A lot of people will make the point today that we should leave Afghanistan as soon as possible now that our top goal of going over there has been accomplished. This comes, ironically, eight years to the day after President Bush declared Mission Accomplished in regard to Iraq -- and can anyone remind me what that mission was?
We declared two wars to target Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They were in Afghanistan and Iraq. We killed bin Laden in Pakistan.
The idea that Iraq had anything to do with Osama bin Laden and the attacks against this country was comical and tragic at the same time. Now that we have killed bin Laden in Pakistan, can we ask the incredibly wrong neo-cons what Iraq had to do with 9/11 again? And will they apologize for leading us into Iraq when it turns out we were right, the enemy was many countries away?
But that's obvious, though it will not be mentioned enough today. So, let's talk about Afghanistan. Yes, we did chase bin Laden from there initially -- about ten years ago. But since then we have been fighting a senseless war with the Taliban and God knows who else, when we knew or suspected that bin Laden was in Pakistan. So, what did all of those nearly pointless campaigns in different parts of Afghanistan accomplish when Osama bin Laden was sitting in a house in the suburbs of Pakistan's capital?
Bottom line -- endless war didn't work. In the end, we found the man who authorized the attacks on 9/11 through good intelligence work and killed him with a very small, targeted strike with our best trained forces. We didn't use an army battalion or a surge or huge ground troops backed up by Abrams tanks. It was a surgical strike pulled off by a small unit. Imagine if we had invaded Pakistan instead to accomplish our objective (they were only nominally cooperating with us -- he was sitting right outside their capital). How little sense would that have made? Just about as much sense as the other wars made -- not much at all.
War is the wrong strategy when fighting terrorism. Whether it was our tactical strike against an Al Qaeda leader in Somalia or this tactical strike in Pakistan, it's obvious what the much better strategy is compared to big, lumbering, incredibly costly and casualty heavy wars that we have started in the past. I hope we learn from our mistakes and our successes.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Fr. Peter-Michael Preble: Osama is Dead. Now What Should I Feel?
Those who say military force is the answer against terrorism are absolutely wrong.
Military forces a one of many, many necessary tools to combat terrorism. To effectively combat terrorism, combatting the terrorists is just teh beginning. It is like fighting the symptoms of the disease. Teh symptoms can kill you, but you also need to combat the causes of the disease. Mlitary force.is often not as effective in that area.
George W. Bush could have gone essentially one of two ways after 911, declare war on a tactic, which is what he did, or allow the Intelligence and Police agencies to apprehend the guilty culprit.
If Bush had gone the police route, the operations would have amounted in the millions.
If Bush went the military route, the military campaign would, with endless war, amount in the trillions, with death, destruction and calamity across the middle east and Northern Africa.
Which way did Bush choose?
He chose the latter, which incidently, was public money spent to "reward" his war buddies and the prize for the oil and gas companies were the natural resources.
Just like in Libya.
But who paid or will pay?
The American public, if we let them get away with their naked aggression.
The poor die so the rich can get richer.
We are now making EXACTLY the same mistake in Pakistan, but worse. India has been telling us about the ISI for years, and we have gone, like, "oh, surely not!" and sent them more and more military aid, which is used to make trouble in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
I sometimes wonder if the Americans who push for this kind of aid to these kinds of false friends aren't getting some kind of kickback themselves. It makes no sense at all, otherwise.
And the arms manufacturers must cheer when 100 humvees get destroyed. What a contract! They get to make the war toys intitially, and then make them again when they are blown up. Great racket, and 100% legal in today's world. You need to look past the propaganda and see the big picture. What exactly is going on?
Snerd
Would it have anything to do with a pipeline or two that isn't controlled by the Russian/Iranians/Chinese, to bring gas down from the Caspian Sea?
Snerd
You mean this stuff isn't on the level? Can I stop waving the flag now?
The truth is that terrorism breaks down respect for life and leads to bloodshed and cruelty. Because of their pain, victims often retaliate, which leads to further repression and, in turn, to more retaliation.
Violence Does Not Solve Our Problems
Humans have been trying to solve their political, religious, and social problems by themselves for thousands of years. But all their attempts have failed. It is as the Bible says: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23) Jesus said: “Wisdom stands or falls by [its] results.” (Matthew 11:19, The New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips) ]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200606/article_01.htm
It's objective is to produce chaos and the subsequent downfall of current power and civil structures, and therein the possibility for them to exploit disaster. Their idea of revolution. But, they haven't been able to create sufficient chaos and disaster, and that's there failure. They haven't been able to disrupt the current 'peace', such as it is.
In fact, any move towards greater 'peace' in the Arab world, seems to be coming from a secular, educated, middle class ... in Egypt, at least.
Snerd
MANY people are greatly disturbed about injustice, fraud and oppression. They want a change and believe that it is right to bring this about even by force if necessary.
Of course, the Christian keenly desires a change in the present system, to see an end to human suffering. We do not allow their wickedness to cause us to retaliate in kind. We do not seek to effect a change among the people by violent means. Even when attacked we do not return with violence. We patiently wait upon Jehovah God to express judgment against them.
God’s servants today realize that they have not been authorized to use violence to bring about social changes in the world. “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.’” (Rom. 12:19) They take seriously the Bible’s advice to avoid involvement with those who insist on forcing a change. A Bible proverb admonishes: “With those who are for a change [“those who rebel,” New American Bible], do not intermeddle. For their disaster will arise so suddenly, that who is aware of the extinction of those who are for a change?” (Prov. 24:21, 22)
Even if violent means should succeed in bringing about a change, what guarantee is there that it will really be for the better?(Eccl. 8:9)
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20070515/article_01.htm
The New Testament I get, but why bring back the Old Testament angry, raging and punitive Patriarch? If Love. Salvation and Forgiveness are so good, why create an 'Old Testament christians' hybrid ... ? What have you got against Christ and his message, anyway ... ?
Snerd
It is the same God, the same love and the same end results from the punishment.
The Law was a "tutor leading to the Chirst". The world was much different in 1500BCE when the Law was given to Moses and 100 AD when the New Testament was basically completed.
Just as a loving parent will teach and train a child differently from early stages to when it is maturing, the teachings in the Bible the ideals and end results are the same - however, presented differently:
FOR EXAMPLE:
1) A young child will be given clear and decisive RULES to protect it and with quick and severe rebukes to drive home the importance and disastrous results of disobedience.
"DO NOT TOUCH! Fire Hot! Burn the baby" [with a quick smack on the hand to associate pain with this bad decision]
(As my high school friends sister used to tell her little girl.)
2) However, once these clear and distinct rules are absorbed by the child and they prove their understanding, then the parents can give a bit more relaxed instructions based on PRINCIPLES.
"Be careful sweety, you know that things that are red or smoking are likely hot and if you get too close you may burn yourself."
Both are the same in essence - describe what is 'bad' and will hurt the young one.
(Matthew 5:17-20)
(Romans 3:27-31)
Fantastic teevee show today! Excellent. Glad you're on there.
The right laughs whenever it was suggested that international criminals be targeted with police-type action rather than wars where lots of innocent people die. Who's laughing now?