah, and AQ and them don't get along so much now, but it was a different story back then and they certainly hate the U.S. and the Jews more than they hate each other, e.g. the Jerusalem Squad and the crap again in 2004 in Khobar), bombed U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Bombed the U.S.S. Cole when it was ported in Yemen. KSM was an AQ member and he bankrolled the bombing of the WTC in '93

There's plenty of evidence AQ was involved in 9/11. Don't want to believe U.S. intelligence, believe German intelligence. Or OBL himself saying it.

Most all that aside - the hell of it is where actual genuine national security gets tripped up by economic and domestic political interests.

There's two key points:
A. most wars are complete bullshit pushed by profiteering bastards greedy for more money and power.
B. there are actual legitimate threats that must be met by military force.

I mean, ok, look at OBL. He says flat out "I'm going to bait you into attacking and fucking yourselves up and running out of money." Which is not only exactly what we do, but also we have Bush saying he's not that concerned with capturing or killing OBL and the Afghan war completely stagnates.

Pretty much hoping there the American people don't put 2 and 2 together for eight years. Which is what happened.

Which is why I disagree with the efficacy of Lt. Col Davis' statement:

"Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start."

- even as I admire and deeply agree with it as a matter of principle.

I mean, people were told. Unfortunately the legitimate feedback and perspectives from the military and intelligence community was drowned out by politicians and the cacophony of ad-men backed by defense contractors.
And so we attacked Iraq for economic/domestic political reasons and let Afghanistan, an otherwise legitimate security concern, hang for eight years.

And there's the rub. You need a grain of truth to really catapult the bullshit. We do, and did, have legitimate reasons to use military force in Afghanistan (and again, Iraq, total bullshit, not even on the table here).

The form that force needs to take is a different story. That tends to be where Mother Courage and her war pot makes their money trailing the troops and extracting government money from the war effort (on top of making the world safe for corporate exploitation in general which continually astonishes me as a matter of practical concern. I mean, I morally abhor bank robbery, counterfeiting, embezzlement, etc., but I get the whole "greed" thing, the guy wants a bigger car, more house, better whatever. Understandable. But sacrificing common strategic security is an affront to my sensibilities the same way someone loading gasoline into the fire extinguishers in their own house to make a couple bucks would be.)

So, long before 9/11 we were running ops into Afghanistan. In '97 we tried to grab OBL in Peshawar. For some bizarre reason as soon as the Pakistanis got involved the thing had to be aborted and OBL moved to Kandahar.

Hn. Weird. *cough*

Anyway, after the '98 embassy bombings we hit camps in Khost and Jalalabad with cruise missiles, knocked the crap out of the Al Badr camp run by OBL, and the Muawia camps run by the Harakat ul Ansar (Pakistani terrorist group). Killed a bunch of Pakistanis, some Yeminis and Egyptians (to re-address the earlier 'no national boundaries' thing).

So - this Arab Spring going on now, a lot of the groups that were pissed off then, that yes the Afghan war created and we didn't want to talk about, were not AQ but were pissed off at their own corrupt governments and you had Algerian and Egyptian officials f'ing begging the U.S. to engage Afghanistan diplomatically, politically, and (more lightly) militarially. This was, say, the mid-90s. We could have had the Arab Spring in early 2000 and dodged 9/11 entirely had we gotten involved, and gotten the international community involved - in the Afghan civil war.

But fuck 'em. We had Monica Lewinsky to worry about.

So OBL exploited the chaos (small, fanatic groups seem really good at that) supported Taliban attacks with Arab-Afghan fighters, got some street cred with the Taliban (who weren't particularly pissed off at us until OBL got influence. Well, that and we left the country out to dry during the civil war), and Afghanistan became (under the Taliban) an international warehouse for militant Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

And why not? They were the only people bringing in money or paying any attention to the country at all. Until 9/11.

And then Bush phoned it in for 8 years.

I think we do need to project soft power, that is, cooperation and incentive, assistance, all the touchy-feely seeming stuff that, wow-astonishingly, seems to lead to long term stability better than just bombing and writing off destruction and suffering as collateral.

And again, this is not to say there are no points at which military force is (and was) necessary. Mostly we've gone about that the wrong way and with little support in soft power:

"I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base."

Myself, I like small wars and special operations. Seems to have worked in neutralizing OBL better than surging, flooding the area with troops and hoping hardware and technological superiority gets the job done for us.

You think capturing or killing OBL early on in Afghanistan would have ended that war early? I think at least some people would have questioned why we were there after that. Wonder why Bushco didn't get that done earlier?

In any case. The LTC brings up some excellent points that are mostly moot and have been issues for years.

The simple truth is there is no risk in blood and treasure that would be worth it to the average U.S. citizen if they knew the full truth and knew what was at stake.

Physical courage and fighting ability aside (because a lot of asshats like to say 'let's kill 'em all' while not actually risking anything themselves) diplomacy and political pressure take longer but are more effective long term.

OBL was exactly right in saying it's the objective to make a larger enemy expend their strength in fighting on your terms.

The greatest strength of an insurgency, particularly an illegitimate one, is that they don't have to prove their rule is better than yours, they just have to sow chaos and create instability.

Take that away from them. The LTC's observation that: “No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!” is dead on.
But why should they? What's in it for them if the legitimacy of your aid is dependent upon your ability to pacify an area and provide security?

So, screw that noise. Keep small, limited, targeted military operations (I'd ease off the drones for anything other than surveillance) that support local policing and pour all the support into diplomatic and economic engagement.

The Taliban wants to rule? Let them try to do it in an environment of individual engagement and political agency.

The only thing the U.S. has to offer that no other power on earth has ever offered in Afghanistan is that power in diversity and collective action.

Alexander didn't stoop to conquer, that's why his empire went to shit as soon as he died. Offer people self-determination and stability will last as long as people want it.
And hell, you have to lie, scare and destroy to pry it away from them in the first place.

Which is why, as the LTC notes, our own officials b.s. people on our side of the equation too.

the West was betrayed by Liberal timidity and excessive regulation

I so despise that some people still buy into that as the takeaway from Vietnam.

The war would have been won with more money, torture and robots.

Nah. Don't need robots when you have perfectly good troops. Troops breed themselves. What was that Rumsfeld said? People are fungible. Robots cost money.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:09 PM on February 7, 2012 [7 favorites]

I was wonder if you'd chime in Smedlyman. I don't have time to respond in detail right now, as I have to be up early tomorrow morning. I will try and give it a go tomorrow.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:34 PM on February 7, 2012

Because national allegiance is so crucial in identifying ideologically driven international terrorists who change passports and identities like socks?

Point taken, but on the other hand if this is the case it doesn't seem that invading a country with a conventional military would be the wisest course of action when trying to capture or kill slippery fellows such as these. This type of self examination in the decision making process concerning matters of war and peace is not a part of our current system(probably a feature not a bug)...that was my only point. I apologize for not being more clear.

Nation of origin doesn't mean anything as far as individual motive and terrorist affiliation is concerned.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. I would think that the place one spends ones formative years would have everything to do with world view, motivations, and affiliations of all kinds. I believe that the fact that 18 of the 19 hijackers were from countries with despots directly supported by the U.S.A. may just in fact be significant

Al-Qaeda history lesson

Yes I am aware of the official narrative concerning the evolution of Al-Qaeda. In fact I was actually in country when the USS Cole was bombed. As it happened I did not hear about it until almost a week afterwards as we were halfway up the Wadi Masilah in the middle of nowhere. Ultimately the official narrative about Al-Qaeda is unconvincing for many reasons which I don't have the time or the space to go into here. Suffice to say I as a rule usually don't believe what any "intelligence" agency tells the public. There is also the fact that he initially denied responsibility. My claim here is not that he wasn't responsible for 9-11 but that no one here, me included, can honestly claim that they have access to hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 911 one way or another. All we have is a bunch of self referencing accusations from various intelligence agencies. Then there are the videos and audio recordings purported to be from bin laden. Well last time I checked faking an audio recording or video is not that difficult, especially for outfits like the CIA, NSA, and DIA. Like everything else surrounding 911 the truth is elusive and murky, at least for me. It could just be that I am slow on the uptake or have some personal defect which prevents me from seeing what seems so obvious to everybody else. Which I am perfectly willing to admit and try to correct if presented with hard evidence. As you can probably tell I don't personally believe it, but I would never presume to claim any special knowledge about the situation that makes me more correct than anyone else on this matter. I am just presenting my limited grasp of the situation.

As for the rest of your comments, I couldn't agree more. In fact you argue my opinions on the matter more eloquently than I ever could. Targeted special forces operations being used to take out/capture bad guys trying to kills us I can live with. Subjecting entire populations of people to a war they have nothing to do with, not so much.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:28 PM on February 10, 2012

it doesn't seem that invading a country with a conventional military would be the wisest course of action when trying to capture or kill slippery fellows such as these.

I agree. In both Iraq (which I could not, nor would try to, make a case for in this regard) or in Afghanistan. I don't think I illustrated that as a given as well as perhaps I should have.

I believe that the fact that 18 of the 19 hijackers were from countries with despots directly supported by the U.S.A. may just in fact be significant

But not to the political considerations in dealing with their respective governments. Joe Terrorist from Syria is a different political/security consideration than Joe Terrorist from Pakistan who is a different political/security consideration from Joe Terrorist from Saudi Arabia.

For example, if Tim McVeigh had blown something up in England, no one would have taken McVeigh's citizenship as a political consideration. That's divorced from the looser considerations of social and worldview influences of upbringing. Speaking precisely - he's not "an American" for purposes of blowing up parliament.
So too, for purposes of 9/11.
But that's from an operational viewpoint.
From where you're coming from, yes, their country of origin was in part their motivation. Which is why we're witnessing the "Arab Spring" etc. now.
The difference there being where a given guy on the ground in Egypt did not particularly have a beef with the U.S. per se, but was brought under the auspices of a larger sort of meta-terrorist outfit that was/is AQ.

Which is something no one seems to really understand about AQ. People say it. It's on the news. But then they go back to doing the equivalent of intermixing "the Bears" and "the Patriots" with "The NFL."
A given guy from a given country might have been in a given terrorist outfit, but he got funding, focus and outfitting from The Base (AQ).

My claim here is not that he wasn't responsible for 9-11 but that no one here, me included, can honestly claim that they have access to hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 911 one way or another.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree there tho. Hard evidence exists and if you do some raking it's in the public domain (off the cuff the embassy cables from the National Security Archive which includes the 9/11 sourcebooks. And there's the straight cadre thing - e.g. Khalid al-Mihdhar - Saudi, but there's no question he was an AQ operative; Nawaf al-Hazmi, also Saudi, but c'mon, he was in Mes Aynak getting trained by Makkawi - Saif al Adel (Egyptian) - who I would personally fucking kill if I laid eyes on him and is now IIRC is one of the top AQ dogs. Mohamed Atta - etc. etc. etc)

Tangent: one of the things that struck me about O.J. Simpson and the murder thing is not that the L.A. cops were racist, but that they did such a lousy job of framing him.
So too - in the case of Mohamed Atta. But - do you think Simpson was innocent?
Point being, the nature of the evidence (in some instances, like the wallet) does not necessarily mean the opposite situation is automatically true.
Just because the L.A. cops framed Simpson, doesn't mean he didn't kill anyone (and in fact, I can make an excellent guess by the type of wounds caused and how he cut his hand how he did it - bit like taking out a sentry).

But - the more hard hitting stuff that directly pins operations on AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan - not so much public.
Wonder why?
Well, yeah, Iraq.
If you remember, way back when everyone and his brother in the intelligence community was saying bin Laden was up to something, going to hit in the U.S. and was running operations out of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The Bush Admin said "yeah? Iraq?" and the response was "Iraq who?"

There was plenty of "hard evidence" that Iraq was behind 9/11, had WMDs, was dovetail in operations with AQ, and drove it's car across your lawn and flipped off your mom.

And in fact there was a grain of truth there. Iraq did have some yellowcake, but not the stuff Bushco was saying it had. Blah blah blah.

Which goes to my earlier point regarding putting gasoline in your own fire suppression system.

The NSA could manufacture any amount of evidence to frame bin Laden or anyone else. So you have to sort of ask why didn't they?
The only real answer is, some people in government are actually concerned with putting out fires and genuinely doing their jobs.
(Doesn't mean they're incorruptible (although some are) just means, as is logical, if your aim is to amass power and money you don't want to spread your end thinly including everyone and his brother (so they have a stake in your conspiracy which they could easily blow wide open).

Whereas, subjecting populations to broad based warfare seems to generate a real profit for some people who might have an interest in not having those not-so well heeled jobbers yelling about a different, actual fire going on, rather than the stage-show flames that have been prepared.

Think Joe Wilson had the kind of money to get his message out by himself? Then suddenly his wife is outed. And Scooter Libby is on the hook for it and he's the first sitting White House official to be indicted for more than, what, 100 years? He gets five years. Bush commutes the sentence. You can see the conflict and interaction of two powerful forces the same way you can discern what must be happening when you see a whirlpool form.

I think Fitzgerald put it best: "No, I don't expect to file further charges. We're all just going back to our day jobs."

There's your hard evidence. I mean, you really don't need explicit details (although as I say, with OBL, etc. they exist) you can just see how events play out and the motives shake out from there.

I don't think there's any question the CIA would lie. Or does. But most (caveat there, most) of the things they lie about are national security type stuff. Lots of things post-9/11 you can't reveal, operational stuff, etc.

Why would a guy from the NSA or CIA lie - the other way? That is, why reveal bin Laden as "the Man" and say "yeah, we're totally after this guy"? Really, you wouldn't. If you're a good covert operative you'd say bin Laden was maybe the money guy or the #6 man or whatever, something that reveals you to be a buffoon who can't find his ass with both hands while your field operatives go after the guy with everything you have.

So - Why would a guy from DPBAC, who's the assistant to the President and front man for people making a killing off of making a killing - lie that way?
Kinda obvious.

Cui bono? Pretty equation simple really. The guy with the day job has no motive for lying either way about bin Laden or whether or not AQ is involved in Iraq.

They guys who make money off of mass troop movements not only have an interest, but have an interest in suppressing the actual information.

I mean, you're at work. Your boss comes in, hey AElfwine, I notice you put in your report that 2+2=4. We want it to be '5'.
"Well, no," you say "It's 4"
Your boss asks if you've got an ideological problem with it being '5'
"Uh, no, it just is... What's this all about?"
Nothing. Forget it. He says. And down the road the report with your name on it has the minor detail that 2+2=5 that gets memetically replicated and augmented in concert with the work of hundreds of other guys who's bosses got it from their bosses and so on and no one specifically says "hey, guys, it's THIS" so all you know is your little piece of it is wrong.
So you tell the press. "Hey, uh, I never said 2+2=5, it's factually incorrect."
The next day your wife loses her job and your kid is involved in a car accident.
Wanna keep going?
So maybe you do. And you push it. You find the guy who got your wife fired (the thing with your kid was a hit and run. Cops can't find the guy). You press charges. You win. Nothing happens.
Now what?

Same deal. 5,000 straws or 1 million, they don't make an oar. There's no reason to co-opt a whole outfit like the NSA when I can take good, decent, hard working men and women who believe in what their doing and subvert one bit of detail across the board such that it makes a sea change that none of them individually can address because they've just got their piece of it.

Part of the reaction to 9/11 was that the intelligence community was too divided and that they didn't share information.
This was true. (Divide and conquer...where have I heard that).

Unfortunately, instead of making working partnerships the government created a new agency and put a sort of dam between agencies that is even more politically entrenched and mouseholed.
Sort of the exact opposite of what was desired.


I mean, in December ('11) a federal court ruled that Iran probably had something to do with 9/11.
Ok.

I wasn't aware there was some dispute that MOIS and Hezbollah weren't involved in material support of AQ and terrorist operations against the U.S. since, what, '79 at least?
In 2004 the 9/11 Commission published the links between the 9/11 terrorists and the time they spent in Iran.
Nothing came of it at the time. We had Iraq going on.

So again, as a f'rinstance, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Hamzmi are at an AQ meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The NSA knows Al-Mihdhar has a visa and was coming to the U.S. after the meet.
They tell the CIA/FBI outfit tasked to go after OBL.
The FBI guy asks the NSA to give the information to his people. The CIA end (or rather, someone in the CIA end) stops that but tells their station chief the information about Al-Mihdhar was sent on.

Strange, no?

Plenty of other stuff like this. I'm with you on the distrust thing. And I'm open to some of the other stuff Chomsky (et.al) puts forth - e.g. the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the stupid ones about charges and missiles, might easily be disinformation.
I don't think there's any question there was a conspiracy after 9/11 that was a cover up. Of gross negligence if nothing else (I mean, no one lost their job? No one?).

So, to reiterate, the fact that 9/11 served a certain foreign policy agenda doesn't mean that the facts are wrong nor that the existing evidence is flimsy.

I'd argue that, it being the case that you have to lie to your own people, not to mention your own cadre, it's important to have the situation be as close to the truth as possible.

What I speculate happened was that subverted elements in the intelligence community working with people from defense/advisors and defense contractors colluded with foreign terrorists and lied to or bought politicians (who need not have been in the know on everything) who put forth policies that allowed a window of opportunity - and further exploited that operationally given a look at what happened with the FAA, NORAD, et. al. and FTXs on 9/11 - to allow the attack to proceed then used that as a pretext to invade Iraq throwing Afghanistan as a bone to the interests in the U.S. legitimately concerned with foreign policy interests, security, and fighting terrorism.

But it doesn't make a good sound byte.
And hell, it'd be a life's work to prove even a small part of that. Not to mention the folks who would be more than willing to believe I, or anyone else who championed that position hard enough, would be subject to the same distrust, ridicule, etc. you have as rote for the intelligence community.

Not saying it's wrong in the sense that you're saying "hey ... something fishy is going on here...." but it's human nature to chuck the whole thing and say "all of them" and drop into cynicism.
You'd have to be a maniac, saint, genius or fanatic to sustain the kind of energy it would take to meticulously dissect, explicate and present - successfully - that level of discerning inquiry.

So yeah, I don't think you're dull. It's just hard to really keep up the clarity.
I'm a hard charging, insomniac, ferociously energetic S.O.B and this is in some sense my metier - and hell, it tires the shit out of me.

And too, I remember the fireman after 9/11 talking about the conspiracy stuff - the level of negligence, etc - that allowed his friends to die. He said 'I can't think about that. If I thought about it and I knew something like that had happened, I'd have to go and do something about it.'

Most people don't want to think about it coherently enough to do have to do something about it.
That's you, me, everyone.
Most people though can't really go out on their own and do something.

I suppose my saving grace there, as someone who probably could do something about it, is that I tend to overreact a bit. *cough*
And being right isn't a license to play God.

Just musing there. Point being, I think people (everyone) tends to stop delving into something once they hit a point where they can relax about it.
Sort of confirmation bias, but not really, as that implies a sort of intellectual dishonesty which I'm not accusing you of.

More sort of like playing tic tac toe. You know where the game is ultimately headed so you stop.
So too with this. I'm not refuting your position in the sense that I'd argue your distrust is not warranted.
Rather I'm saying things are much more convoluted and that there are many other considerations.
Sort of shakes out to the same thing.

We need an intellectual vigor that we just don't have. We don't have time for it. We don't have inclination (maybe I've been reading too much Neil Postman) - there are lots of distractions. A lot of things are sort of pre-chewed intellectually for us.
It's hard to think deeply and complexly on subjects - particularly ones that inspire passion.

And I can't help but think this is sort of the big "C" conspiracy.

So - to sort of metaphorically address the heart of what you're saying and our differences: Less "1984" more "Brave New World."
posted by Smedleyman at 2:31 PM on February 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Can These Commandos Salvage the Afghan War?
posted by homunculus at 2:11 PM on February 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Siege of September 13: Shortly after President Obama declared a kind of victory in Afghanistan—and days after the tenth anniversary of 9/11— a gray van sped through the streets of Kabul. Its destination: a high-rise overlooking the U.S. embassy. What happened over the next twenty hours sure as hell didn't look like victory. In a GQ exclusive, Matthieu Aikins takes us for the first time behind the embassy walls and into the crossfire
posted by homunculus at 1:10 PM on March 5, 2012