Well, personally, I am shocked, shocked.
In hindsight, several current and former administration officials say they have come to believe the decision to turn a blind eye to the warlords and drug traffickers who took advantage of the power vacuum in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks was one of the fundamental strategic mistakes of the Afghan war. It sent a signal to the Afghan people that the most corrupt warlords had the backing of the United States, that the Karzai government had no real power or credibility and that the drug economy was the path to power in the country.Yes, it is remarkable and tragic that backing the most corrupt Afghan warlords convinced the Afghan people that the US was supporting the most corrupt Afghan warlords. That's exactly the sort of cultural misunderstanding that constantly bedevils our necessary wars and humanitarian projects. If only the Afghan people understood what we were really trying to do instead of clinging to a limited understanding based only on the narrow category of what we are doing. How will we ever win the hearts and minds of such a mistrustful people?
By late 2003, officials said, the Bush administration began to realize its mistake, and initiated what officials called its “warlord strategy” to try to ease key warlords out of power.
What is America doing in Afghanistan again? I mean, does there exist any longer an official rationale for our war there? I keep hearing that The Obama is going to escalate the war there, and yet even those stock phrases that attend our Iraq occupation--stable, self-foverning, etc.--seem mostly absent from the present official discourse on The Other War, The Good War, The Necessary War, what have you.
Domino theories have always been popular with Democratic administrations, and it seems that the effort to deny Islamofascocializism a "safe haven" (By the way, America, can you please retire this redundancy? You ever hear of an unsafe haven?) is just a recapitulation of our various efforts to deny International Communism a foothold in Southeast Asia or Latin America or North Africa or whereverthefuckelse. Well, I suppose if we don't fight them in Afghanistan, we'll have to fight them in our our own backyard: Pakistan.
21 comments:
You ever hear of an unsafe haven?)
There are the non-Yale parts of New Haven, CT.
Add to the many things our pols and genius generals like to ignore is how modern technology has redefined "safe haven." All the "terrorists" need is an internet connection and an i-phone and we go ourselves a "net-conference." Of course, laying siege to all the Starbucks is a logistics nightmare.
You ever hear of an unsafe haven?
No, but if you hum a few lines, I'll...oh, nevermind.
You ever hear of an unsafe haven?
Like that TNG episode?
Cause that one fucking hurt to watch.
Didn't you really mean to type "self-buggering?"
Aren't we in Pakistan already? Or are we just killing people there from a distance? If it's the latter, I guess we could say we were never in North Vietnam which proves how successful we were in South Vietnam. I am sure the same logic applies to Afghanistan and Pakistan but I could be wrong because I don't think anything I have said here makes any sense.
Iraq is the unsafe haven, of course. Remember, we went in there to lure all the Islamofascistcommies to one place, so we could defeat them (mission accomplished). Like when the police send "you won a free trip to Bermuda" letters to people with outstanding warrants, and then surprise them with arrest once they arrive at the Holiday Inn suite C.
We must bring them all the wonderful hopeful changey goodness of self-fovernment. Just like the great foverning we get here at home.
The god damn plane has crashed into the mountain!
Completely OT but since it has come up here in the past I thought I would point out that Yggles really does ride a sissy bike, which is just somehow so fitting:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/dutch-style-commuter-bikes.php
Um, I love you. Are you fafblog's cousin?
Not only is safe haven stupid, its origin is boring. I think the redundant phrase comes from the mis-combination of two terms from tax law. The first is "safe harbor", a metaphorical place where, if you can follow certain rules, you will be a compliant refugee in the storm-tossed seas of poor technical writing safe from uncertainty . The second is "tax haven", an imaginary place where you can go and avoid taxes altogether (until that treaty gets signed.)
I think they're operating on the Tick theory of why we gotta do what we gotta do:
"You know, gang, when you're a superpower, you never know where the day will take you. You may find yourself halfway around the world in the shark-infested waters of true-to-life living. Or you may find yourself going down to the store for a lozenge. You can't know, can you? No! You gotta ride that wave, you gotta suck that lozenge! 'Cause if you don't, who will?!"
IOZ
I'm going meta here, this is unrelated to the post and not a snarky question:
Why do you blog?
All the "terrorists" need is an internet connection and an [exploding] i-phone...
Vanity.
All is vanity.
Good point.
What is America doing in Afghanistan again? I mean, does there exist any longer an official rationale for our war there?
The one I've heard most often lately is that we're there so Afghan girls can go to school. Also, the stoning.
lol. GO TO SCHOOL OR WE'LL BOMB YOU!
it would have worked for me.
Gridlock, I believe its because this blog ages and becomes mired in its own degradation, while IOZ stays beautiful, young and care-free.
Just a theory...
Thanks for the follow! I also have my own website. Come visit me at
more template Click quick
Post a Comment