The New Bad War
by tdaxp ~ September 20th, 2008
I’ve said several times that as the Iraq War winds down, leftists will begin to oppose the War in Afghanistan. Their support of the “good war” serves mainly to oppose the central front of the war on terrorism, the place where America has invested the most resources and the most effort. As soon as the Iraq War ends, they will begin to oppose the new central front.
Because the Surge has worked better than we expected, leftist opposition to the Afghani War is building faster than I expected. British leftist writer Robert Fisk begins the effort to make us lose in Afghanistan, in his new editorial:
And Obama and McCain really think they’re going to win in Afghanistan – before, I suppose, rushing their soldiers back to Iraq when the Baghdad government collapses. What the British couldn’t do in the 19th century and what the Russians couldn’t do at the end of the 20th century, we’re going to achieve at the start of the 21 century, taking our terrible war into nuclear-armed Pakistan just for good measure. Fantasy again.
Joseph Conrad, who understood the powerlessness of powerful nations, would surely have made something of this. Yes, we have lost after we won in Afghanistan and now we will lose as we try to win again. Stuff happens.
Leftists oppose us winning because they want voices that oppose us to be heard. This is true on nearly every front: they oppose us not because we are wrong, but because we are strong.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2 008/06/19/the-foreign-polic...
September 20th, 2008 at 5:55 am
…and Robert Fisk, most likely has his Osama Bin Laden T-Shirt ready. This is truly Fantasyland for the gaming armchair warriors.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Do you have a substantive point, or are you just trolling?
September 20th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I recall a realplayer audio interview that Fisk did back in October or November of 2001, where he lamented America’s expedition to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
His views have not changed since then, although his popularity with the left may be on the rise.
You are correct in the larger point of the left becoming anti-war in Afghanistan. There has been subtle shifts in various leftist subgroups over the past months and years against America’s involvements overseas. My parents are conservatives, but attend a liberal Protestant denomination of church, and they noted the ambivalent pathos many members of the congregation had toward me upon my return from Afghanistan in 2004. The political shift was noted even back then.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I suppose that, according to general definition, I am classified as a “troll” here, primarily because I take strong exception to many aspects of your philosophy and interpretations of world events. But you do have the power to banish trolls to other sites where a troll would “feel more comfortable”.
That said, I would like to ask who are the “leftists” as well as who are the “us” with which you align yourself. When you talk about the CORE, I tend to interpret that as the U.S.(us)Empire, which, from my observation, is rotten to the core. I really can’t fathom how you can carry on and on about the failed Gap state while totally glossing over the corruption which has left US bankrupt and millions of innocent people dead or displaced. There is a coldness and pseudo-scientific calculating here which prompts the image of “gaming armchair warriors”. Don’t we have way too much of that going on in the reality of actual men and women who have “made their bones” and been elevated in the ranks of the global elite according to the number of millions of deaths they have contributed to?
Statements like “…they (”leftists”) oppose us not because we are wrong, but because we are strong.”, are just totally absurd. It goes hand in hand with notions (Bushian Orwellian-Speak) like, ” Al Queda (Al (CIA)da) hates US for our freedoms.” I know I’ll be feeling really strong sitting in the middle of a pile of rubble known as “US”, while W., Cheney and the rest of the gang slither off to their waiting refuges in Dubai, Paraguay, or wherever.
As for the “Coming Popularity of Al Queda” and Osama Bin Laden T-shirts–what a ludicrous article, based on ignorance and/or willful misrepresentation. I don’t think Obama will be wearing one, since he, like McCain and Bush, is still hiding behind the bogus, manufactured “War On Terror”. Obama and McCain are both “lipstick on the same Globalist Pig”. I won’t even bother getting into 911 as an inside job.
I’ll save you the trouble and let myself out, saying, “Thank you, MLK, for your trolling self-parody.”
September 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Robert Fisk”
Fisk is clearly on the other side. He worked as free Iraqi propagandist by reporting “facts” of the power and might of the Iraqi defense as the American forces approached Baghdad. He was clearly acting on behalf of the other side. He was hope to stall the assault with he words.
He has reported against the Afgan War as far back as 12/2001 [1] in away that gave both propaganda for the other side…
“But Mr Fisk said he could understand the refugees’ anger, as many had relatives who had been killed by the US bombing of Afghan city Kandahar last week.”
…and to the side I am on…
“At first they were reasonably friendly but then a little kid threw a stone at me. More stones followed and then I find myself being punched and beaten in the face. ”
…all was best summed up with this now classic line:
“They had every reason to be angry - I’ve been an outspoken critic of the US actions myself. If I had been them, I would have attacked me.”
Because of actions of “journalist” like him,. I really don’t give much credence to the BBC anymore.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1699708.stm
September 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
MLK:
When you hear terms like Core/Gap here, that comes “The Pentagon’s New Map” and related. A short version as an Esquire [1] article exists.
“while totally glossing over the corruption which has left US bankrupt and millions of innocent people dead or displaced.”
Blah blah blah. This is rhetoric asserted as facts. You asked who the leftists where? They consists, among others, of people like you hold these belief, but present them as facts.
“As for the “Coming Popularity of Al Queda” and Osama Bin Laden T-shirts–what a ludicrous article, based on ignorance and/or willful misrepresentation.”
In what way? The left embraced mass killers like Mao and Che easy enough and made fashion statements around them. Let’s not forget the PLO-inspired terror fashion scarves either.
[1] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
September 20th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Purpleslog,
I appreciate your responses, but as you probably already know, we are definitely not on the same page. Not even the same book. I do agree with you about the BBC, but for different reasons. One is the fumbling attempts to debunk those who dispute the Official version (coverup) of 911 and another, the announcement that WTC Bldg. 7 (with live footage of Bldg. 7 standing in the background) had fallen at least 20 minutes before it actually fell. Kind of like people in New Zealand being able to read about JFK’s assassination before it was possible to actually do so.
If you want to bring up things like “…The left embraced mass killers…”, also research those who funded the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.–The Rockfellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs, and assorted Titans of the international banking cartels. They’ve always funded two or more competing entities. It keeps the blood flowing and the War profits growing. It’s also entertaining sport for those who are bored and have everything. And why not have it all. Why not rule the GLOBE?!! And why not have T-shirts with David Rockefeller, a Rothschild, Queen Elizabeth, or whoever hanging in the closet next to Mao or Che? I know,…blah, blah, blah.
Sorry, I don’t have links handy. I don’t particularly like going down rabbit holes, but I often find it educational, nevertheless. I really do appreciate the link you provided to Esquire and the article by Thomas Barnett. I notice he distances himself from issues such as CIA drug running to help finance their black-budget ops, the throwing of gasoline on ennumerable hot spots around OUR globe, and the general mucking around and subversion of democratically elected governments. I do admire his optimism, though. Share MY OPTIMISM or I’ll NUKE YOUR ASS. When he talks about bullies of the world…my, oh my…oye vey!! I’ll finish up with the blah, blah. Again, thanks. The Esquire article really laid it out for me, but I’m sorry to say, Barnett strikes me as a delusional Fascist. Is there another kind?
Have a good perpetual war.
Your loving troll
P.S. I’m thinking Obama is probably a fascist, too, but from a different fraternity. When I think of Bush, Cheney, McCain, and the rest of the neocons, mental illness also comes to mind.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Anecdotally, a few posters for marxist lectures have been appearing around my university that exclaim: “Why Afghanistan is not the good war.”
September 20th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
MLK seems to have legitimate concerns, but sabotages his attempts to express them with rhetoric, such as cleverly misspelling al Qaeda, profanity, etc.
I’ll leave his comments up as a reminder of how a self-identified troll can hijack a conversation. Still, until he thinks enough of this blog to engage in substantive assertions or refutations, there’s no need to respond to (or publish) his comments.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:43 am
You are indeed correct about the left wanting us to lose in Afghanistan. A good rule of thumb when it comes to the left and whether or not they’ll support a war is to look at our opponents. If the opponent is “white” (meaning European) they’ll support it (Serbia, Germany). If the opponents are not white, they won’t.
While you might be correct about the left wanting the voices of the “oppressed” to be heard; its really not the main reason why the left wishes for our defeat. The main reason fits within the left’s strategic philosophy. Since WWI the left has thought of war and its aftermath as being the optimal time to implement revolution. During war the idea is to manipulate the people’s feelings and take advantage of the country’s vulnerability. If the country loose the war, the left will then utilize the feelings of doubt the population has to attempt revolution (or as they call it today: “CHANGE”).
They’ve had some successes at doing this. After WWI the left was able to start revolution in Russia. After Germany lost WWI, Communists were able to take over the State of Bavaria, before German Patriots retook it. The left used the Vietnam era to cause havoc, demonize the military, and capture academia.
Now this doesn’t mean everyone who opposes war is a leftest agitator. Pat Buchanan opposed the war in Iraq but respects the military and generally wants what’s best for our interests. Buchanan doesn’t call the US military Nazis or baby killers and doesn’t see wartime as an opportunity to further his political goals.
September 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Sir,
could you please institute a printer friendly format. thanks SLF
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:48 am
Simon,
There now should be a link on the top, called “Print this Page,” which gives a printer-friendly version of the post. I hope that helps!
Seerov,
Good points, thhough white is less important than like-us. Hence the popularity of the Tibet cause on the left, because China is capitalist and Tibet is rural. Or the popularity of Russia, because the EU is “neoliberal” while Russia is authoritarian.
The left wants other voices to be heard. Even at the cost of our lives.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 am
How about a print-this-post link that also includes the comments also in a plain-vanilla format?
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am
Purpleslog, it now prints comments too!
I was afraid I would have to modify some code, but the plugin (WP-Print [1]) has “Print Comments” as a simple yes-no option in the configuration panel!
[1] http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wp-print/
[2] http://lesterchan.net/portfolio/programming/php/#wp-print
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
I really don’t understand people like MLK? I assume you’re a citizen of the US? Why would you complain about American imperialism? Being a citizen in the freest country (relative to everyone else) in the world, that also happens to be the global hegemon, is part of the reason we have such a high standard of living. Since the dawn of civilization there have been Empires, be happy that you live in one.
Morality has no place in geopolitics. The only “good” is what makes our country more secure, and more rich. If this requires overthrowing a government or two and screaming “Democracy” while doing so, then so be it. Don’t be so mad MLK, America offers more opportunity than the whole world combined. While we all have certain issues we wish were different in this country, overall, there is no better pace than the good old US of A.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
“Good points, thhough white is less important than like-us. Hence the popularity of the Tibet cause on the left, because China is capitalist and Tibet is rural. Or the popularity of Russia, because the EU is “neoliberal” while Russia is authoritarian.” (Dan)
I think you make a valid point here. I was basing my analysis on past conflicts, but your bringing up of China is certainly valid. At the same time, think about the old South Africa. Black Africans had a better standard of living in South Africa than Tibetans do in China, but the outrage over SA was so strong that the US placed sanctions on them. There will never be sanctions placed on China. The left is obsessed with race, and explicitly believe that white people should be punished for past crimes, real or imagined.
I haven’t seen much leftest support for Russia though? What you see might not actually be support for Russia, but instead, just the leftest tenancy to support anyone we oppose? I also don’t think the left framed the Russia issue as being between the EU and Russia? I think they seen it as the US being the global bully for telling Russia what they can and can’t do. In general, the left sees Europe as being more “enlightened” than we are.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
A foreign policy must be a morality constrained by reality.
To the extent that we are responsible for others, this is true in other areas, as well.
Only if we free ourselves from such responsibility — if we leave the dead to themselves — can we escape such a trap.
I’m not sure if such would be wise.
[1] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%208:22;&version=31;
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
“…it now prints comments too!”
Perfect!
September 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Thanks!
I hope it will be helpful for people.
Back when we were writing the John Boyd Roundtable posts [1] that have now been turned into a book [2,3], we were printing off from Chicago Boyz, as they had a “print this post” option too. I now realize that it is the same plugin that I found!
But theirs is not set up to print comments!
Long live tdaxp!
[1] http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5542.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/09/22/debating-science-strategy-and-war.html
[3] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1934840467?ie=UTF8&tag=zenpundit-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1934840467
[3]