The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
Is Afghanistan a Lost Cause?
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“We are there and we are committed” was the regular retort of Secretary of State Dean Rusk during the war in Vietnam.

Whatever you may think of our decision to go in, Rusk was saying, if we walk away, the United States loses the first war in its history, with all that means for Southeast Asia and America’s position in the world.

We face a similar moment of decision.

Wednesday, a truck bomb exploded near the diplomatic quarter of Kabul, killing 90 and wounding 460. So terrible was the atrocity that the Taliban denied complicity. It is believed to have been the work of the Haqqani network.

This “horrific and shameful attack demonstrates these terrorists’ compete disregard for human life and their nihilistic opposition to the dream of a peaceful future for Afghanistan,” said Hugo Llordens, a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.

The message the truck bombers sent to the Afghan people? Not even in the heart of this capital can your government keep civilian workers and its own employees safe.

Message to America: After investing hundreds of billions and 2,000 U.S. lives in the 15 years since 9/11, we are further from victory than we have ever been.

President Obama, believing Afghanistan was the right war, and Iraq the wrong war, ramped up the U.S. presence in 2011 to 100,000 troops. His plan: Cripple the Taliban, train the Afghan army and security forces, stabilize the government, and withdraw American forces by the end of his second term.

Obama fell short, leaving President Trump with 8,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and Kabul’s control more tenuous than ever. The Taliban hold more territory and are active in more provinces than they have been since being driven from power in 2001. And Afghan forces are suffering casualties at the highest rate of the war.

Stated starkly, the war in Afghanistan is slowly being lost.

Indeed, Trump has inherited what seems to be an unwinnable war, if he is not prepared to send a new U.S. army to block the Taliban from taking power. And it is hard to believe that the American people would approve of any large reintroduction of U.S. forces.

The U.S. commander there, Gen. John Nicholson, has requested at least 3,000 more U.S. troops to train the Afghan army and stabilize the country while seeking a negotiated end to the war.

Trump’s conundrum: 3,000 or 5,000 more U.S. troops can at best help the Afghan security forces sustain the present stalemate.

But if we could not defeat the Taliban with 100,000 U.S. troops in country in 2011, we are not going to defeat a stronger Taliban with a U.S. force one-seventh of that size. And if a guerrilla army does not lose, it wins.

Yet it is hard to see how Trump can refuse to send more troops. If he says we have invested enough blood and treasure, the handwriting will be on the wall. Reports that both Russia and Iran are already talking to the Taliban suggest that they see a Taliban takeover as inevitable.

Should Trump announce any timetable for withdrawal, it would send shock waves through the Afghan government, army and society.

Any awareness that their great superpower ally was departing, now or soon, or refusing to invest more after 15 years, would be a psychological blow from which President Ashraf Ghani’s government might not recover.

What would a Taliban victory mean?

The Afghan people, especially those who cast their lot with us, could undergo something like what befell the South Vietnamese and Cambodians in 1975. It would be a defeat for us almost as far-reaching as was the defeat for the Soviet Union, when the Red Army was forced to pull out after a decade of war in the 1980s.

For the USSR, that Afghan defeat proved a near-fatal blow.

And if we pulled up stakes and departed, the exodus from Afghanistan would be huge and we would face a moral crisis of how many refugees we would accept, and how many we would leave behind to their fate.

Fifteen years ago, some of us argued that an attempt to remake Afghanistan and Iraq in our image was utopian folly, almost certain, given the history and culture of the entire region, to fail.
Yet we plunged in.

In 2001, it was Afghanistan. In 2003, we invaded and occupied Iraq. Then we attacked Libya and ousted Gadhafi. Then we intervened in Syria. Then we backed the Saudi war to crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Given the trillions sunk and lost, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dead, how have we benefited ourselves, or these peoples?

As Rusk said, “We are there and we are committed.”

And the inevitable departure of the United States from the Middle East, which is coming, just as the British, French and Soviet empires had to depart, will likely do lasting damage to the American soul.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Afghanistan, American Military 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Of course Afghanistan is a lost cause. Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks. The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California. Nor do I connect the Soviet withdrawal from Aghanistan with the eventual collapse of the USSR–that seemed to me to be linked to the huge inefficiencies of the Soviet economy.

    The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries, a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats) and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently. Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. “Invade the world, invite the world.” George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership–I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks."

    Yes.

    "The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California."

    Not for hundreds of thousands of people there who opposed authoritarian rule.

    "The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security"

    Absolutely.

    "and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries"

    No.

    "a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats)"

    No.

    "and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently."

    And no.

    "Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. “Invade the world, invite the world.”"

    Remember, this phrase originated with the Europeans way, way back in the 1500's as a result of their colonial and imperialistic designs. We reap what we sow.

    "George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership–I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up."

    Indeed.
    , @Jim Christian
    Yeah, but if we had done what you say (and I concur with all), look at the trillions the arms manufacturers and contractors would have lost. Those are folks that did NOT let a "good" crisis go to waste. Expect further destruction, death and treasure spilled. This never ends. They're too powerful and they're too entrenched domestically with their spies and depravity in law enforcement and intelligence. Oh no, they aren't done yet. They aren't done by a damned sight. They're going to ride our collective ass until the last morsel is consumed. Bank it. This. Never. Ends. Ever.
    , @anon
    I agree 100% with everything you say. Corvinus the troll will disagree but who cares?
    , @KenH

    The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries, a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats).....
     
    Instead, Dubya elected to increase Muslim immigration and refugees and trash the bill of rights and civil liberties for the white majority via the misnamed "USA Patriot Act" and unprecedented NSA spying on all domestic communications.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/is-afghanistan-a-lost-cause/#comment-1892270
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Well, Pat, our folks are there, and those who sent them there, ought to be committed. Or condemned to wander the inner city homeless, as we force other mentally ill folks to do.

    Read More
  3. As the saying goes; Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    The US in its arrogance never learns from history. In the most recent times two other super powers (The British Empire and the USSR) have tried to control Afghanistan with disastrous results.

    Pat asks, “Is Afghanistan a lost cause?” Afghanistan was a lost cause from the very beginning. First, we should have learned from history that no foreign power can control Afghanistan and should not have tried it. Second, instead of completely taking care of the Talibans, we opened a new front (Iraq) without assuring victory on the first. Result is that we have lost both wars and still we have not learned. We keep on opening new fronts; Libya, Syria, and Yemen and now we are itching to open one up against Iran.

    When will the Generals and the politicians come to their senses?

    As Rusk said, “We are there and we are committed.”

    It is time to commit all the generals and politicians alongwith the neocons and weapons manufacturers. It is time for sane people to take control of the government.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries. The British actually succeeded despite several humiliating defeats; they took half of Afghanistan outright (which still belongs to their successor state Pakistan) and made the other half a dependency (the reason for this was Great Game politics and wanting a buffer state between themselves and Russia).

    The US is just particularly incompetent at this kind of thing.
    , @Old fogey
    Couldn't have said it better myself. A glance at history should have told the generals and the policymakers all they needed to know about Afghanistan.
  4. “Whatever you may think of our decision to go in, Rusk was saying, if we walk away, the United States loses the first war in its history, with all that means for Southeast Asia and America’s position in the world.”

    Didn’t Rusk know about the Korean war??

    The best, most sure way to not lose wars is not to start them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shitposter
    He could count the Korean War as a victory, given that we entered to prevent South Korea from being overrun by the North and we were successful in that regard. Granted, when our objectives expanded to unite the whole peninsula under capitalism, that's when we pissed off the Chinese and the war turned into a stalemate.
  5. To paraphrase the words of Seneca the Younger, we were shipwrecked before we got aboard.

    We had terrorism and terrorists in the ’80s, and the Reagan response (ignore the Mujahadeen for the moment) was to dispatch special ops teams on quiet, secret ops to kill actual terrorists. It managed to quiet things down foe a while. Bush the younger decided to turn this into a profit-making activity for big government and big MISC with the Never-ending GWOT.

    Just sayin’

    Read More
  6. And if we pulled up stakes and departed, the exodus from Afghanistan would be huge and we would face a moral crisis of how many refugees we would accept, and how many we would leave behind to their fate.

    It would be no moral crisis for Bush 2, Obama, Hillary and their supporters, who thought it was a war worth fighting and who would readily allow the increase in muslim refugees.

    Tough on Trump, who argued against regime-changing, nation-building wars during his Presidential campaign.

    It seems to be a law of American politics that presidents inherit the unpopular aspects of wars started by their predecessors. I don’t, of course, absolve the governments of other nations (like Britain) from their share of the blame for wars they decided to “support”.

    Read More
  7. The US is there for the Heroine and now that we have fentanyl the Heroine is obsolete so might as well get out. No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan and no one ever will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
    "The US is there for the Heroine......"

    Who's the "Heroine" in this story, or do you mean heroin?
  8. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “lasting damage to the American soul” is a gross overstatement, and corny to boot. The Afghan war has already been forgotten by pretty much everyone who isn’t actually there.

    As for “moral crisis of refugees” (THAT was corny), those refugees can help strain Iran/Hezbollah’s resources. More broadly, the dark masses can stew in their own juices while the nice guys from the Northern Alliance export opium to neighboring Russia for them to make krokodil. It’s all a big, self-eating birthday cake.

    Read More
  9. And if we pulled up stakes and departed, the exodus from Afghanistan would be huge and we would face a moral crisis of how many refugees we would accept, and how many we would leave behind to their fate.

    This is my primary concern and was foremost in my mind while reading the article. Since Trump has gone bleeding heart and is surrounded by establishment swamp things this could mean accepting hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees if we were to pull out. All permanent wards of the state. Maybe Germanophobe Angela Merkel might accept half of them and arrest any Germans who dare to protest.

    And if all else fails princess Ivanka will demand that we take them. So it looks like the third wordization of America will continue apace under Trump. It looks like MAGA will have to wait.

    It’s time to harden our hearts or allow our nations to sink under the weight of these refugees. The only moral duty we have is to our own people.

    Read More
  10. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MEexpert
    As the saying goes; Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    The US in its arrogance never learns from history. In the most recent times two other super powers (The British Empire and the USSR) have tried to control Afghanistan with disastrous results.

    Pat asks, "Is Afghanistan a lost cause?" Afghanistan was a lost cause from the very beginning. First, we should have learned from history that no foreign power can control Afghanistan and should not have tried it. Second, instead of completely taking care of the Talibans, we opened a new front (Iraq) without assuring victory on the first. Result is that we have lost both wars and still we have not learned. We keep on opening new fronts; Libya, Syria, and Yemen and now we are itching to open one up against Iran.

    When will the Generals and the politicians come to their senses?


    As Rusk said, “We are there and we are committed.”
     
    It is time to commit all the generals and politicians alongwith the neocons and weapons manufacturers. It is time for sane people to take control of the government.

    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries. The British actually succeeded despite several humiliating defeats; they took half of Afghanistan outright (which still belongs to their successor state Pakistan) and made the other half a dependency (the reason for this was Great Game politics and wanting a buffer state between themselves and Russia).

    The US is just particularly incompetent at this kind of thing.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries.
     
    The US help may have shortened the duration of Soviet occupation but the Afghans didn't need US help to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the US got involved for their own interest.

    You obviously don't have any knowledge of the history or the geography of that area. Getting your information from Wikipedia is not enough. The British tried all kinds of tactics but could not defeat the Afghans.
    , @Cyrano
    The US are actually very smart. They have all the bases covered. In order to make sure they end up on the winning side in the war of terror- they fight on both sides. By fighting on the both sides of the conflict – US will be winners no matter what, the downside to this is that technically by fighting on both sides of the conflict, the US are going to be losers no matter what as well. That’s what happens when you are basically fighting yourself. It’s a win-win, lose-lose type of situation.
  11. It can only help Trump to walk away from Afghanistan and leave them to their (Islamic) fate of ignorance, poverty and violence.

    Is there anyone left in the military or state department who seriously thinks that the nation can ever be anything but a failed state? Certainly the American public, to the extent that they think about it at all, must be sick to death of it.

    Just don’t throw good money after bad by taking in any refugees. The last thing America needs is more angry, battle hardened Islamists with an axe to grind.

    Read More
  12. @Renoman
    The US is there for the Heroine and now that we have fentanyl the Heroine is obsolete so might as well get out. No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan and no one ever will.

    “The US is there for the Heroine……”

    Who’s the “Heroine” in this story, or do you mean heroin?

    Read More
  13. Senile article by Mr. Buchanan. Attention, it is 2017 not 1969. The US has already lost its first war and is working on building up that score.

    “America’s position in the world” is akin to Al Capone’s. ” Those who cast their lot with us” are called stooges who took a quick buck and bet wrong. ” Lasting damage to the American soul”? You can’t damage what doesn’t exist.

    I knew from the title that this article would be a study in dementia. Ok, quick test for Mr. Buchanan:

    1) What was poppy production before the US invaded and what is it now?

    2) What was the justification for invading in the first place ? Who’s family
    was flown out of the US on 9/12?

    3) Which empire throughout history has emerged victorious in trying to
    subjugate the Afghanis? (trick question).

    4) Is President Ghani more worried about psychological discomfort or a
    hangman’s noose?

    5) Is Richard Nixon dead or alive? (softball to prevent goose egg).

    ” We are there and we should all be committed” Fixed it.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    3) Which empire throughout history has emerged victorious in trying to
    subjugate the Afghanis? (trick question).
     
    Check your own username...
    , @Dave Shanken
    I have no clue as to what the Federal Government's policies or goals are in the Mideast or the Islamic countries.

    But the Vietnam War was only a battle in the Cold War that America waged against Communism. And the final score in the Cold War: American victory and Russian defeat.

    , @Jim Christian

    The US has already lost its first war and is working on building up that score.
     
    Concur with Vietnam. But you give them too much credit. I don't much consider our Generals "won" Korea either. Fighting to a draw, losing 40 or 50 thousand of ours and killing however many millions of theirs while dropping more tonnage than was dropped in WW2. Big money in all those bombs, planes and bullets.

    Our Generals have been losing wars for us for north of 65 years now. Our reverence for them escapes me. Just look at their losing ways during their "service", for their profiteering via revolving doors, media, Cabinets and back to the defense industry and think tanks. They are the most conflicted-toward-crooked agents in the entire process and no one calls them on any of it.

    Jefferson said something along the lines of, when the public service becomes profitable only scoundrels will serve. That's our ruling class that cater to our profit centers of defense contracting. And especially, worse even, our Generals. They used their "honor" of their service in our military as currency to enrich themselves and their client defense industries. Millions killed to enhance their pensions. Without their endless push, we wouldn't have these wars. If it wasn't so profitable, we also wouldn't have so damned many of them, either.

  14. @MEexpert
    As the saying goes; Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    The US in its arrogance never learns from history. In the most recent times two other super powers (The British Empire and the USSR) have tried to control Afghanistan with disastrous results.

    Pat asks, "Is Afghanistan a lost cause?" Afghanistan was a lost cause from the very beginning. First, we should have learned from history that no foreign power can control Afghanistan and should not have tried it. Second, instead of completely taking care of the Talibans, we opened a new front (Iraq) without assuring victory on the first. Result is that we have lost both wars and still we have not learned. We keep on opening new fronts; Libya, Syria, and Yemen and now we are itching to open one up against Iran.

    When will the Generals and the politicians come to their senses?


    As Rusk said, “We are there and we are committed.”
     
    It is time to commit all the generals and politicians alongwith the neocons and weapons manufacturers. It is time for sane people to take control of the government.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. A glance at history should have told the generals and the policymakers all they needed to know about Afghanistan.

    Read More
  15. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Timur The Lame
    Senile article by Mr. Buchanan. Attention, it is 2017 not 1969. The US has already lost its first war and is working on building up that score.

    "America's position in the world" is akin to Al Capone's. " Those who cast their lot with us" are called stooges who took a quick buck and bet wrong. " Lasting damage to the American soul"? You can't damage what doesn't exist.

    I knew from the title that this article would be a study in dementia. Ok, quick test for Mr. Buchanan:

    1) What was poppy production before the US invaded and what is it now?

    2) What was the justification for invading in the first place ? Who's family
    was flown out of the US on 9/12?

    3) Which empire throughout history has emerged victorious in trying to
    subjugate the Afghanis? (trick question).

    4) Is President Ghani more worried about psychological discomfort or a
    hangman's noose?

    5) Is Richard Nixon dead or alive? (softball to prevent goose egg).

    " We are there and we should all be committed" Fixed it.

    Cheers-

    3) Which empire throughout history has emerged victorious in trying to
    subjugate the Afghanis? (trick question).

    Check your own username…

    Read More
  16. Nobody in Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11. “We” have NEVER had any reason to be there. You can’t lose a cause that never existed. All of the wars since the false flag attack of 9/11 have been crimes against humanity.

    Read More
  17. I leave deeper analysis to you maestro but not unlike President Obama, I believed Afghanistan war was the right war and the Iraq wars (I & II) were the wrong ones in addition to the ouster of Libyan leader (who knows, the kids who died in Manchester may have been alive today not for those louts being ousted from the desert). In the aftermath of the 9/11, nearly entire world was behind us (who engineered the attack remains to be discovered and most likely won’t be known for another century or two) and instead of taking up the offers of troop contribution (a million-man army led by yanks) and nipping the Islamic aspirations in the bud, our clueless dolt got misdirected by conniving Dick Cheney into the treacherous quagmire that is Iraq, where innocent boys and girls are hurting to date. And yet we don’t see the gorillas in the room: Saudis and Pakistanis. America, that shining city on the hill, guiding the world to a better path is no more but a bag of self-serving tools for a fewer and fewer, whose idea of the future plan is not the next millennium but what’s in it for me today!

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Some punitive action against Afghanistan's government should have been undertaken for allowing Al Qaeda to base itself there. However after a year or two it was obvious that the people of Afghanistan did not want what we were offering and we should have left.

    Iraq was never justified.
  18. Right from the start, the attack on Afghanistan was a lost cause, as have been all the American illegal wars since the controlled demolitions of the WTC plus No 7. Let the Afghan people finish off their fight among themselves and let them live according to their own rules such as President Trump advised the Muslim dictators and autocrats in Saudi Arabia. Why spending more American blood for nothing or a crackpot idea like in Vietnam or in the Middle East.

    If the Europeans want to defend human or women rights or the wicked ideology of Gender Mainstreaming they should do it themselves. Apparently, the Germany’s Freedom will be defended at the Hindukush as the late German defense minister Stuck once said in a blurred state of mind.

    The US occupier can’t win in Afghanistan. The Taliban will stay and some day the US forces will leave like in South Vietnam. Nothing happened to the people there, except the US occupier was humiliated. So what! Such is already the case in Afghanistan, Irak, Lybia, Somalia, and Syria. The strongest alliance in the world can’t defeat a bunch of freedom fighters. If Trump is smart, he will not sacrifice one single American soldier anymore.

    Not even with the massive military support of the US, the decadent Saudis are able to defeat a bunch of Huthi rebels. This should be an eyeopener to Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Australia has been asked to increase it's troops in Afghanistan, and agreed on Thursday.
  19. @Diversity Heretic
    Of course Afghanistan is a lost cause. Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks. The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California. Nor do I connect the Soviet withdrawal from Aghanistan with the eventual collapse of the USSR--that seemed to me to be linked to the huge inefficiencies of the Soviet economy.

    The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries, a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats) and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently. Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. "Invade the world, invite the world." George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership--I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up.

    “Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks.”

    Yes.

    “The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California.”

    Not for hundreds of thousands of people there who opposed authoritarian rule.

    “The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security”

    Absolutely.

    “and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries”

    No.

    “a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats)”

    No.

    “and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently.”

    And no.

    “Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. “Invade the world, invite the world.””

    Remember, this phrase originated with the Europeans way, way back in the 1500′s as a result of their colonial and imperialistic designs. We reap what we sow.

    “George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership–I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up.”

    Indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    “The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California.”

    Not for hundreds of thousands of people there who opposed authoritarian rule.
     
    Not any responsibility of the American tax payer.

    “and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries”

    No.

    “a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats)”

    No.

    “and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently.”

    And no.
     
    Citizens of other nations do not have any right to come to the US. If anything we should have shut the borders entirely. Legal immigration was the cause of 9/11. The American people not helped in any way by having Muslims (or Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews) in our nation.
  20. And the inevitable departure of the United States from the Middle East, which is coming, just as the British, French and Soviet empires had to depart, will likely do lasting damage to the American soul.

    Why? Obviously it’s sad that so many lives of American servicemen and their allies were lost in vain, but that has impacted only a relatively small segment of the American population, I don’t see why there should be “lasting damage” caused by those failed wars.
    And the reality simply is Western troops can’t win in Afghanistan under present conditions. You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations (e.g. villages that consistently support the Taleban get destroyed, their inhabitants being forcibly relocated/interned or just killed). Western countries can’t do that nowadays, so “pacification” is impossible. There’s no point to pretending otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey G_R,

    You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations
     
    This is true - you literally have to destroy Afghanistan to conquer it. It makes about as much sense as flipping over the chess board when you can't win using normal moves.

    Peace.
    , @MEexpert

    You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations
     
    Both the British and the Soviets used terror tactics. British burned a vast area of Afghanistan and killed people and life stock. Soviets used helicopter gunships to gas people hiding in caves in the mountains. In spite of these tactics, neither could control Afghanistan.

    Anon:

    The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively.
     
    You don't conquer your own country. Talibans are native Afghans. They overthrew the government of the time.
  21. @Diversity Heretic
    Of course Afghanistan is a lost cause. Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks. The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California. Nor do I connect the Soviet withdrawal from Aghanistan with the eventual collapse of the USSR--that seemed to me to be linked to the huge inefficiencies of the Soviet economy.

    The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries, a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats) and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently. Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. "Invade the world, invite the world." George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership--I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up.

    Yeah, but if we had done what you say (and I concur with all), look at the trillions the arms manufacturers and contractors would have lost. Those are folks that did NOT let a “good” crisis go to waste. Expect further destruction, death and treasure spilled. This never ends. They’re too powerful and they’re too entrenched domestically with their spies and depravity in law enforcement and intelligence. Oh no, they aren’t done yet. They aren’t done by a damned sight. They’re going to ride our collective ass until the last morsel is consumed. Bank it. This. Never. Ends. Ever.

    Read More
  22. @German_reader

    And the inevitable departure of the United States from the Middle East, which is coming, just as the British, French and Soviet empires had to depart, will likely do lasting damage to the American soul.
     
    Why? Obviously it's sad that so many lives of American servicemen and their allies were lost in vain, but that has impacted only a relatively small segment of the American population, I don't see why there should be "lasting damage" caused by those failed wars.
    And the reality simply is Western troops can't win in Afghanistan under present conditions. You'd need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you'd have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations (e.g. villages that consistently support the Taleban get destroyed, their inhabitants being forcibly relocated/interned or just killed). Western countries can't do that nowadays, so "pacification" is impossible. There's no point to pretending otherwise.

    Hey G_R,

    You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations

    This is true – you literally have to destroy Afghanistan to conquer it. It makes about as much sense as flipping over the chess board when you can’t win using normal moves.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why? As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state. The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively. It's probable that the fragmented state of the country since their defeat has made things much more difficult since then, but it's not a situation that can't be reversed, and eventually it will be reversed, either by the Taliban or by some other power.

    The key to the whole situation seems to be Pakistan, since they have to live with the place next door, and exercise an immense amount of clout there when they want to.

    It's a pity that it's probably too late to restore the King.
  23. @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    I leave deeper analysis to you maestro but not unlike President Obama, I believed Afghanistan war was the right war and the Iraq wars (I & II) were the wrong ones in addition to the ouster of Libyan leader (who knows, the kids who died in Manchester may have been alive today not for those louts being ousted from the desert). In the aftermath of the 9/11, nearly entire world was behind us (who engineered the attack remains to be discovered and most likely won't be known for another century or two) and instead of taking up the offers of troop contribution (a million-man army led by yanks) and nipping the Islamic aspirations in the bud, our clueless dolt got misdirected by conniving Dick Cheney into the treacherous quagmire that is Iraq, where innocent boys and girls are hurting to date. And yet we don't see the gorillas in the room: Saudis and Pakistanis. America, that shining city on the hill, guiding the world to a better path is no more but a bag of self-serving tools for a fewer and fewer, whose idea of the future plan is not the next millennium but what's in it for me today!

    Some punitive action against Afghanistan’s government should have been undertaken for allowing Al Qaeda to base itself there. However after a year or two it was obvious that the people of Afghanistan did not want what we were offering and we should have left.

    Iraq was never justified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {However after a year or two.....we should have left.}


    Agree: unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.

    Initially US did everything right: ground forces were locals, the Northern Alliance, eternal enemies of the Talibs (+ a small number of US Spec Ops guys). Coordinating operations with USAF, NA routed Taliban in less than 3-4 months (if memory serves).

    US should have left right there and then.

    The effect would have been much stronger: "You people attack America, we will come in massively and destroy everything.....then we leave and you clean up the mess.....You do it again, we'll come back and destroy again....."

    Bad guys there would have remembered the death and destruction visited on them, not the sweet taste of victory that they are about to enjoy.

    But idiots in DC decided to make it an Imperial Project, and got bogged down as usual. Now US will be have to leave in ignominious defeat, having squandered the initial shock effect. And Afghans, Talib, and Islamists will remember that they defeated the mighty US.
  24. …will likely do lasting damage to the American soul.

    Now that’s laughable.

    If Amerika had a soul, it would never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.

    If it had a brain, it would have listened to Smedley Butler and the America First Committee and would have stayed out the the Unnecessary War, the one where American blood and treasure were sacrificed to the interests of the Bolsheviks and their bankster backers.

    Read More
  25. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hey G_R,

    You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations
     
    This is true - you literally have to destroy Afghanistan to conquer it. It makes about as much sense as flipping over the chess board when you can't win using normal moves.

    Peace.

    Why? As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state. The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively. It’s probable that the fragmented state of the country since their defeat has made things much more difficult since then, but it’s not a situation that can’t be reversed, and eventually it will be reversed, either by the Taliban or by some other power.

    The key to the whole situation seems to be Pakistan, since they have to live with the place next door, and exercise an immense amount of clout there when they want to.

    It’s a pity that it’s probably too late to restore the King.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state.
     
    You are probably referring to the NWFP (capital at Peshawar), and including what is today known as FATA (like Waziristan)? They weren't conquered by the British per se, but by the Sikhs (based in Punjab) in the early 19th century. The British, by conquering Punjab, inherited those parts too, so they got incorporated into British India, and eventually into Pakistan. When the British tried to conquer Afghanistan proper (west of the Khyber Pass), they actually got beat up pretty bad, so they abandoned military efforts and tried to make the Afghan ruler some kind of a vassal.
    , @Talha
    Hola Senor,

    As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state.
     
    Yes and this was during the age of gun powder empires - the dynamic is totally different now that a sense of ethnic nationalism has touched practically every people I can think of.

    but it’s not a situation that can’t be reversed, and eventually it will be reversed, either by the Taliban or by some other power
     
    My statement was really about foreign powers. Taliban are native to Afghanistan so they are really just re-establishing old-school Pashtun dominance.

    The key to the whole situation seems to be Pakistan
     
    To a degree, but the Taliban have their own mind as to how they want things as well. Even without any logistical support from Pakistan, an insurgency would be brewing, but less effectively.

    It’s a pity that it’s probably too late to restore the King.
     
    Agreed.

    Peace.
  26. Afghanistan was never a real nation. It was a fake nation of various ethnic groups.

    The US should have divided the nation into 4 or 5 organic nations. It didn’t, and the mess will continue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You're right. Also true of Iraq. And eventually will be true of the USA, sadly. And perhaps turkey, if the Kurds in turkey keep having even slightly more babies than the Turks, for a few more decades.
  27. @MarkinLA
    Some punitive action against Afghanistan's government should have been undertaken for allowing Al Qaeda to base itself there. However after a year or two it was obvious that the people of Afghanistan did not want what we were offering and we should have left.

    Iraq was never justified.

    {However after a year or two…..we should have left.}

    Agree: unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.

    Initially US did everything right: ground forces were locals, the Northern Alliance, eternal enemies of the Talibs (+ a small number of US Spec Ops guys). Coordinating operations with USAF, NA routed Taliban in less than 3-4 months (if memory serves).

    US should have left right there and then.

    The effect would have been much stronger: “You people attack America, we will come in massively and destroy everything…..then we leave and you clean up the mess…..You do it again, we’ll come back and destroy again…..”

    Bad guys there would have remembered the death and destruction visited on them, not the sweet taste of victory that they are about to enjoy.

    But idiots in DC decided to make it an Imperial Project, and got bogged down as usual. Now US will be have to leave in ignominious defeat, having squandered the initial shock effect. And Afghans, Talib, and Islamists will remember that they defeated the mighty US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.
     
    In what way was the invasion of Iraq legal?
    , @Rurik

    there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban.
     
    what pray might that be?

    The Taliban said at the time that if he US could show them some evidence of Osama's complicity, that they'd turn him over. No such evidence has ever been shown. Indeed, the FBI has admitted that they have zero evidence tying Osama to 9/11.

    In fact the closest thing to "evidence" seems to be former Israeli president Ehud Barak saying it was Osama just minutes after the attack. The videos of "Osama" confessing were obvious CIA fakes.

    It seems that yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA's heroin trafficking operations.

    Another was simply to add another ZUSA imperial base of operations for the eventual ZUSA domination of the entire region.

    9/11 was an inside, Mossad/CIA job perpetrated as a pretext to motivate the American people to destroy every nation on the planet that Israel considers inconvenient. It has worked marvelously against Iraq and Libya and Syria, until Putin put the kibosh on their little schemes.

    Hence the hysterical Rumpelstiltskin-like temper tantrums all over the place.

    No one is stupid enough to think the ZUSA went into Afghanistan to liberate those people. And the entire 'Osama as patsy' thing was obvious to anyone who took the time to check it out. The SEAL team six idiocy, with the faked 'situation room' photo- all the way to the faked burial at sea (that never happened) with not so much as a hair from Osama's head for proof that he was actually killed this way, and hadn't died years ago, only shows the total control they have over 'the narrative'.
  28. @Anon
    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries. The British actually succeeded despite several humiliating defeats; they took half of Afghanistan outright (which still belongs to their successor state Pakistan) and made the other half a dependency (the reason for this was Great Game politics and wanting a buffer state between themselves and Russia).

    The US is just particularly incompetent at this kind of thing.

    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries.

    The US help may have shortened the duration of Soviet occupation but the Afghans didn’t need US help to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the US got involved for their own interest.

    You obviously don’t have any knowledge of the history or the geography of that area. Getting your information from Wikipedia is not enough. The British tried all kinds of tactics but could not defeat the Afghans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Getting your information from Wikipedia is not enough
     
    Neither is getting yours from thin air...
    , @MarkinLA
    From what I remember, our first move into Afghanistan under Carter consisted mostly of intelligence, training and small arms. The Afghans were somewhat successful initially but the Soviets brought in the helicopter gunships and the Afghans were reduced to sitting in caves all day waiting for the opportunity to make small hit and run attacks which were not very effective.

    Once they got more sophisticated weapons like the Stinger missile they could finally attack the gunships out in the open and the Russian casualties went back up.

    You cannot defeat a modern army with 19th century weapons if the modern army decides to stay. The problem is always that the people back home get sick of the war if they don't see any real good coming out of it. The locals can always out-wait you.
  29. @German_reader

    And the inevitable departure of the United States from the Middle East, which is coming, just as the British, French and Soviet empires had to depart, will likely do lasting damage to the American soul.
     
    Why? Obviously it's sad that so many lives of American servicemen and their allies were lost in vain, but that has impacted only a relatively small segment of the American population, I don't see why there should be "lasting damage" caused by those failed wars.
    And the reality simply is Western troops can't win in Afghanistan under present conditions. You'd need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you'd have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations (e.g. villages that consistently support the Taleban get destroyed, their inhabitants being forcibly relocated/interned or just killed). Western countries can't do that nowadays, so "pacification" is impossible. There's no point to pretending otherwise.

    You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations

    Both the British and the Soviets used terror tactics. British burned a vast area of Afghanistan and killed people and life stock. Soviets used helicopter gunships to gas people hiding in caves in the mountains. In spite of these tactics, neither could control Afghanistan.

    Anon:

    The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively.

    You don’t conquer your own country. Talibans are native Afghans. They overthrew the government of the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Both the British and the Soviets used terror tactics.
     
    They were too moderate...Victorian Britain had already become pretty soft and humanitarian compared to the ruthless robber empire it had been in the 18th century...and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was also constrained in what it could do, it would have turned out differently under Stalin...
    Unless you're willing to use really extreme methods of the kind the Waffen-SS used, it's very difficult for regular troops to defeat an insurgency with broad support among the wider population.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Ask the other people living in "Afghanistan", most of whom are a different sect and/or ethnicity than the taliban, whether they consider themselves to be part of the same nation as the taliban.

    The taliban conquered the essentially alien (to them) and hostile tribes living with them in quote Afghanistan.

  30. @Avery
    {However after a year or two.....we should have left.}


    Agree: unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.

    Initially US did everything right: ground forces were locals, the Northern Alliance, eternal enemies of the Talibs (+ a small number of US Spec Ops guys). Coordinating operations with USAF, NA routed Taliban in less than 3-4 months (if memory serves).

    US should have left right there and then.

    The effect would have been much stronger: "You people attack America, we will come in massively and destroy everything.....then we leave and you clean up the mess.....You do it again, we'll come back and destroy again....."

    Bad guys there would have remembered the death and destruction visited on them, not the sweet taste of victory that they are about to enjoy.

    But idiots in DC decided to make it an Imperial Project, and got bogged down as usual. Now US will be have to leave in ignominious defeat, having squandered the initial shock effect. And Afghans, Talib, and Islamists will remember that they defeated the mighty US.

    unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.

    In what way was the invasion of Iraq legal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Work on reading comprehension, and all will become clear.
    , @Avery
    {In what way was the invasion of Iraq legal?}

    What?

    This is what I wrote: {Agree: unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.}

  31. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MEexpert

    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries.
     
    The US help may have shortened the duration of Soviet occupation but the Afghans didn't need US help to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the US got involved for their own interest.

    You obviously don't have any knowledge of the history or the geography of that area. Getting your information from Wikipedia is not enough. The British tried all kinds of tactics but could not defeat the Afghans.

    Getting your information from Wikipedia is not enough

    Neither is getting yours from thin air…

    Read More
  32. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MEexpert

    unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.
     
    In what way was the invasion of Iraq legal?

    Work on reading comprehension, and all will become clear.

    Read More
  33. @MEexpert

    You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations
     
    Both the British and the Soviets used terror tactics. British burned a vast area of Afghanistan and killed people and life stock. Soviets used helicopter gunships to gas people hiding in caves in the mountains. In spite of these tactics, neither could control Afghanistan.

    Anon:

    The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively.
     
    You don't conquer your own country. Talibans are native Afghans. They overthrew the government of the time.

    Both the British and the Soviets used terror tactics.

    They were too moderate…Victorian Britain had already become pretty soft and humanitarian compared to the ruthless robber empire it had been in the 18th century…and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was also constrained in what it could do, it would have turned out differently under Stalin…
    Unless you’re willing to use really extreme methods of the kind the Waffen-SS used, it’s very difficult for regular troops to defeat an insurgency with broad support among the wider population.

    Read More
  34. Regarding Afghanistan being a lost cause, I was fortunate to acquire a copy of “The Hidden War” by Russian journalist Artyom Borovik some years ago. There is very scant literature on the Soviet – Afghani war available in the English language so this was a treat.

    Reading this book it confirmed to me that after 11 years of war the Red army having had all the advantages of political support, no press scrutiny and a common border ( of importance for anyone with any knowledge of military logistics) and not being slouches in any conflict in their history had had enough. My only first hand information from this conflict came from ex Latvian SSR paratroopers, but their stories were underwhelming in that all they told me was that they just hunkered down in garrisons and rode out their tours.

    As is commonly known, when the Reagan administration started to supply the XXXX ( being tribal entities there is no accurate term) rebels with stinger missiles the effective air superiority of the Hind helicopters was lost and morale among the Soviet grunts plummeted.

    Added to which, Gorby came on the world stage and a new feeling of Detante was in the air. A new world (again). At last the Soviets will leave Afghanistan!

    But here is the punch-line which was the most fascinating part of the aforementioned book.

    When the Soviets announced that they will depart, the Afghan Chiefs told them not so fast! There will be tribute to be paid or you will be rocketed into oblivion while trying to withdraw. In the ensuing aftermath the Glorious Red Army had to bribe their way out and were lucky to get the hell out of the narrow gorges of Dodge with minimal explosions.

    So the erudite Mr. Buchanan, sitting in his soiled diaper now fantasizes about whether the highly moralistic American forces should leave and risk tainting the USA’s unblemished international reputation or to stay on as a matter of principle and to support the democratic paradise they have installed and maintain the vision of America as the force of good (heroin)?

    Pat, baby- it’s a tar baby.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Mocking the author for allegedly being in diapers because he is elderly? Wow, classy. And persuasive, too.
    , @Rurik

    now fantasizes about whether the highly moralistic American forces should leave and risk tainting the USA’s unblemished international reputation
     
    idiocy

    it was none other than Mr. Buchanan that counseled out to stay the fuck out of these wars in the first place.


    Fifteen years ago, some of us argued that an attempt to remake Afghanistan and Iraq in our image was utopian folly, almost certain, given the history and culture of the entire region, to fail.
    Yet we plunged in.
     
    Mr. Buchanan has seen though the treason of these wars for Israel going all the way back to Herbert Walker Bush's treachery to trick Saddam into invading Kuwait- and then using that as a pretext to launch Desert Storm. (incubators!!! This will not stand!)

    Mr. Buchanan has been right about every single aggressive war that the scum in DC have foisted upon us. And all he's doing here is pointing that that yes, he and all the rest that warned of the idiotic folly of going into these wars for Israel, are not ending well. As they said at the time, but too few listened.

    And personally, when we finally are forced to leave with our tail between our cowardly and treacherous legs, all the Afghans who took our filthy lucre and played with the devil- that was droning weddings and occupying these people's land, deserve what the Taliban and the local tribes visits upon them.

    Few times in history have there ever been such stark divisions between right and wrong / good and bad. The ZUSA military are a drooling beast terrorizing the planet and destroying sovereign nations willy-nilly. All who take its side against the indigenous heroes defending their own lands from the zio-fiend should get what's coming to them.

    If there has ever been any glaring lessons of history, it's that when the drooling, zio-beast of ZUSA slathers into war on your lands, if you try to make a deal with it and play nice with it, and hope to have some kind of alliance with it, you're going to be burned when it counts the most.

    Bay of Pigs

    Viet Nam

    or hell, just look at Osama, the CIA asset turned 9/11 patsy

    or Saddam; George H. Bush's bestest buddy and Rumsfeld's best customer, until he wasn't

    Mubarak

    Gadhafi

    Assad

    (I can't wait for the quisling scum in Kyiv to get theirs)

    Pat Buchanan more than anyone I know of has warned America to stay out of these criminal wars of aggression- that will never end well. He's been right every fucking time!

  35. @MEexpert

    unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.
     
    In what way was the invasion of Iraq legal?

    {In what way was the invasion of Iraq legal?}

    What?

    This is what I wrote: {Agree: unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.}

    Read More
  36. @Avery
    {However after a year or two.....we should have left.}


    Agree: unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.

    Initially US did everything right: ground forces were locals, the Northern Alliance, eternal enemies of the Talibs (+ a small number of US Spec Ops guys). Coordinating operations with USAF, NA routed Taliban in less than 3-4 months (if memory serves).

    US should have left right there and then.

    The effect would have been much stronger: "You people attack America, we will come in massively and destroy everything.....then we leave and you clean up the mess.....You do it again, we'll come back and destroy again....."

    Bad guys there would have remembered the death and destruction visited on them, not the sweet taste of victory that they are about to enjoy.

    But idiots in DC decided to make it an Imperial Project, and got bogged down as usual. Now US will be have to leave in ignominious defeat, having squandered the initial shock effect. And Afghans, Talib, and Islamists will remember that they defeated the mighty US.

    there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban.

    what pray might that be?

    The Taliban said at the time that if he US could show them some evidence of Osama’s complicity, that they’d turn him over. No such evidence has ever been shown. Indeed, the FBI has admitted that they have zero evidence tying Osama to 9/11.

    In fact the closest thing to “evidence” seems to be former Israeli president Ehud Barak saying it was Osama just minutes after the attack. The videos of “Osama” confessing were obvious CIA fakes.

    It seems that yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.

    Another was simply to add another ZUSA imperial base of operations for the eventual ZUSA domination of the entire region.

    9/11 was an inside, Mossad/CIA job perpetrated as a pretext to motivate the American people to destroy every nation on the planet that Israel considers inconvenient. It has worked marvelously against Iraq and Libya and Syria, until Putin put the kibosh on their little schemes.

    Hence the hysterical Rumpelstiltskin-like temper tantrums all over the place.

    No one is stupid enough to think the ZUSA went into Afghanistan to liberate those people. And the entire ‘Osama as patsy’ thing was obvious to anyone who took the time to check it out. The SEAL team six idiocy, with the faked ‘situation room’ photo- all the way to the faked burial at sea (that never happened) with not so much as a hair from Osama’s head for proof that he was actually killed this way, and hadn’t died years ago, only shows the total control they have over ‘the narrative’.

    Read More
  37. @MEexpert

    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries.
     
    The US help may have shortened the duration of Soviet occupation but the Afghans didn't need US help to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the US got involved for their own interest.

    You obviously don't have any knowledge of the history or the geography of that area. Getting your information from Wikipedia is not enough. The British tried all kinds of tactics but could not defeat the Afghans.

    From what I remember, our first move into Afghanistan under Carter consisted mostly of intelligence, training and small arms. The Afghans were somewhat successful initially but the Soviets brought in the helicopter gunships and the Afghans were reduced to sitting in caves all day waiting for the opportunity to make small hit and run attacks which were not very effective.

    Once they got more sophisticated weapons like the Stinger missile they could finally attack the gunships out in the open and the Russian casualties went back up.

    You cannot defeat a modern army with 19th century weapons if the modern army decides to stay. The problem is always that the people back home get sick of the war if they don’t see any real good coming out of it. The locals can always out-wait you.

    Read More
  38. @Anon
    The Russians only failed because the US actually pushed them out using local auxiliaries. The British actually succeeded despite several humiliating defeats; they took half of Afghanistan outright (which still belongs to their successor state Pakistan) and made the other half a dependency (the reason for this was Great Game politics and wanting a buffer state between themselves and Russia).

    The US is just particularly incompetent at this kind of thing.

    The US are actually very smart. They have all the bases covered. In order to make sure they end up on the winning side in the war of terror- they fight on both sides. By fighting on the both sides of the conflict – US will be winners no matter what, the downside to this is that technically by fighting on both sides of the conflict, the US are going to be losers no matter what as well. That’s what happens when you are basically fighting yourself. It’s a win-win, lose-lose type of situation.

    Read More
  39. They US have never been really good at fighting body bag intensive wars. Unlike – say China, Russia or Germany which when they go to war – they really commit themselves, to hell with the casualties. That’s why US can never get any results. A dyke sitting in some safe control room somewhere in Colorado, with one hand scratching her c*nt and with the other directing a drone attack against a wedding party somewhere in Afghanistan is not a way to win a war, but then again what do I know, we are talking about the finest fighting force in the history of the universe.

    Read More
  40. Afghanistan seems to be the ideal area to provoke your rival to engage in, but not engage in yourself. Maybe China can start playing world’s policeman there.

    Read More
  41. @Timur The Lame
    Senile article by Mr. Buchanan. Attention, it is 2017 not 1969. The US has already lost its first war and is working on building up that score.

    "America's position in the world" is akin to Al Capone's. " Those who cast their lot with us" are called stooges who took a quick buck and bet wrong. " Lasting damage to the American soul"? You can't damage what doesn't exist.

    I knew from the title that this article would be a study in dementia. Ok, quick test for Mr. Buchanan:

    1) What was poppy production before the US invaded and what is it now?

    2) What was the justification for invading in the first place ? Who's family
    was flown out of the US on 9/12?

    3) Which empire throughout history has emerged victorious in trying to
    subjugate the Afghanis? (trick question).

    4) Is President Ghani more worried about psychological discomfort or a
    hangman's noose?

    5) Is Richard Nixon dead or alive? (softball to prevent goose egg).

    " We are there and we should all be committed" Fixed it.

    Cheers-

    I have no clue as to what the Federal Government’s policies or goals are in the Mideast or the Islamic countries.

    But the Vietnam War was only a battle in the Cold War that America waged against Communism. And the final score in the Cold War: American victory and Russian defeat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Bravo.
    , @bluedog
    Oh I think Russia would have dumped communism sooner or later anyway, regardless of Nam or Afghanistan, for even those in its upper levels of government were having sever doubts as to its value, as they saw more and more of its economy serving its own military needs rather than the needs of its country..
  42. @Timur The Lame
    Senile article by Mr. Buchanan. Attention, it is 2017 not 1969. The US has already lost its first war and is working on building up that score.

    "America's position in the world" is akin to Al Capone's. " Those who cast their lot with us" are called stooges who took a quick buck and bet wrong. " Lasting damage to the American soul"? You can't damage what doesn't exist.

    I knew from the title that this article would be a study in dementia. Ok, quick test for Mr. Buchanan:

    1) What was poppy production before the US invaded and what is it now?

    2) What was the justification for invading in the first place ? Who's family
    was flown out of the US on 9/12?

    3) Which empire throughout history has emerged victorious in trying to
    subjugate the Afghanis? (trick question).

    4) Is President Ghani more worried about psychological discomfort or a
    hangman's noose?

    5) Is Richard Nixon dead or alive? (softball to prevent goose egg).

    " We are there and we should all be committed" Fixed it.

    Cheers-

    The US has already lost its first war and is working on building up that score.

    Concur with Vietnam. But you give them too much credit. I don’t much consider our Generals “won” Korea either. Fighting to a draw, losing 40 or 50 thousand of ours and killing however many millions of theirs while dropping more tonnage than was dropped in WW2. Big money in all those bombs, planes and bullets.

    Our Generals have been losing wars for us for north of 65 years now. Our reverence for them escapes me. Just look at their losing ways during their “service”, for their profiteering via revolving doors, media, Cabinets and back to the defense industry and think tanks. They are the most conflicted-toward-crooked agents in the entire process and no one calls them on any of it.

    Jefferson said something along the lines of, when the public service becomes profitable only scoundrels will serve. That’s our ruling class that cater to our profit centers of defense contracting. And especially, worse even, our Generals. They used their “honor” of their service in our military as currency to enrich themselves and their client defense industries. Millions killed to enhance their pensions. Without their endless push, we wouldn’t have these wars. If it wasn’t so profitable, we also wouldn’t have so damned many of them, either.

    Read More
  43. To answer your question Pat. Yes, Afghanistan is a lost cause. Best we can hope for is to create a fortified city state in the central Kabul government zone. That is the best we can do.

    Read More
  44. @Dave Shanken
    I have no clue as to what the Federal Government's policies or goals are in the Mideast or the Islamic countries.

    But the Vietnam War was only a battle in the Cold War that America waged against Communism. And the final score in the Cold War: American victory and Russian defeat.

    Bravo.

    Read More
  45. The US and what’s left of it’s NATO allies should just keep the garrison they have there now, permanently, to make sure things don’t get too out of hand like if a new Al Qaeda type cell grows which this garrison could destroy. It would also keep the Taliban out of full power and keep the pro Western forces in control of Kabul and a few other urban centers. And that’s about it.

    Read More
  46. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Taliban couldn’t enjoy the success that they have, if they went against the grain of their country’s culture. Trying to “westernize” or “democratize” Afghanistan is a fools game. Bring the troops home and let zero people from there, come here.

    Read More
  47. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Diversity Heretic
    Of course Afghanistan is a lost cause. Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks. The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California. Nor do I connect the Soviet withdrawal from Aghanistan with the eventual collapse of the USSR--that seemed to me to be linked to the huge inefficiencies of the Soviet economy.

    The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries, a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats) and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently. Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. "Invade the world, invite the world." George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership--I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up.

    I agree 100% with everything you say. Corvinus the troll will disagree but who cares?

    Read More
  48. @Anon
    Why? As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state. The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively. It's probable that the fragmented state of the country since their defeat has made things much more difficult since then, but it's not a situation that can't be reversed, and eventually it will be reversed, either by the Taliban or by some other power.

    The key to the whole situation seems to be Pakistan, since they have to live with the place next door, and exercise an immense amount of clout there when they want to.

    It's a pity that it's probably too late to restore the King.

    As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state.

    You are probably referring to the NWFP (capital at Peshawar), and including what is today known as FATA (like Waziristan)? They weren’t conquered by the British per se, but by the Sikhs (based in Punjab) in the early 19th century. The British, by conquering Punjab, inherited those parts too, so they got incorporated into British India, and eventually into Pakistan. When the British tried to conquer Afghanistan proper (west of the Khyber Pass), they actually got beat up pretty bad, so they abandoned military efforts and tried to make the Afghan ruler some kind of a vassal.

    Read More
  49. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ludwig Watzal
    Right from the start, the attack on Afghanistan was a lost cause, as have been all the American illegal wars since the controlled demolitions of the WTC plus No 7. Let the Afghan people finish off their fight among themselves and let them live according to their own rules such as President Trump advised the Muslim dictators and autocrats in Saudi Arabia. Why spending more American blood for nothing or a crackpot idea like in Vietnam or in the Middle East.

    If the Europeans want to defend human or women rights or the wicked ideology of Gender Mainstreaming they should do it themselves. Apparently, the Germany's Freedom will be defended at the Hindukush as the late German defense minister Stuck once said in a blurred state of mind.

    The US occupier can't win in Afghanistan. The Taliban will stay and some day the US forces will leave like in South Vietnam. Nothing happened to the people there, except the US occupier was humiliated. So what! Such is already the case in Afghanistan, Irak, Lybia, Somalia, and Syria. The strongest alliance in the world can't defeat a bunch of freedom fighters. If Trump is smart, he will not sacrifice one single American soldier anymore.

    Not even with the massive military support of the US, the decadent Saudis are able to defeat a bunch of Huthi rebels. This should be an eyeopener to Trump.

    Australia has been asked to increase it’s troops in Afghanistan, and agreed on Thursday.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Australia would send troops to the dark side of the moon if the USA asked them too. This is of course because Australia hopes that the USA will defend and protect it if it is ever attacked. Previous generations of Australians had the same naïve faith in Great Britain. Singapore shattered that illusion. Australia would be better off by developing nuclear weapons to ensure its safety then by playing the fools' game of being America's vassal.
  50. Mr. Buchanan hesitates at the thought of cutting bait in Afghanistan.

    This is inconsistent with his oft stated policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. Imperial pride seems to be his achilles heel, as it has been for America in all its adventures overseas since 1945.

    This lack of resolve in an otherwise fearless public intellectual troubling. It means, as John Derbyshire often says, We Are Doomed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    No Buchanan is noble in his thoughts that Afghanistan was much more justified than the greatest blunder in American foreign policy the invasion of Iraq. Of course the bumbling Americans over did it in Af'istan but after 15 years we can't just cut and run. Like I said, a well trained garrison there to keep things under control but with limited 'nation building'.
  51. @Corvinus
    "Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks."

    Yes.

    "The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California."

    Not for hundreds of thousands of people there who opposed authoritarian rule.

    "The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security"

    Absolutely.

    "and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries"

    No.

    "a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats)"

    No.

    "and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently."

    And no.

    "Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. “Invade the world, invite the world.”"

    Remember, this phrase originated with the Europeans way, way back in the 1500's as a result of their colonial and imperialistic designs. We reap what we sow.

    "George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership–I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up."

    Indeed.

    “The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California.”

    Not for hundreds of thousands of people there who opposed authoritarian rule.

    Not any responsibility of the American tax payer.

    “and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries”

    No.

    “a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats)”

    No.

    “and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently.”

    And no.

    Citizens of other nations do not have any right to come to the US. If anything we should have shut the borders entirely. Legal immigration was the cause of 9/11. The American people not helped in any way by having Muslims (or Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews) in our nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not any responsibility of the American tax payer."

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.

    "Citizens of other nations do not have any right to come to the US. If anything we should have shut the borders entirely. Legal immigration was the cause of 9/11. The American people not helped in any way by having Muslims (or Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews) in our nation."

    They have the right to enter our nation IF our laws are crafted in that manner. 9/11 was the result of a host of political and economic factors. The American people consist of white and non-white people.
  52. The invasion was wrong in the first place, but understandable. We should have pulled out entirely in early 2002, after we had chased the AQ leadership into Pakistan during the Battle of Tora Bora in late 2001.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    In 2001, our beef was with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and not the Taliban. We full well understood that the Taliban were harboring them not because the Taliban were terrorists who hated America, but because of Afghan tribal codes regarding sanctuary and hospitality.

    Those with a detailed memory of the negotiations with the Taliban in the weeks after 9/11, but before the invasion, will remember that the Taliban decision process, being subject to tribal councils and the deliberations of elders, was ponderous and slow. They will also remember the Taliban asked for a final time extension to recess when we delivered an ultimatum to them to give him up as we had just cause (and which we expressed in terms of their norms and codes). It appeared that they understood our natural rights. We didn't wait for that final answer, but went in anyway.

    We should have withdrawn late that December or in January 2002, after Tora Bora, keeping only a token force to monitor AQs potential re-infiltration from Pakistan, and concluded our business with the Taliban. Instead, we flattered ourselves into the futile and pointless task of nation-building and politico-cultural restructuring.

  53. @Chris Mallory

    “The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California.”

    Not for hundreds of thousands of people there who opposed authoritarian rule.
     
    Not any responsibility of the American tax payer.

    “and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries”

    No.

    “a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats)”

    No.

    “and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently.”

    And no.
     
    Citizens of other nations do not have any right to come to the US. If anything we should have shut the borders entirely. Legal immigration was the cause of 9/11. The American people not helped in any way by having Muslims (or Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews) in our nation.

    “Not any responsibility of the American tax payer.”

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.

    “Citizens of other nations do not have any right to come to the US. If anything we should have shut the borders entirely. Legal immigration was the cause of 9/11. The American people not helped in any way by having Muslims (or Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews) in our nation.”

    They have the right to enter our nation IF our laws are crafted in that manner. 9/11 was the result of a host of political and economic factors. The American people consist of white and non-white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.
     
    The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation.

    The American people consist of white and non-white people.
     
    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.
    , @anon
    They do NOT have the "right" to come here. Our degenerate political leadership betrays us.

    Nor can it be realistically said that the American nation has historically consisted of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. This is pure historical revisionism.
  54. @Priss Factor
    Afghanistan was never a real nation. It was a fake nation of various ethnic groups.

    The US should have divided the nation into 4 or 5 organic nations. It didn't, and the mess will continue.

    You’re right. Also true of Iraq. And eventually will be true of the USA, sadly. And perhaps turkey, if the Kurds in turkey keep having even slightly more babies than the Turks, for a few more decades.

    Read More
  55. @MEexpert

    You’d need much higher numbers of troops for that, and you’d have to be willing to use terror tactics, up to and including at least semi-genocidal measures against Taleban-supporting populations
     
    Both the British and the Soviets used terror tactics. British burned a vast area of Afghanistan and killed people and life stock. Soviets used helicopter gunships to gas people hiding in caves in the mountains. In spite of these tactics, neither could control Afghanistan.

    Anon:

    The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively.
     
    You don't conquer your own country. Talibans are native Afghans. They overthrew the government of the time.

    Ask the other people living in “Afghanistan”, most of whom are a different sect and/or ethnicity than the taliban, whether they consider themselves to be part of the same nation as the taliban.

    The taliban conquered the essentially alien (to them) and hostile tribes living with them in quote Afghanistan.

    Read More
  56. @Timur The Lame
    Regarding Afghanistan being a lost cause, I was fortunate to acquire a copy of "The Hidden War" by Russian journalist Artyom Borovik some years ago. There is very scant literature on the Soviet - Afghani war available in the English language so this was a treat.

    Reading this book it confirmed to me that after 11 years of war the Red army having had all the advantages of political support, no press scrutiny and a common border ( of importance for anyone with any knowledge of military logistics) and not being slouches in any conflict in their history had had enough. My only first hand information from this conflict came from ex Latvian SSR paratroopers, but their stories were underwhelming in that all they told me was that they just hunkered down in garrisons and rode out their tours.

    As is commonly known, when the Reagan administration started to supply the XXXX ( being tribal entities there is no accurate term) rebels with stinger missiles the effective air superiority of the Hind helicopters was lost and morale among the Soviet grunts plummeted.

    Added to which, Gorby came on the world stage and a new feeling of Detante was in the air. A new world (again). At last the Soviets will leave Afghanistan!

    But here is the punch-line which was the most fascinating part of the aforementioned book.

    When the Soviets announced that they will depart, the Afghan Chiefs told them not so fast! There will be tribute to be paid or you will be rocketed into oblivion while trying to withdraw. In the ensuing aftermath the Glorious Red Army had to bribe their way out and were lucky to get the hell out of the narrow gorges of Dodge with minimal explosions.

    So the erudite Mr. Buchanan, sitting in his soiled diaper now fantasizes about whether the highly moralistic American forces should leave and risk tainting the USA's unblemished international reputation or to stay on as a matter of principle and to support the democratic paradise they have installed and maintain the vision of America as the force of good (heroin)?

    Pat, baby- it's a tar baby.

    Cheers-

    Mocking the author for allegedly being in diapers because he is elderly? Wow, classy. And persuasive, too.

    Read More
  57. @Chris Mallory
    The invasion was wrong in the first place, but understandable. We should have pulled out entirely in early 2002, after we had chased the AQ leadership into Pakistan during the Battle of Tora Bora in late 2001.

    In 2001, our beef was with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and not the Taliban. We full well understood that the Taliban were harboring them not because the Taliban were terrorists who hated America, but because of Afghan tribal codes regarding sanctuary and hospitality.

    Those with a detailed memory of the negotiations with the Taliban in the weeks after 9/11, but before the invasion, will remember that the Taliban decision process, being subject to tribal councils and the deliberations of elders, was ponderous and slow. They will also remember the Taliban asked for a final time extension to recess when we delivered an ultimatum to them to give him up as we had just cause (and which we expressed in terms of their norms and codes). It appeared that they understood our natural rights. We didn’t wait for that final answer, but went in anyway.

    We should have withdrawn late that December or in January 2002, after Tora Bora, keeping only a token force to monitor AQs potential re-infiltration from Pakistan, and concluded our business with the Taliban. Instead, we flattered ourselves into the futile and pointless task of nation-building and politico-cultural restructuring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    your entire post is pure bullshit

    as I've mentioned on this thread

    here, I'll repost it just for you ;)


    The Taliban said at the time that if he US could show them some evidence of Osama’s complicity, that they’d turn him over. No such evidence has ever been shown. Indeed, the FBI has admitted that they have zero evidence tying Osama to 9/11.

    In fact the closest thing to “evidence” seems to be former Israeli president Ehud Barak saying it was Osama just minutes after the attack. The videos of “Osama” confessing were obvious CIA fakes.

    It seems that yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.

    Another was simply to add another ZUSA imperial base of operations for the eventual ZUSA domination of the entire region.

    9/11 was an inside, Mossad/CIA job perpetrated as a pretext to motivate the American people to destroy every nation on the planet that Israel considers inconvenient. It has worked marvelously against Iraq and Libya and Syria, until Putin put the kibosh on their little schemes.

    Hence the hysterical Rumpelstiltskin-like temper tantrums all over the place.

    No one is stupid enough to think the ZUSA went into Afghanistan to liberate those people. And the entire ‘Osama as patsy’ thing was obvious to anyone who took the time to check it out. The SEAL team six idiocy, with the faked ‘situation room’ photo- all the way to the faked burial at sea (that never happened) with not so much as a hair from Osama’s head for proof that he was actually killed this way, and hadn’t died years ago, only shows the total control they have over ‘the narrative’.

     

    you:

    Those with a detailed memory of the negotiations with the Taliban in the weeks after 9/11, but before the invasion, will remember that the Taliban decision process, being subject to tribal councils and the deliberations of elders, was ponderous and slow.
     
    all complete bullshit

    they said provide us with evidence that Osama had anything to do with 9/11, and we'll turn him over.

    None came.

    There were no negotiations, just war drums. Just like with Saddam and Gadhafi and Assad. All lies, 24/7 lies. Saddam's WMD were lies. Not honest mistakes. Devil's lies. Same with Gadhafi and same with Assad today. They simply use the Zio-controlled media of the occupied West to shill their lies and destroy another country.

    All talk of 'negotiations' is idiotic nonsense. You don't negotiate with the Zio-Fiend. They wanted their poppy fields back. Just like they wanted Saddam dead and Iraq reduced to a dystopian hell on earth- just like in Russia when they slaughtered the Tsar and his family in that basement. They're sending a message: no going back. Gadhafi never had a chance. Perhaps the greatest leader in recent African history and he was tortured, sodomized and brutally murdered by savages, at the behest of the lying, murderous, demonic fiend on the world's stage = the ZUSA. And for punctuation the gorgon hag most directly responsible for that man's death, a man a thousand times the patriot and statesman than the vile, ugly little Zio-bitch who gloated and cackled over his death so chillingly.

  58. Is Afghanistan a Lost Cause?

    US involvement in Afghanistan was stillborn at it’s inception in 2001.

    Read More
  59. Folk’s just need to know the history they do not know at no fault of their own but this will help them all with some context.

    December 3, 1993 The CIA Drug ConnectionIs as Old as the Agency

    LONDON— Recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials – despite protests by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the organization responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/03/opinion/03iht-edlarry.html

    Feb 7, 2017 The CIA & the Drug Trade

    Just as the British Empire was in part financed by their control of the opium trade through the British East India Company, so too has the CIA been found time after time to be at the heart of the modern international drug trade. From its very inception, the CIA has been embroiled in the murky underworld of drug trafficking.

    Read More
  60. June 10, 2014 Drug War? American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium

    U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-war-american-troops-are-protecting-afghan-opium-u-s-occupation-leads-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053

    Jan 9, 2015 Opium Production in Afghanistan Sets Record

    American Soldiers Helping Heroin Sales

    Read More
  61. @Timur The Lame
    Regarding Afghanistan being a lost cause, I was fortunate to acquire a copy of "The Hidden War" by Russian journalist Artyom Borovik some years ago. There is very scant literature on the Soviet - Afghani war available in the English language so this was a treat.

    Reading this book it confirmed to me that after 11 years of war the Red army having had all the advantages of political support, no press scrutiny and a common border ( of importance for anyone with any knowledge of military logistics) and not being slouches in any conflict in their history had had enough. My only first hand information from this conflict came from ex Latvian SSR paratroopers, but their stories were underwhelming in that all they told me was that they just hunkered down in garrisons and rode out their tours.

    As is commonly known, when the Reagan administration started to supply the XXXX ( being tribal entities there is no accurate term) rebels with stinger missiles the effective air superiority of the Hind helicopters was lost and morale among the Soviet grunts plummeted.

    Added to which, Gorby came on the world stage and a new feeling of Detante was in the air. A new world (again). At last the Soviets will leave Afghanistan!

    But here is the punch-line which was the most fascinating part of the aforementioned book.

    When the Soviets announced that they will depart, the Afghan Chiefs told them not so fast! There will be tribute to be paid or you will be rocketed into oblivion while trying to withdraw. In the ensuing aftermath the Glorious Red Army had to bribe their way out and were lucky to get the hell out of the narrow gorges of Dodge with minimal explosions.

    So the erudite Mr. Buchanan, sitting in his soiled diaper now fantasizes about whether the highly moralistic American forces should leave and risk tainting the USA's unblemished international reputation or to stay on as a matter of principle and to support the democratic paradise they have installed and maintain the vision of America as the force of good (heroin)?

    Pat, baby- it's a tar baby.

    Cheers-

    now fantasizes about whether the highly moralistic American forces should leave and risk tainting the USA’s unblemished international reputation

    idiocy

    it was none other than Mr. Buchanan that counseled out to stay the fuck out of these wars in the first place.

    Fifteen years ago, some of us argued that an attempt to remake Afghanistan and Iraq in our image was utopian folly, almost certain, given the history and culture of the entire region, to fail.
    Yet we plunged in.

    Mr. Buchanan has seen though the treason of these wars for Israel going all the way back to Herbert Walker Bush’s treachery to trick Saddam into invading Kuwait- and then using that as a pretext to launch Desert Storm. (incubators!!! This will not stand!)

    Mr. Buchanan has been right about every single aggressive war that the scum in DC have foisted upon us. And all he’s doing here is pointing that that yes, he and all the rest that warned of the idiotic folly of going into these wars for Israel, are not ending well. As they said at the time, but too few listened.

    And personally, when we finally are forced to leave with our tail between our cowardly and treacherous legs, all the Afghans who took our filthy lucre and played with the devil- that was droning weddings and occupying these people’s land, deserve what the Taliban and the local tribes visits upon them.

    Few times in history have there ever been such stark divisions between right and wrong / good and bad. The ZUSA military are a drooling beast terrorizing the planet and destroying sovereign nations willy-nilly. All who take its side against the indigenous heroes defending their own lands from the zio-fiend should get what’s coming to them.

    If there has ever been any glaring lessons of history, it’s that when the drooling, zio-beast of ZUSA slathers into war on your lands, if you try to make a deal with it and play nice with it, and hope to have some kind of alliance with it, you’re going to be burned when it counts the most.

    Bay of Pigs

    Viet Nam

    or hell, just look at Osama, the CIA asset turned 9/11 patsy

    or Saddam; George H. Bush’s bestest buddy and Rumsfeld’s best customer, until he wasn’t

    Mubarak

    Gadhafi

    Assad

    (I can’t wait for the quisling scum in Kyiv to get theirs)

    Pat Buchanan more than anyone I know of has warned America to stay out of these criminal wars of aggression- that will never end well. He’s been right every fucking time!

    Read More
  62. @PiltdownMan
    In 2001, our beef was with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and not the Taliban. We full well understood that the Taliban were harboring them not because the Taliban were terrorists who hated America, but because of Afghan tribal codes regarding sanctuary and hospitality.

    Those with a detailed memory of the negotiations with the Taliban in the weeks after 9/11, but before the invasion, will remember that the Taliban decision process, being subject to tribal councils and the deliberations of elders, was ponderous and slow. They will also remember the Taliban asked for a final time extension to recess when we delivered an ultimatum to them to give him up as we had just cause (and which we expressed in terms of their norms and codes). It appeared that they understood our natural rights. We didn't wait for that final answer, but went in anyway.

    We should have withdrawn late that December or in January 2002, after Tora Bora, keeping only a token force to monitor AQs potential re-infiltration from Pakistan, and concluded our business with the Taliban. Instead, we flattered ourselves into the futile and pointless task of nation-building and politico-cultural restructuring.

    your entire post is pure bullshit

    as I’ve mentioned on this thread

    here, I’ll repost it just for you ;)

    The Taliban said at the time that if he US could show them some evidence of Osama’s complicity, that they’d turn him over. No such evidence has ever been shown. Indeed, the FBI has admitted that they have zero evidence tying Osama to 9/11.

    In fact the closest thing to “evidence” seems to be former Israeli president Ehud Barak saying it was Osama just minutes after the attack. The videos of “Osama” confessing were obvious CIA fakes.

    It seems that yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.

    Another was simply to add another ZUSA imperial base of operations for the eventual ZUSA domination of the entire region.

    9/11 was an inside, Mossad/CIA job perpetrated as a pretext to motivate the American people to destroy every nation on the planet that Israel considers inconvenient. It has worked marvelously against Iraq and Libya and Syria, until Putin put the kibosh on their little schemes.

    Hence the hysterical Rumpelstiltskin-like temper tantrums all over the place.

    No one is stupid enough to think the ZUSA went into Afghanistan to liberate those people. And the entire ‘Osama as patsy’ thing was obvious to anyone who took the time to check it out. The SEAL team six idiocy, with the faked ‘situation room’ photo- all the way to the faked burial at sea (that never happened) with not so much as a hair from Osama’s head for proof that he was actually killed this way, and hadn’t died years ago, only shows the total control they have over ‘the narrative’.

    you:

    Those with a detailed memory of the negotiations with the Taliban in the weeks after 9/11, but before the invasion, will remember that the Taliban decision process, being subject to tribal councils and the deliberations of elders, was ponderous and slow.

    all complete bullshit

    they said provide us with evidence that Osama had anything to do with 9/11, and we’ll turn him over.

    None came.

    There were no negotiations, just war drums. Just like with Saddam and Gadhafi and Assad. All lies, 24/7 lies. Saddam’s WMD were lies. Not honest mistakes. Devil’s lies. Same with Gadhafi and same with Assad today. They simply use the Zio-controlled media of the occupied West to shill their lies and destroy another country.

    All talk of ‘negotiations’ is idiotic nonsense. You don’t negotiate with the Zio-Fiend. They wanted their poppy fields back. Just like they wanted Saddam dead and Iraq reduced to a dystopian hell on earth- just like in Russia when they slaughtered the Tsar and his family in that basement. They’re sending a message: no going back. Gadhafi never had a chance. Perhaps the greatest leader in recent African history and he was tortured, sodomized and brutally murdered by savages, at the behest of the lying, murderous, demonic fiend on the world’s stage = the ZUSA. And for punctuation the gorgon hag most directly responsible for that man’s death, a man a thousand times the patriot and statesman than the vile, ugly little Zio-bitch who gloated and cackled over his death so chillingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.
     
    I don't have direct evidence of the validity of that, but I do know, from first hand experience and from public statements by Seyed Hossein Mousavian https://www.c-span.org/video/?320226-1/iran-united-states that heroin use among Iranian young people is one of Iran's most serious problems.

    I also know from public statements by Benjamin Netanyahu that the subversion of Iranian young people is a strategy vigorously endorsed and pursued by Israel and its puppet, the US foreign policy establishment https://www.c-span.org/video/?172612-1/israeli-perspective-conflict-iraq

    Hebrew scripture, specifically, its 'prayers,' the Psalms, and more specifically the well-known Psalm 137 (Gk 136) reveals something chilling and disturbing about the zionist psyche:
    In its opening verse the psalm declares: "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
    when we remembered Zion."

    At its middle, the psalm adjures the Hebrew people never to forget Zion/Jerusalem:

    If I forget you, Jerusalem,
    may my right hand be forgot.
    May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
    if I do not remember you,
    if I do not consider Jerusalem
    my highest joy.


    The psalm next revives the memory of the destruction of the Temple:

    Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

    And then, the rousing conclusion:

    Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
    Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

    Note well the terms of revenge: "According to what you have done to us" -- i.e. destroyed our temple, We Hebrews hope to "seize your children and dash them against the rocks."

    Whether with heroin, by assassination, by subversion through lascivious film, by seeding the landscape with flechettes or DPU, vengeful zionists seek to obliterate the present identity and future hopes of anyone who crosses their zionist ambitions.

    -----

    Recall the words of Thomas Jefferson:


    I. Jews.
    1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
    2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

    The Jefferson Bible http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html
     

  63. @Realist
    "Whatever you may think of our decision to go in, Rusk was saying, if we walk away, the United States loses the first war in its history, with all that means for Southeast Asia and America’s position in the world."

    Didn't Rusk know about the Korean war??

    The best, most sure way to not lose wars is not to start them.

    He could count the Korean War as a victory, given that we entered to prevent South Korea from being overrun by the North and we were successful in that regard. Granted, when our objectives expanded to unite the whole peninsula under capitalism, that’s when we pissed off the Chinese and the war turned into a stalemate.

    Read More
  64. @Corvinus
    "Not any responsibility of the American tax payer."

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.

    "Citizens of other nations do not have any right to come to the US. If anything we should have shut the borders entirely. Legal immigration was the cause of 9/11. The American people not helped in any way by having Muslims (or Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews) in our nation."

    They have the right to enter our nation IF our laws are crafted in that manner. 9/11 was the result of a host of political and economic factors. The American people consist of white and non-white people.

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.

    The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation.

    The American people consist of white and non-white people.

    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.
     
    Dag yo - you mean even descendants from the original Dutch and French settlers? And no Irish or Catholics either - damn - that's hard core!

    That's probably the OG thuggest get-the-hell-off-my-land position I've seen on UNZ yet!

    Peace.

    , @Corvinus
    "The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation."

    Except to establish trade treaties and defensive alliances, in accordance to the consent of the governed and in line with the actions taken by our Founding Fathers during the early part of the Republic.

    "No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back."

    I am familiar Vox Day's specious argument on this matter. It would appear that you are one of his acolytes. Obviously, he and you are dead wrong. The finding of America consists of several groups of people, British and non-British. More importantly, human beings with their capacity to employ logic and reason regardless of their location in our world are able to comprehend what constitutes "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--these three concepts are universal. It also bears worth repeating:

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”.

    In Common Sense, Thomas Paine upheld “this new world” as “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty”--which in essence refers to any and all groups of people, whether it be European or non-European. Jefferson argued for “a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them.”

    James Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is “always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult,” so “the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change”.

    Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”.
    , @MEexpert

    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.
     
    And where are you going to send the Indians whose land these White British Protestants stole?
    , @Anon
    Untied indeed! As a (partial) descendant of those loyal subjects of the crown brutally terrorized by you traitorous rebels, I demand you and your fellow unfilial Whigs be transported to Jamaica*, at the very least!

    *Canada's too good for you; its soil too hallowed by the steps of those brave men who dared to resist treason when they saw it.
  65. @PiltdownMan
    Mr. Buchanan hesitates at the thought of cutting bait in Afghanistan.

    This is inconsistent with his oft stated policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. Imperial pride seems to be his achilles heel, as it has been for America in all its adventures overseas since 1945.

    This lack of resolve in an otherwise fearless public intellectual troubling. It means, as John Derbyshire often says, We Are Doomed.

    No Buchanan is noble in his thoughts that Afghanistan was much more justified than the greatest blunder in American foreign policy the invasion of Iraq. Of course the bumbling Americans over did it in Af’istan but after 15 years we can’t just cut and run. Like I said, a well trained garrison there to keep things under control but with limited ‘nation building’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "No Buchanan is noble in his thoughts that Afghanistan was much more justified than the greatest blunder in American foreign policy the invasion of Iraq."

    A much greater blunder was the involvement in Vietnam.
  66. @Chris Mallory

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.
     
    The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation.

    The American people consist of white and non-white people.
     
    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.

    The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.

    Dag yo – you mean even descendants from the original Dutch and French settlers? And no Irish or Catholics either – damn – that’s hard core!

    That’s probably the OG thuggest get-the-hell-off-my-land position I’ve seen on UNZ yet!

    Peace.

    Read More
  67. @ Rurik,

    Read the article and not the history of Buchanan’s statements. Look in the mirror and shout “Idiocy!”

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    I did read it.

    you imply that he's somehow defending the decision to go, and ...

    now fantasizes about whether the highly moralistic American forces should leave and risk tainting the USA’s unblemished international reputation
     
    that's all pure idiocy. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm simply pointing out what I consider the error (idiocy) of your statement.

    if it sounds like Buchanan is lamenting the fact that we're losing, there's nothing about that that suggests he ever did, or now does support the reasons for going in in the first place. Or that the US has an unblemished reputation. Hardly. No man that I know of on the world's stage has been more adamant that we should not be fighting these illegal and disastrous wars of aggression against nations that have done us no harm, and threaten no American interests whatsoever. Unless of course it's Ron Paul, the other guy who has said since day one that these catastrophic wars are a terrible folly, and are un-American, un-Constitutional., immoral, illegal and war crimes. (well, perhaps they don't go quite that far, but then they are public figures after all, whereas I'm not ; )

    If you want to attack Pat for being a right-wing religion nut-job or some other failing you think you perceive in him, (I don't like his knee-jerk defense of the police), you're of course welcome. But to excoriate Pat for being too pro-war, is- yes, I'm afraid~ pure idiocy.
  68. @Anon
    Why? As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state. The Taliban conquered almost all of Afghanistan only a few decades ago, brutally but quite effectively. It's probable that the fragmented state of the country since their defeat has made things much more difficult since then, but it's not a situation that can't be reversed, and eventually it will be reversed, either by the Taliban or by some other power.

    The key to the whole situation seems to be Pakistan, since they have to live with the place next door, and exercise an immense amount of clout there when they want to.

    It's a pity that it's probably too late to restore the King.

    Hola Senor,

    As a Pakistani you must know that half of Afghanistan was directly conquered by the British and is currently part of the Pakistani state.

    Yes and this was during the age of gun powder empires – the dynamic is totally different now that a sense of ethnic nationalism has touched practically every people I can think of.

    but it’s not a situation that can’t be reversed, and eventually it will be reversed, either by the Taliban or by some other power

    My statement was really about foreign powers. Taliban are native to Afghanistan so they are really just re-establishing old-school Pashtun dominance.

    The key to the whole situation seems to be Pakistan

    To a degree, but the Taliban have their own mind as to how they want things as well. Even without any logistical support from Pakistan, an insurgency would be brewing, but less effectively.

    It’s a pity that it’s probably too late to restore the King.

    Agreed.

    Peace.

    Read More
  69. @ RadicalCenter,

    I’ll tell you what is persuasive namely your lack of constructive understanding of the kernel of the discussion and harping on a ‘baddie’ by me. Well, if I was a pussy hat like you I could say that Mr. Buchanan insulted my intelligence by writing such a disjointed article wherein he confuses his salad days with present reality.

    Added to which, why don’t you actually post something that reflects intelligence or analysis or civilized disagreement instead of self appointing yourself as some kind of hall monitor?

    Cheers-

    Read More
  70. When Ronald Reagan invited the Taliban representative (yes, terrorists, they were, are and will always be!) to secret locations in US (Texas, I believe?) to discuss the allowing of a pipeline to go through their country. they flatly refused so the country was invaded, thinking that they were weak and US had more firepower. Keeping in mind that it was US influence with shoulder fired tools that allowed the war against the Russians to have them run with their tails behind their leg.

    It is their country and they have a right to their own sovereignity so US bulldozing like previous incursions can only end one way and no one seems to care, at least the US CONgress. But wait, despite all the intelligence they have access to, they somehow missed the part that poppy production under US control and after has tripled. Fake new is terrible stuff if you ignore it, or is!
    allahu akbar

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    When Ronald Reagan invited the Taliban representative (yes, terrorists, they were, are and will always be!) to secret locations in US (Texas, I believe?)
     
    By what logic are the Talibans defending their country terrorists and the American invading a country thousands of miles away are liberators. I fail to understand your logic when in the same post you admit that

    It is their country and they have a right to their own sovereignity
     
  71. Did MAGA mean “Make Afghanistan Great Again”?

    Reports that both Russia and Iran are already talking to the Taliban suggest that they see a Taliban takeover as inevitable.

    I laugh loudly.

    Who emits these reports? CNN? The NYT?

    I would say Iran would rather crush the Taliban into peanut butter paste, I hear they have major trouble with their cross-border narcotics traffic which is a no-no in Iran, MEK safe havens (“MEK = our communist terrorists, wandering the lobbys of D.C.”) and I don’t know what else, not to mention Sunni-Shia ideological misalignement.

    As for Russians “talking to the Taliban”, well, the reports of “Anonymous sources say Russia may have links to Taliban” seem to be based on “Russia delivers weapon crates to Afghan government” (whatever government they do have over there), see also: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/29/alleged-russia-taliban-arms-link-disputed/

    Taliban are financed and supported by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and possible India. In particular, India and Pakistan are playing their own sandboxed Great Game in Afghanistan. Let them. If needed, Europe may want to continue the mission.

    Read More
  72. Like I said, a well trained garrison there to keep things under control

    Dude.

    252,072 mi² (comparable to France, or Texas)

    Pashtuns.

    Mountainous terrain.

    Leaky border.

    Guerilla supported by Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia.

    Locals unfriendly and have really appalling customs.

    Called “The Graveyard of Empires”.

    A “well trained garrison” just ain’t gonna cut it.

    Read More
  73. Now that I am in a bit of a mood, I would like to insist on simple answer from anybody, anywhere on how the poppy cultivation in Afghanistan went from near zero under the Taliban to over 200% capacity now from it’s previous high water mark prior to the US invasion.

    Gordian knot time clever fellas.

    No culture, no Osama, no geopolitics, no 911. Just the facts M’am.

    Cheers-

    Read More
  74. @Rurik
    your entire post is pure bullshit

    as I've mentioned on this thread

    here, I'll repost it just for you ;)


    The Taliban said at the time that if he US could show them some evidence of Osama’s complicity, that they’d turn him over. No such evidence has ever been shown. Indeed, the FBI has admitted that they have zero evidence tying Osama to 9/11.

    In fact the closest thing to “evidence” seems to be former Israeli president Ehud Barak saying it was Osama just minutes after the attack. The videos of “Osama” confessing were obvious CIA fakes.

    It seems that yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.

    Another was simply to add another ZUSA imperial base of operations for the eventual ZUSA domination of the entire region.

    9/11 was an inside, Mossad/CIA job perpetrated as a pretext to motivate the American people to destroy every nation on the planet that Israel considers inconvenient. It has worked marvelously against Iraq and Libya and Syria, until Putin put the kibosh on their little schemes.

    Hence the hysterical Rumpelstiltskin-like temper tantrums all over the place.

    No one is stupid enough to think the ZUSA went into Afghanistan to liberate those people. And the entire ‘Osama as patsy’ thing was obvious to anyone who took the time to check it out. The SEAL team six idiocy, with the faked ‘situation room’ photo- all the way to the faked burial at sea (that never happened) with not so much as a hair from Osama’s head for proof that he was actually killed this way, and hadn’t died years ago, only shows the total control they have over ‘the narrative’.

     

    you:

    Those with a detailed memory of the negotiations with the Taliban in the weeks after 9/11, but before the invasion, will remember that the Taliban decision process, being subject to tribal councils and the deliberations of elders, was ponderous and slow.
     
    all complete bullshit

    they said provide us with evidence that Osama had anything to do with 9/11, and we'll turn him over.

    None came.

    There were no negotiations, just war drums. Just like with Saddam and Gadhafi and Assad. All lies, 24/7 lies. Saddam's WMD were lies. Not honest mistakes. Devil's lies. Same with Gadhafi and same with Assad today. They simply use the Zio-controlled media of the occupied West to shill their lies and destroy another country.

    All talk of 'negotiations' is idiotic nonsense. You don't negotiate with the Zio-Fiend. They wanted their poppy fields back. Just like they wanted Saddam dead and Iraq reduced to a dystopian hell on earth- just like in Russia when they slaughtered the Tsar and his family in that basement. They're sending a message: no going back. Gadhafi never had a chance. Perhaps the greatest leader in recent African history and he was tortured, sodomized and brutally murdered by savages, at the behest of the lying, murderous, demonic fiend on the world's stage = the ZUSA. And for punctuation the gorgon hag most directly responsible for that man's death, a man a thousand times the patriot and statesman than the vile, ugly little Zio-bitch who gloated and cackled over his death so chillingly.

    yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.

    I don’t have direct evidence of the validity of that, but I do know, from first hand experience and from public statements by Seyed Hossein Mousavian https://www.c-span.org/video/?320226-1/iran-united-states that heroin use among Iranian young people is one of Iran’s most serious problems.

    I also know from public statements by Benjamin Netanyahu that the subversion of Iranian young people is a strategy vigorously endorsed and pursued by Israel and its puppet, the US foreign policy establishment https://www.c-span.org/video/?172612-1/israeli-perspective-conflict-iraq

    Hebrew scripture, specifically, its ‘prayers,’ the Psalms, and more specifically the well-known Psalm 137 (Gk 136) reveals something chilling and disturbing about the zionist psyche:
    In its opening verse the psalm declares: “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
    when we remembered Zion.”

    At its middle, the psalm adjures the Hebrew people never to forget Zion/Jerusalem:

    If I forget you, Jerusalem,
    may my right hand be forgot.
    May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
    if I do not remember you,
    if I do not consider Jerusalem
    my highest joy.

    The psalm next revives the memory of the destruction of the Temple:

    Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

    And then, the rousing conclusion:

    Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
    Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

    Note well the terms of revenge: “According to what you have done to us” — i.e. destroyed our temple, We Hebrews hope to “seize your children and dash them against the rocks.”

    Whether with heroin, by assassination, by subversion through lascivious film, by seeding the landscape with flechettes or DPU, vengeful zionists seek to obliterate the present identity and future hopes of anyone who crosses their zionist ambitions.

    —–

    Recall the words of Thomas Jefferson:

    I. Jews.
    1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
    2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

    The Jefferson Bible http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.
     

    I don’t have direct evidence of the validity of that, but I do know, from first hand experience and from public statements by Seyed Hossein Mousavian https://www.c-span.org/video/?320226-1/iran-united-states that heroin use among Iranian young people is one of Iran’s most serious problems.

     

    here's a nice link to peruse, with some interesting photos of our troops defending freedom and democracy

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/dyinginafghanistan.php#axzz4iyPnEbSs

    (I formerly recommended the website, but nowadays it's so stuffed with pop-ups and other crap they try to infect your computer with, it's almost not worth the trouble. The guy has simply gotten too greedy)

    but I think it is rather well know these days (since the reconstitution of the Afghan poppy fields and CIA heroin trafficking operations) that cheap heroin is a major problem, and not just for Iranian youth, but for young people all over the planet. These Satanic scum (CIA/Mossad, et al) like that they can make tanker$ full of lucre, while at the same time poisoning the young bodies and souls of anti-Semites the world over.

  75. The title implies that Afghanistan was once *not* a lost cause, I wonder how far back we have to go to find that Afghan “civilization”. Afghanistan was never lost, because it was never found. Every “empire” that invaded Afghanistan is the next one to go down in flames, first the British, then Russia, now the US. It’s a curse that keeps on giving. We need to leave these savage medieval ragheads to their own devices, never to return.

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    What savagery did they do to the British, Russians (Soviets), or Americans. I didn't know there's such a rule as "just take the beating, the destruction, and massacres" and not defend yourself. If its not good for us...........
  76. @Timur The Lame
    @ Rurik,

    Read the article and not the history of Buchanan's statements. Look in the mirror and shout "Idiocy!"

    Cheers-

    I did read it.

    you imply that he’s somehow defending the decision to go, and …

    now fantasizes about whether the highly moralistic American forces should leave and risk tainting the USA’s unblemished international reputation

    that’s all pure idiocy. I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m simply pointing out what I consider the error (idiocy) of your statement.

    if it sounds like Buchanan is lamenting the fact that we’re losing, there’s nothing about that that suggests he ever did, or now does support the reasons for going in in the first place. Or that the US has an unblemished reputation. Hardly. No man that I know of on the world’s stage has been more adamant that we should not be fighting these illegal and disastrous wars of aggression against nations that have done us no harm, and threaten no American interests whatsoever. Unless of course it’s Ron Paul, the other guy who has said since day one that these catastrophic wars are a terrible folly, and are un-American, un-Constitutional., immoral, illegal and war crimes. (well, perhaps they don’t go quite that far, but then they are public figures after all, whereas I’m not ; )

    If you want to attack Pat for being a right-wing religion nut-job or some other failing you think you perceive in him, (I don’t like his knee-jerk defense of the police), you’re of course welcome. But to excoriate Pat for being too pro-war, is- yes, I’m afraid~ pure idiocy.

    Read More
  77. @SolontoCroesus

    yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.
     
    I don't have direct evidence of the validity of that, but I do know, from first hand experience and from public statements by Seyed Hossein Mousavian https://www.c-span.org/video/?320226-1/iran-united-states that heroin use among Iranian young people is one of Iran's most serious problems.

    I also know from public statements by Benjamin Netanyahu that the subversion of Iranian young people is a strategy vigorously endorsed and pursued by Israel and its puppet, the US foreign policy establishment https://www.c-span.org/video/?172612-1/israeli-perspective-conflict-iraq

    Hebrew scripture, specifically, its 'prayers,' the Psalms, and more specifically the well-known Psalm 137 (Gk 136) reveals something chilling and disturbing about the zionist psyche:
    In its opening verse the psalm declares: "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
    when we remembered Zion."

    At its middle, the psalm adjures the Hebrew people never to forget Zion/Jerusalem:

    If I forget you, Jerusalem,
    may my right hand be forgot.
    May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
    if I do not remember you,
    if I do not consider Jerusalem
    my highest joy.


    The psalm next revives the memory of the destruction of the Temple:

    Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

    And then, the rousing conclusion:

    Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
    Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

    Note well the terms of revenge: "According to what you have done to us" -- i.e. destroyed our temple, We Hebrews hope to "seize your children and dash them against the rocks."

    Whether with heroin, by assassination, by subversion through lascivious film, by seeding the landscape with flechettes or DPU, vengeful zionists seek to obliterate the present identity and future hopes of anyone who crosses their zionist ambitions.

    -----

    Recall the words of Thomas Jefferson:


    I. Jews.
    1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
    2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

    The Jefferson Bible http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html
     

    yes, one of the main motivations for going into Afghanistan was to reconstitute the CIA’s heroin trafficking operations.

    I don’t have direct evidence of the validity of that, but I do know, from first hand experience and from public statements by Seyed Hossein Mousavian https://www.c-span.org/video/?320226-1/iran-united-states that heroin use among Iranian young people is one of Iran’s most serious problems.

    here’s a nice link to peruse, with some interesting photos of our troops defending freedom and democracy

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/dyinginafghanistan.php#axzz4iyPnEbSs

    (I formerly recommended the website, but nowadays it’s so stuffed with pop-ups and other crap they try to infect your computer with, it’s almost not worth the trouble. The guy has simply gotten too greedy)

    but I think it is rather well know these days (since the reconstitution of the Afghan poppy fields and CIA heroin trafficking operations) that cheap heroin is a major problem, and not just for Iranian youth, but for young people all over the planet. These Satanic scum (CIA/Mossad, et al) like that they can make tanker$ full of lucre, while at the same time poisoning the young bodies and souls of anti-Semites the world over.

    Read More
  78. From the headline: As long as innocent civilians are massacred in the so called “collateral damage”…….it’s lost cause…….

    Read More
  79. @Medieval people with guns
    The title implies that Afghanistan was once *not* a lost cause, I wonder how far back we have to go to find that Afghan "civilization". Afghanistan was never lost, because it was never found. Every "empire" that invaded Afghanistan is the next one to go down in flames, first the British, then Russia, now the US. It's a curse that keeps on giving. We need to leave these savage medieval ragheads to their own devices, never to return.

    What savagery did they do to the British, Russians (Soviets), or Americans. I didn’t know there’s such a rule as “just take the beating, the destruction, and massacres” and not defend yourself. If its not good for us………..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {What savagery did they do to the British, Russians (Soviets), or Americans....}


    Whatever 'savagery' Afghans meted out to invaders* of their lands - was no savagery. When your home/land/country is invaded - you are justified to do whatever you have to do.

    However, aside from killing invaders, there certainly _ is_ savagery there.
    How else do you classify attacking an Afghan girl - nearly killing her - for going to school. Or throwing acid on the faces of Afghan girls for the 'crime' of going to school.

    [One year ago schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by Taliban gunmen - her "crime", to have spoken up for the right of girls to be educate]**

    [Afghanistan: Men throw acid into girls' faces 'for going to school']***

    You don't consider that savage?

    -----
    * US bombing the s____ out of Talibs, and helping Northern Alliance to defeat Talibs after 9/11 - no invasion.
    US troops staying and setting up camp - invasion.

    **
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

    ***
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/asia/afghanistan-schoolgirls-acid-attack/
  80. @Chris Mallory

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.
     
    The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation.

    The American people consist of white and non-white people.
     
    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.

    “The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation.”

    Except to establish trade treaties and defensive alliances, in accordance to the consent of the governed and in line with the actions taken by our Founding Fathers during the early part of the Republic.

    “No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.”

    I am familiar Vox Day’s specious argument on this matter. It would appear that you are one of his acolytes. Obviously, he and you are dead wrong. The finding of America consists of several groups of people, British and non-British. More importantly, human beings with their capacity to employ logic and reason regardless of their location in our world are able to comprehend what constitutes “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”–these three concepts are universal. It also bears worth repeating:

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”.

    In Common Sense, Thomas Paine upheld “this new world” as “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty”–which in essence refers to any and all groups of people, whether it be European or non-European. Jefferson argued for “a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them.”

    James Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is “always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult,” so “the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change”.

    Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    No, I am not a follower of Beale. He is a bit of a phony and a hypocrite.
  81. @Chris Mallory

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.
     
    The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation.

    The American people consist of white and non-white people.
     
    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.

    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.

    And where are you going to send the Indians whose land these White British Protestants stole?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    We can give them some more whiskey and blankets.
    , @anon
    Demographic and spatial comparisons make the point meaningless. Nor does it provide a logical reason why more immigration is desirable to either group.
  82. @jack shindo
    When Ronald Reagan invited the Taliban representative (yes, terrorists, they were, are and will always be!) to secret locations in US (Texas, I believe?) to discuss the allowing of a pipeline to go through their country. they flatly refused so the country was invaded, thinking that they were weak and US had more firepower. Keeping in mind that it was US influence with shoulder fired tools that allowed the war against the Russians to have them run with their tails behind their leg.

    It is their country and they have a right to their own sovereignity so US bulldozing like previous incursions can only end one way and no one seems to care, at least the US CONgress. But wait, despite all the intelligence they have access to, they somehow missed the part that poppy production under US control and after has tripled. Fake new is terrible stuff if you ignore it, or is!
    allahu akbar

    When Ronald Reagan invited the Taliban representative (yes, terrorists, they were, are and will always be!) to secret locations in US (Texas, I believe?)

    By what logic are the Talibans defending their country terrorists and the American invading a country thousands of miles away are liberators. I fail to understand your logic when in the same post you admit that

    It is their country and they have a right to their own sovereignity

    Read More
  83. @truthtellerAryan
    What savagery did they do to the British, Russians (Soviets), or Americans. I didn't know there's such a rule as "just take the beating, the destruction, and massacres" and not defend yourself. If its not good for us...........

    {What savagery did they do to the British, Russians (Soviets), or Americans….}

    Whatever ‘savagery’ Afghans meted out to invaders* of their lands – was no savagery. When your home/land/country is invaded – you are justified to do whatever you have to do.

    However, aside from killing invaders, there certainly _ is_ savagery there.
    How else do you classify attacking an Afghan girl – nearly killing her – for going to school. Or throwing acid on the faces of Afghan girls for the ‘crime’ of going to school.

    [One year ago schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by Taliban gunmen - her "crime", to have spoken up for the right of girls to be educate]**

    [Afghanistan: Men throw acid into girls' faces 'for going to school']***

    You don’t consider that savage?

    —–
    * US bombing the s____ out of Talibs, and helping Northern Alliance to defeat Talibs after 9/11 – no invasion.
    US troops staying and setting up camp – invasion.

    **

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

    ***

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/asia/afghanistan-schoolgirls-acid-attack/

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    I agree with their savagery that you just mentioned. This, however came as an idea from other savages, Saudi Wahhabis and their Bedouin ways, imposed as Islam with lots of petro$$$$$. Our savagery was just sadistic, killing them at wedding parties with night visions from helicopters after we bombed the place. The executioners saw those that were running as women and children, but were having fun swinging their machine guns. I'm ashamed to say how much such atrocities went on and are still going on. Let's not forget the horror that's still going on in places like Bagram. All for Halliburton, KBR, Lockheed, GE, and dead young Americans, those that didn't die are still suffering PTSD or maimed for life.
    We hoped DJT would get us out of this madness, and still hope, but he's overwhelmed by, and sold to Israel firsters. Savages is what we've become...
  84. @Avery
    {In what way was the invasion of Iraq legal?}

    What?

    This is what I wrote: {Agree: unlike Iraq, a totally illegal invasion, there was _some_ Casus Belli for hitting Taliban. And there really was no need to stay even a year.}

    Sorry. My mistake.

    Read More
  85. @Talha

    The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.
     
    Dag yo - you mean even descendants from the original Dutch and French settlers? And no Irish or Catholics either - damn - that's hard core!

    That's probably the OG thuggest get-the-hell-off-my-land position I've seen on UNZ yet!

    Peace.

    The French and Dutch were small minorities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Chris,

    The French were a minority, but define small?

    Either way my point still stands - guard yo' grill - kick them Frenchies out! Thugg lyfe!!!

    Listen - I'll stand with you man. Openly declare that only British Protestants and their descendants are allowed to stay and all others have to go. I'll back you up - that stance takes serious cajones!!!

    Peace.

  86. @MEexpert

    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.
     
    And where are you going to send the Indians whose land these White British Protestants stole?

    We can give them some more whiskey and blankets.

    Read More
  87. @Corvinus
    "The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation."

    Except to establish trade treaties and defensive alliances, in accordance to the consent of the governed and in line with the actions taken by our Founding Fathers during the early part of the Republic.

    "No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back."

    I am familiar Vox Day's specious argument on this matter. It would appear that you are one of his acolytes. Obviously, he and you are dead wrong. The finding of America consists of several groups of people, British and non-British. More importantly, human beings with their capacity to employ logic and reason regardless of their location in our world are able to comprehend what constitutes "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--these three concepts are universal. It also bears worth repeating:

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”.

    In Common Sense, Thomas Paine upheld “this new world” as “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty”--which in essence refers to any and all groups of people, whether it be European or non-European. Jefferson argued for “a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them.”

    James Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is “always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult,” so “the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change”.

    Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”.

    No, I am not a follower of Beale. He is a bit of a phony and a hypocrite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "No, I am not a follower of Beale. He is a bit of a phony and a hypocrite."

    First, you respond on his blog enough to tow the party line.

    Second, why don't you tell him your sentiments?

    Third, what is your rebuttal to my position on the proposition nation?
  88. @Chris Mallory
    The French and Dutch were small minorities.

    Hey Chris,

    The French were a minority, but define small?

    Either way my point still stands – guard yo’ grill – kick them Frenchies out! Thugg lyfe!!!

    Listen – I’ll stand with you man. Openly declare that only British Protestants and their descendants are allowed to stay and all others have to go. I’ll back you up – that stance takes serious cajones!!!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Cojones. Cajones are boxes, sp. drawers.

    Unless that's what you meant, which makes sense in a weird kind of way.

  89. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Chris Mallory

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.
     
    The US government has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation.

    The American people consist of white and non-white people.
     
    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.

    Untied indeed! As a (partial) descendant of those loyal subjects of the crown brutally terrorized by you traitorous rebels, I demand you and your fellow unfilial Whigs be transported to Jamaica*, at the very least!

    *Canada’s too good for you; its soil too hallowed by the steps of those brave men who dared to resist treason when they saw it.

    Read More
  90. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hey Chris,

    The French were a minority, but define small?

    Either way my point still stands - guard yo' grill - kick them Frenchies out! Thugg lyfe!!!

    Listen - I'll stand with you man. Openly declare that only British Protestants and their descendants are allowed to stay and all others have to go. I'll back you up - that stance takes serious cajones!!!

    Peace.

    Cojones. Cajones are boxes, sp. drawers.

    Unless that’s what you meant, which makes sense in a weird kind of way.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    So much cojones that you need cajones to store them!!!
  91. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @anon
    Australia has been asked to increase it's troops in Afghanistan, and agreed on Thursday.

    Australia would send troops to the dark side of the moon if the USA asked them too. This is of course because Australia hopes that the USA will defend and protect it if it is ever attacked. Previous generations of Australians had the same naïve faith in Great Britain. Singapore shattered that illusion. Australia would be better off by developing nuclear weapons to ensure its safety then by playing the fools’ game of being America’s vassal.

    Read More
  92. @Diversity Heretic
    Of course Afghanistan is a lost cause. Whether the United States withdraws next week or ten years from next week, the only question is whether the Taliban will be back in control in three weeks or whether it might take them six weeks. The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, South Vietnam ceased to exist and the sun came up the next day from Maine to California. Nor do I connect the Soviet withdrawal from Aghanistan with the eventual collapse of the USSR--that seemed to me to be linked to the huge inefficiencies of the Soviet economy.

    The error in Afghanistan was to invade in the first place. The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries, a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats) and a program to encourage Muslims to renounce their citizenship and leave the U.S. permanently. Instead the U.S. attacked Muslim countries around the world and invited more Muslims to live in the U.S. "Invade the world, invite the world." George W. Bush and the national security establishment showed no signs of insight or leadership--I curse them more and more as the years go by and the losses pile up.

    The September 11 attacks should have been treated as a matter of domestic security and resulted in a ban on further Muslim entries, a revocation of visas for Muslims (saving diplomats)…..

    Instead, Dubya elected to increase Muslim immigration and refugees and trash the bill of rights and civil liberties for the white majority via the misnamed “USA Patriot Act” and unprecedented NSA spying on all domestic communications.

    Read More
  93. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Corvinus
    "Not any responsibility of the American tax payer."

    A responsibility of our government by way of our tax payers for its involvement in foreign affairs.

    "Citizens of other nations do not have any right to come to the US. If anything we should have shut the borders entirely. Legal immigration was the cause of 9/11. The American people not helped in any way by having Muslims (or Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews) in our nation."

    They have the right to enter our nation IF our laws are crafted in that manner. 9/11 was the result of a host of political and economic factors. The American people consist of white and non-white people.

    They do NOT have the “right” to come here. Our degenerate political leadership betrays us.

    Nor can it be realistically said that the American nation has historically consisted of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. This is pure historical revisionism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "They do NOT have the “right” to come here. Our degenerate political leadership betrays us."

    You mean the citizens who elected that leadership who crafted immigration laws betray YOU.

    "Nor can it be realistically said that the American nation has historically consisted of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. This is pure historical revisionism."

    There were a good number of African slaves brought here to the States who were Muslim. Regarding Sikhs and Hindus, who have been here since the late 1800's, that is why we have the First Amendment. People can freely practice their faith.
  94. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MEexpert

    No, sorry. The American people consist of those of us descended from the British Protestants who founded the Untied States of America. Everyone else is just a guest and needs to go back.
     
    And where are you going to send the Indians whose land these White British Protestants stole?

    Demographic and spatial comparisons make the point meaningless. Nor does it provide a logical reason why more immigration is desirable to either group.

    Read More
  95. @Avery
    {What savagery did they do to the British, Russians (Soviets), or Americans....}


    Whatever 'savagery' Afghans meted out to invaders* of their lands - was no savagery. When your home/land/country is invaded - you are justified to do whatever you have to do.

    However, aside from killing invaders, there certainly _ is_ savagery there.
    How else do you classify attacking an Afghan girl - nearly killing her - for going to school. Or throwing acid on the faces of Afghan girls for the 'crime' of going to school.

    [One year ago schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by Taliban gunmen - her "crime", to have spoken up for the right of girls to be educate]**

    [Afghanistan: Men throw acid into girls' faces 'for going to school']***

    You don't consider that savage?

    -----
    * US bombing the s____ out of Talibs, and helping Northern Alliance to defeat Talibs after 9/11 - no invasion.
    US troops staying and setting up camp - invasion.

    **
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

    ***
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/asia/afghanistan-schoolgirls-acid-attack/

    I agree with their savagery that you just mentioned. This, however came as an idea from other savages, Saudi Wahhabis and their Bedouin ways, imposed as Islam with lots of petro$$$$$. Our savagery was just sadistic, killing them at wedding parties with night visions from helicopters after we bombed the place. The executioners saw those that were running as women and children, but were having fun swinging their machine guns. I’m ashamed to say how much such atrocities went on and are still going on. Let’s not forget the horror that’s still going on in places like Bagram. All for Halliburton, KBR, Lockheed, GE, and dead young Americans, those that didn’t die are still suffering PTSD or maimed for life.
    We hoped DJT would get us out of this madness, and still hope, but he’s overwhelmed by, and sold to Israel firsters. Savages is what we’ve become…

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    Those Talib savages were our own creation , together with "empty brain Wahhabis" and we're still on the same stupid path, now we're being told our biggest enemy is ISIS! We just created these monsters, only this time we had more help from the real master. Israel. Our POTUS and one before him have declared those fighting this monster as our enemy. Do we have any idea where we heading?
  96. @Anon
    Cojones. Cajones are boxes, sp. drawers.

    Unless that's what you meant, which makes sense in a weird kind of way.

    So much cojones that you need cajones to store them!!!

    Read More
  97. @truthtellerAryan
    I agree with their savagery that you just mentioned. This, however came as an idea from other savages, Saudi Wahhabis and their Bedouin ways, imposed as Islam with lots of petro$$$$$. Our savagery was just sadistic, killing them at wedding parties with night visions from helicopters after we bombed the place. The executioners saw those that were running as women and children, but were having fun swinging their machine guns. I'm ashamed to say how much such atrocities went on and are still going on. Let's not forget the horror that's still going on in places like Bagram. All for Halliburton, KBR, Lockheed, GE, and dead young Americans, those that didn't die are still suffering PTSD or maimed for life.
    We hoped DJT would get us out of this madness, and still hope, but he's overwhelmed by, and sold to Israel firsters. Savages is what we've become...

    Those Talib savages were our own creation , together with “empty brain Wahhabis” and we’re still on the same stupid path, now we’re being told our biggest enemy is ISIS! We just created these monsters, only this time we had more help from the real master. Israel. Our POTUS and one before him have declared those fighting this monster as our enemy. Do we have any idea where we heading?

    Read More
  98. @Z-man
    No Buchanan is noble in his thoughts that Afghanistan was much more justified than the greatest blunder in American foreign policy the invasion of Iraq. Of course the bumbling Americans over did it in Af'istan but after 15 years we can't just cut and run. Like I said, a well trained garrison there to keep things under control but with limited 'nation building'.

    “No Buchanan is noble in his thoughts that Afghanistan was much more justified than the greatest blunder in American foreign policy the invasion of Iraq.”

    A much greater blunder was the involvement in Vietnam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    As far as loss of life and impact on Americans, at that time, Vietnam was bad but as far as strategic impact our invasion of Iraq 'takes the cake' as far as blunders go. But it will be followed by more blunders as long as we let the Israeli firsters dominate our foreign policy.
  99. @Chris Mallory
    No, I am not a follower of Beale. He is a bit of a phony and a hypocrite.

    “No, I am not a follower of Beale. He is a bit of a phony and a hypocrite.”

    First, you respond on his blog enough to tow the party line.

    Second, why don’t you tell him your sentiments?

    Third, what is your rebuttal to my position on the proposition nation?

    Read More
  100. @anon
    They do NOT have the "right" to come here. Our degenerate political leadership betrays us.

    Nor can it be realistically said that the American nation has historically consisted of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. This is pure historical revisionism.

    “They do NOT have the “right” to come here. Our degenerate political leadership betrays us.”

    You mean the citizens who elected that leadership who crafted immigration laws betray YOU.

    “Nor can it be realistically said that the American nation has historically consisted of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. This is pure historical revisionism.”

    There were a good number of African slaves brought here to the States who were Muslim. Regarding Sikhs and Hindus, who have been here since the late 1800′s, that is why we have the First Amendment. People can freely practice their faith.

    Read More
  101. @ Rurik,

    I think that maybe we are having a miscommunication. I have not stated that Mr. Buchanan endorsed or has ever supported the conflict in Afghanistan. His use of the phrase “some of us,” and “yet we” leaves open the possibility that he may have cautiously endorsed the invasion in the heady post 911 days but I don’t know and do not have the time nor the interest to search all of his ramblings.

    What got caught in my craw (as I read it) was him using Dean Rusk’s statement (twice) to underpin his analysis on the downside of an American withdrawal and using ” White Knight” metaphors about the United States and implying that the Vietnamese and Cambodian conflicts were altruistic ventures much like Afghanistan. Ignoring the poppy issue, the proximity to Iran issue or even the military logistics that had to already have been in place before 911 makes his article a puff piece in my opinion. My reaction to it was one of irritation as one might feel if he/she was being considered to be a fool.

    Just for the record I have always liked Mr. Buchanan. He is the best of a bad lot. If I was an American and if I was the voting kind, I would have certainly supported him when he made hid Presidential bids.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik (from another location)

    What got caught in my craw (as I read it) was him using Dean Rusk’s statement (twice) to underpin his analysis on the downside of an American withdrawal and using ” White Knight” metaphors about the United States and implying that the Vietnamese and Cambodian conflicts were altruistic ventures much like Afghanistan.
     
    I gotcha

    He does follow a patriotic line, but that's just part of his persona/habits of a lifetime. Just like with the Catholic religion, as it's descended into an arm of Zionism and demands homomania and open borders and such, Pat still clings to a GOP and a Vatican from the times of old, when they had some shred of credibility.

    Cheers
  102. @Dave Shanken
    I have no clue as to what the Federal Government's policies or goals are in the Mideast or the Islamic countries.

    But the Vietnam War was only a battle in the Cold War that America waged against Communism. And the final score in the Cold War: American victory and Russian defeat.

    Oh I think Russia would have dumped communism sooner or later anyway, regardless of Nam or Afghanistan, for even those in its upper levels of government were having sever doubts as to its value, as they saw more and more of its economy serving its own military needs rather than the needs of its country..

    Read More
  103. @Realist
    "No Buchanan is noble in his thoughts that Afghanistan was much more justified than the greatest blunder in American foreign policy the invasion of Iraq."

    A much greater blunder was the involvement in Vietnam.

    As far as loss of life and impact on Americans, at that time, Vietnam was bad but as far as strategic impact our invasion of Iraq ‘takes the cake’ as far as blunders go. But it will be followed by more blunders as long as we let the Israeli firsters dominate our foreign policy.

    Read More
  104. @Timur The Lame
    @ Rurik,

    I think that maybe we are having a miscommunication. I have not stated that Mr. Buchanan endorsed or has ever supported the conflict in Afghanistan. His use of the phrase "some of us," and "yet we" leaves open the possibility that he may have cautiously endorsed the invasion in the heady post 911 days but I don't know and do not have the time nor the interest to search all of his ramblings.

    What got caught in my craw (as I read it) was him using Dean Rusk's statement (twice) to underpin his analysis on the downside of an American withdrawal and using " White Knight" metaphors about the United States and implying that the Vietnamese and Cambodian conflicts were altruistic ventures much like Afghanistan. Ignoring the poppy issue, the proximity to Iran issue or even the military logistics that had to already have been in place before 911 makes his article a puff piece in my opinion. My reaction to it was one of irritation as one might feel if he/she was being considered to be a fool.

    Just for the record I have always liked Mr. Buchanan. He is the best of a bad lot. If I was an American and if I was the voting kind, I would have certainly supported him when he made hid Presidential bids.

    Cheers-

    What got caught in my craw (as I read it) was him using Dean Rusk’s statement (twice) to underpin his analysis on the downside of an American withdrawal and using ” White Knight” metaphors about the United States and implying that the Vietnamese and Cambodian conflicts were altruistic ventures much like Afghanistan.

    I gotcha

    He does follow a patriotic line, but that’s just part of his persona/habits of a lifetime. Just like with the Catholic religion, as it’s descended into an arm of Zionism and demands homomania and open borders and such, Pat still clings to a GOP and a Vatican from the times of old, when they had some shred of credibility.

    Cheers

    Read More
  105. It might be a lost cause but America’s wars are still very profitable for the Military-Industrial Complex. The great thing is, whether these wars are won or lost, they’re equally profitable either way. In fact in some ways losing a war is even better – it can be used as an excuse to increase military spending even further. If only we’d spent a few trillion more dollars we could have won that lost war! So now we need to spend trillions preparing for the next war.

    The business of America is war.

    Read More
  106. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Definitely a failed project, doomed from the very first day. Best thing would be to be realistic about it. Our withdrawal should be negotiated directly with the Taliban. We also need to assist them in eliminating the competing, more radical factions that have sprung up with the understanding that they’ll prohibit foreign jihadi types from using their territory as a training base or as a refuge. Those tainted by collaboration with the US need to be given help to resettle elsewhere, perhaps in Pakistan. The Russians will be able to continue patronizing the former Northern Alliance so they can have their own self-rule. With our assistance they’ll be able to be independent and not reliant on Pakistan or any other foreigners and deny use of their territory to others.

    Read More
  107. @ anonymous,

    ” Definately a failed project….’

    Boy that is some stupid shit you are writing. For sure you are American but I think that you may be also Ivy League because your analysis is innocent, stupid and confident at the same time.

    How about this Boyo? Instead of going for a MA or a Phd in whatever humanities wasteland you are blowing your parents money on why do you not enlist and put your boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Then at first opportunity, put up a white flag on a stick and march into a Taliban stronghold. Share your wisdom with them. Gain their respect by telling them that your conditions are not negotiable.

    Please report back on how that went.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    why do you not enlist
     
    You first, cowboy. Idiotic comment you have there, very "lame" as in the brain. Go fight the Taliban and show us how it should be done.
  108. When did Afghanistan become a “cause”?

    When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney decided to impose it upon us.

    For us ordinary Americans Afghanistan is not a “cause,” it’s not even on our radar, it’s just an excuse for the Imperial Globali$t Open Border$ $ellout E$tabli$hment to fleece us of yet more of our tax dollars and to go on borrowing more and more cash from foreign powers ($20-trillion and rising!), which hands those foreign powers evermore leverage over us.

    Read More
  109. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Timur The Lame
    @ anonymous,

    " Definately a failed project....'

    Boy that is some stupid shit you are writing. For sure you are American but I think that you may be also Ivy League because your analysis is innocent, stupid and confident at the same time.

    How about this Boyo? Instead of going for a MA or a Phd in whatever humanities wasteland you are blowing your parents money on why do you not enlist and put your boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Then at first opportunity, put up a white flag on a stick and march into a Taliban stronghold. Share your wisdom with them. Gain their respect by telling them that your conditions are not negotiable.

    Please report back on how that went.

    Cheers-

    why do you not enlist

    You first, cowboy. Idiotic comment you have there, very “lame” as in the brain. Go fight the Taliban and show us how it should be done.

    Read More
  110. @ anonymous,

    Assuming you are the same ‘anonymous’ I take back the Ivy League observation. You now appear to be a typical corn fed M’rkan idiot. Why don’t you assume an identity so the train of your ‘thoughts’ can be discerned. Further comment from me will not be forthcoming.

    Cheers-

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?