An inconvenient truth

Augustus

It was certainly revealing, but nevertheless reads a bit like cheap pulp. I suppose the sub-heading probably got up Obama's nose: '...the real enemy: The wimps in the White House'.

The fact is that the campaign in that rocky outback hasn't progressed in the way that Obama
(and the American populace) expected that it would earlier this year. But when one crosses a river its always a bit dangerous to change horses in midstream.

Dixon

Kissinger argued that apparent indecision can also be a strong front, if its the indecision of "Do we nuke them, dont we nuke them?" Well theres nothing in A' to nuke, but in Pakistan there is and then the entire region can be dusted over with chemical and biological; agents, cauterising the perennial rectum of the planet for all time. Im not suggesting "genocide", they can be given a deadline by which to clear out if they can. But like the damned house in thestory quoted, the region needs to be condemned and razed.

Bob.India

I’d guess that the sub message of your final paragraph Melanie, is that Barack Obama will not be the someone who gets a grip on the prosecution of the Afghanistan war and fights it as if it really is a war and not a “nation building” exercise. The corollary must be that the west will pull out and suffer a jihadi-boosting defeat that ushers in the truly frightening prospect of Pakistan falling to the Taliban and their gaining access to that nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Combined with Obama’s clearly demonstrated and less than stellar performance in office to date, his consistently antipathetic treatment of that front-line bulwark, Israel, his encouragement of Turkey turning eastwards and a steady islamisation of Europe, I’d say that under the current leadership, the West’s future is pretty bleak.

Would there be any chance of the American voters waking up and neutering this administration in the November 2010 mid-term elections thus eventually ensuring a single term for probably the most disastrous US president in history? I’m not holding my breath.

Would a long-term investment strategy include gold and plenty of ammunition?

Ian C

Obama is exposed by the episode as someone who does not have a clue. Quelle surprise?

Okey

Vietnam, US impotence during the 1973 Arab extortion exercise/oil crisis, US meekness in the face of jihadist terrorism since then, ignominious flight of marines from Lebanon, inconclusive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Has the USA become a broken reed?

Liz

The rules of war have changed. Western forces are being forced to fight a gentleman's war against those for whom beheadings, suicide bombings and firing behind human shields are the order of the day. Obama want's out of Afghanistan and he's prepared to sacrifice his army in order to do so.

Andre

A soldier depends on the competence of his leaders - both the officers in the field and strategists at home. Otherwise he stands to lose his life - as we see above. We should remember the job of a soldier is to seek out the enemy and kill him. The sooner the West realizes this the better. McChrystal was right to speak out. The defeatism of Obama, Clinton and Biden is losing his men their lives. It is his duty to stand by them. Washington politicians are as dangerous to US combat forces frankly as the Taliban and Al Quaeda. In the UK our own senior officers have made the same point - albeit against the last government. Poor equipment and lack of political direction is getting men killed We need to realize this very simple point: if we want our troops to fight in Afghan to protect our streets and airspace then their aim has to be to engage and kill the enemy - Taliban and Al-Q. We should only send our men to continue the fight against the Taliban if we are determined to win. What was it Churchill said? You ask me what is our aim - I will tell you - victory. Victory what ever the cost. Putting men's lives on the line deserves no less of a commitment

david elder

The initial aim of going into Afghanistan was to prevent Al-Qaeda from freely using it as a base to plan trouble like 9/11. This has succeeded - no more 9/11s to date. The difficulty is to ensure that it stays that way - this means seeing off the Taliban for good, a broader aim than dealing with Al-Qaeda. But I feel it has to be done.

Daibhidh

Looks like America is headed for yet another defeat. Not by the Taliban or because the US forces are militarily inept - quite the opposite - but defeated - as they were in Vietname - by politicians and their 'anti - war'sloganisers back home. By the way, what on earth possesed the general to talk to a DJ's rag?

George Steiner

Let me ask you fellows, do you think that McChrystal is a simpleton, a naive fool, an ignorant soldier? Or is he a sophysticated, worldly, experienced militay type, who understands inteligence, counter inteligence, covert operations? If he is the later than he new exactly what he was doing. And he had an audience in mind. Who do you think that is?

David, Thailand

The only one way to 'protect civilians' from terror, whilst resolving virtually all domestic and international terror in the world, is to first acknowledge and then address the fact that we are in a global religious war, and that the enemy is Islam.

Will it, could it happen? Certainly not until we set aside political correctness and democratic niceties for long enough to debate, recognise, and address the threat.

Sadly, I believe it will take at very least an Islam-induced holocaust of biblical proportions to awaken many snoozers, and until then our gutless leaders will appease towards capitulation whilst pretending to identify, isolate and confront the radical elements of this insidious threat to civilisation and progress.

Something about wood and trees springs to mind.

charlotte jones

I agree. ButI think the whole US military is angry with Obama for his order of restraint and his sucking up to Muslims terrorists.
What must it feel like them to see Obama's Govt to go softly on RADICAL ISLAMIC MUSLIM TERROR (the words his administration wont even use) and then they are sent to the battlefront to fight a war aginst these swines?
What must it feel like fighting that war when Muslims and Muslim apologists are virtually running the WH?
What must it feel like for a patriotic soldier when his COMMANDER,the POTUS tells the world in Cairo:"I will stand with the MUSLIMS"That is treason.
Jesus I would be white hot livid.

William Boyd

What exactly do you mean when you say 'fighting this war as if it really is a war' with the empahasis on 'is'?

Do you mean a proper war like the 1st World War with ten of thousands of casualities each pointless push to advance the front line a few yards? Or the Second World War with its millions of civilian deaths from the bombing of cities? Or the Vietnam war with its use of napalm and dioxin? Or indeed the total war of the future advocated by your commentator 'Dixon' here involving all three classes of WMD?

Perhaps you could let us know in more detail Mel how this war should be turned into a real war.

Bob.India

Over at Defence of the Realm http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2010/06/obama-stuffs-military.html , Richard North comes up with what looks like the actuality:

“What we have been seeing is a huge amount of thrashing about, as commentators struggle and largely fail to make sense of recent events, not realising that this was most likely a deliberate ploy by McChrystal to destabilise Obama and dump the blame for a failing campaign in the lap of the president.



As such, it is most unlikely that McChrystal's quite deliberate and studied coup de main was done without the knowledge and acquiescence (if not approval) of his boss (Petraeus).



By appointing Petraeus to take over from his uppity subordinate – effectively a demotion – Obama demonstrates the skills acquired and honed as a street-fighting Chicago politician. He has reasserted control over – as The Guardian puts it – a politicised military, with the generals out of control. 



In so doing, he dumps responsibility for success in Afghanistan in the lap of the supposed architect of the campaign, leaving McChrystal isolated and irrelevant. The Army is still very much in the frame and Obama's message about "civilian control" could not have been clearer.



Hero of the Iraqi "surge" and a Bush appointee, Petraeus must now deliver the goods in Afghanistan or go under. His appointment, to a very great extent, insulates the president from the fray. The new chief is in the hot seat, and with him the military. The game has just changed, and taken on a whole new dimension.”

Interesting to note that the much vaunted presidential candidate has morphed from cerebral, messianic, “constitutional law professor” to “street-fighting Chicago politician”, once in office.
Will US voters yet wake up?

Peter Slate

A post detailing in what degree a defeat of the west would be infinetly worse,would be helpful.

John Birch

It is important to point out that it is a counter-insurgency campaign that is being waged in Afghanistan. Melanie seems to have missed this point completely as have other contributors. The restraint is not due to politicians like Obama (who has hardly been a wimp--witness the expansion of drone attacks in Pakistan and the authorizing of covert ops that the Bush admin wouldn't sign off on) but is a strategy developed by the military brass, in particular Petraeus and McChrystal. They believe that you need to win the hearts and the minds of ordinary Afghans in order to defeat the Taliban and that you don't do this by killing innocent civilians. That ordinary soldiers in the field grumble about higher ups and strategy is hardly new and can be found in any war.

Terry in Oz

In practical terms, I can't blame the General. Nothing worse than having to explain to your men that they are going to have to die so some uniformed politician on the other side of the world can be multicultural with the jihadis.

Yes, the real enemy is in Washington and I don't want any mor Aussie Diggers to die in the name of elitist political correctness.

AndyinBrum

Hmmm, when does the Republican presidential nomination process get underway?

Carl

@Dixon 7.00 23 Jun - Keep it up, it is always good to see what the fan club really think!

GaryO

Couple of choice statements from the article:

"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense".

And:

"It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."

These two opinions sum up the utter fallacy of this war.

I thought the article was brilliant!

Ronnie

If a 'real' war was of the total variety against then it would logically be against entire Afghan population and not a rather confused effort at nation building in support of a very suspect regime in Kabul.

Only Dixon seems to have a clear strategy in this event.

However, now that it has been publically confirmed that there are three trillion dollars worth of mineral assets in the country, perhaps the mist will clear. Now we can have a good old-fashioned colonial war and occupation, accompanied by the signing of many contracts by western multi-nationals.

Fabio P.Barbieri

If General McChrystal had serious issues with the civilian management of the war, he should have done what honourable commanders have often done, and resigned. In not doing so, he has shown himself as political and unprincipled as Obama - forcing the latter to sack him and positioning himself as a victim of unwarlike Washington stooges, and probably positioning himself for a run for office as a Republican. As a matter of fact, the losing let's-be-nice-to-the-Afghans strategy is as much McChrystal's product as Obama's (http://article.nationalreview.com/408662/this-mission-is-not-mcchrystal-clear/andrew-c-mccarthy), and he has spent most of his time as a commander promoting it - when he was not sending downright defeatist messages (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/us-commander-signals-surrender-to-taliban.html). Good freaking riddance.

Mailman

McChrystal had to go, there is no way Obama could leave a general in place that had no faith in him as the CnC.

I dont think McChrystal is stupid, he could see how things were panning out and made his dash for the door BUT also, as you say Mel, letting the world outside have a brief glimps of their world on the inside.

On the plus side though, this does mean that Patreous now comes back in to run the show so it will be interesting to see how he goes under a CnC who actively campaigned against his appointment when he was a Senator. Interestingly enough, moveon.org has removed its betrayus page (YET another example of the current President being absent during a vote when the Republicans passed a motion of "disgust" at the moveon.org smear campaign).

John Berch,

The strategy being used in Afghanistan IS not the military's strategy but the civilian strategy imposed upon the military.

Appointing Petraous may be a double edged sword. A man with very real results in a war supposedly lost (and one Obama actively fought against) it would be neigh impossible for Obama to blame a failure on him.

Secondly, Patreous seems to be infiniately more savvy in fighting the political war in Washington...probably because he WON in Iraq.

Harold

Dixon
June 23rd, 2010 7:00pm

"Im not suggesting "genocide", they can be given a deadline by which to clear out if they can."

So it is not the people who must be eradicated, but the geographical location - although clearly it's no great matter if the people get it too ("clear out if they can").

Three separate degrees, and still a poor excuse!

Neil Craig

A common assumption is that he understood exactly what he was doing & that by forcinhg Obama into firing him for saying Obama is incompetent he is (A) out from under carrying the can for a losing war & (B) able to now say loudly that Obama is incompetent.

GeoffM

Frankly Afghanistan is a holding operation.

The big game is afoot in Pakistan.

Their leaders are Islamist and only aid and political/military support is keeping them "on side".

We should let it go. Tell Pakistan they will be on their own in 12 months. If they continue to support the Taliban then they will be declared a rogue state and their nuclear weapons decommissioned.

Our military support will then be transferred to India whilst Afghanistan will become our military base in the Middle East. we have no need to fight the way we do. Aggressive, pre-emptive strikes against Islamists in Afghanistan and a ruthless war against the heroin trade will keep their heads down, deny them funds and keep our streets safer.

Expulsions of all Islamists in the Nato area and strict immigration controls should see to the rest.

The world cannot "live in peace" with Islam - 1300 years of history tells us this as does the present Jihad against the West.

It's time the West took back its hand of friendship and showed its fists and teeth.

Muslims will understand that.

Derek Pasquill

One word: Vietnam.

Doc

The real problem with this situation is that western military academies for the past 30 years have produced uniformed bureaucrats. This may be fine in a peacetime military when senior officers need to interact with politicians and other officials. But put these modern academy products into a real combat situation and they are way out of their depth. Where do we find real warriors now? The western world desperately needs a Napoleon or a Patton to lead it in this terminal struggle against Islam.

Dixon

"Derek Pasquill
June 24th, 2010 11:45am
One word: Vietnam."

Thats two words...Viet and Nam...obviously uttered by an armchair expert on the topic.!

Dixon

"Carl
June 24th, 2010 9:47am
@Dixon 7.00 23 Jun - Keep it up, it is always good to see what the fan club really think!"

But you didnt see what I really think...the one mentioning you and some others wasnt accepted.

Dixon

"William Boyd
June 24th, 2010 8:23am
What exactly do you mean when you say 'fighting this war as if it really is a war' with the empahasis on 'is'?

Do you mean a proper war like the 1st World War with ten of thousands of casualities each pointless push to advance the front line a few yards? Or the Second World War with its millions of civilian deaths from the bombing of cities? Or the Vietnam war with its use of napalm and dioxin? Or indeed the total war of the future advocated by your commentator 'Dixon' here involving all three classes of WMD?

Perhaps you could let us know in more detail Mel how this war should be turned into a real war."

I would have thought it was obvious what the person who said that meant, to anyone following events. Or even anyone reading the article properly. In a "real" war ones people arent instructed to go out on patrol with an unloaded weapon and to avoid areas where they are likely to meet the enemy.

Apart from the utter pointlessness of their being there on those terms, the contemporary version of COIN represents the process as essentially a form of social work...dishing out health care, repainting front doors, being nice to everyone and patting kids on the head (or, apropos Derek Pasquill, specific instructions NOT to pat local officers on the head, when in Viet Nam). These are the activities of a peace corps. By no stretch of the imagination is it in any sense combat. No combat:Not a war.

Indeed, this representation of COIN is totally distorted. Where did it come from? The media, the universities that model modern major generals have studied social science at? I cant say. But it bears little resemblance to the original version of counter-insurgency as devised by Kitchener and effectively deployed in South Africa and used with success in every British imperial spat up to and including Malaya. The backbone of that, the original sense of COIN (avant la lettre), was to seperate the insurgents from the host community. This is done by either putting all the women and children into compounds (as Kitchener did in South Africa) or creating of every community a secure cantonment which residents can only enter or leave via a checkpoint. Everyone has to be disarmed and required to carry identity documents.

This hitherto effective strategy went wrong in Viet Nam vecause the Americans thought they could water it down and conduct it with the now familiar "hearts and minds" twaddle (social work with guns) in the presence of a parasitical media and in the face of a sustained onslaught by the regular forces of the NVA sponsored by China and the USSR.

Now nothing remains of what COIN originally entailed except the "be food to each other" nonsense.

In todays world the original tried and proven tactics are not "acceptable". You couldnt even issue ID documents to any effect because you arent allowed to see the womens faces to confirm they are who they claim to be or even a woman. Indeed, dressing as women is now a well-used Taleban and Al Qaida tactic. Our people respect this and allow them to get on with it. How crazy is that? What would British officers of a previous era have done? My suggestion would be that the very basic prerequisite of our soldiers being in their country to prop up their lousy government would be that said lousy government immediately ban the wearing of the full veil. For a very basic starter illustrating the ridiculous parody of "war" that this campaign is,being conducted in terms dictated by the same culture of which our enemy is an expression. Its like trying to defeat Hitler but allowing the NAZI party to continue to function whilst the Allies are fighting in Germany.

Fundamentally, our people are being expected to distinguish between armed mediaeval savages who want to kill us and are "civilians" and armed mediaeval savages who want to kill us and are not "civilians". What, in reality, is the difference?

Even if my "zero sum option" (render the entire region uninhabitable and therefore of no utility to our enemies) is politically inconceivable (though very practicable given modern biotechnology) the sensible way to conduct this operation is to drop the "civilian" not "civilian" abstraction and essentially obliterate anyone who has a weapon or as much as looks at us in a suspicious way. To do this would require none of our people to actually be there. Which in turn would mnean there would be no media there either. Then using air power and perpetually patrolling drones, our people could get on with it, unhindered, relatively cheaply and with utter impunity.

Dixon

Harold...I dont care.

When the ballon goes up...you wont care either.

The difference between you and me is that I know myself and am honest about it. You dress up in imperial robes of splenmdid moral superiority.

When push comes to shove in your life, you will abandon those affectations in an instant. It happens to almost everyone, sooner or later.

Looking forward to it?

Augustus

It appears that, more important than the Rolling Stone affair, General McChrystal was fired for his failure to listen to Joe Biden on military strategy.
So here we have a case of a four star general, chosen for his position for speaking his mind when it comes to winning and taking care of his troops, actually fired for speaking his mind when it comes to winning and taking care of his troops! This seems a shocking way of going about safeguarding America's national security, not to mention that of the free world.

Carl

Dixon, what a shame your thoughts on me were not published. If people with your views think badly of me, I regard it as a badge of honour.

Dixon

Carl...ditto

Harold

Dixon
June 24th, 2010 1:45pm

Three brief points on your hugely enjoyable schoolboy goth's history of the twentieth century by Dixon (aged 49 3/4).

You are saying that the strategy you propose is to destroy the geographical region (and if the population dies, so be it)? I know your fetish for weaponry. What will be required to demolish the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

" obliterate anyone who has a weapon or as much as looks at us in a suspicious way". Can I refer you to the rules of engagement given the Wehrmacht before Barbarossa (or, what might excite and arouse you even more, the instructions given the einsatzgruppen). Your sort of hard-nosed realists.

" the Americans thought they could water it down and conduct it with the now familiar "hearts and minds" twaddle (social work with guns)". This might be considered a joke of some sort. You do know that what was unique about My Lai was that it attracted comment. It was essentially the standard operating procedure. (You may wish to read a book called "War without Frontiers". Unfortunately for you it contains know weapons porn, but it does have a lot about killing the lesser breeds for the greater good.)

Bob from Virginia

Bob.India wrote "Would there be any chance of the American voters waking up and neutering this administration in the November 2010 mid-term elections thus eventually ensuring a single term for probably the most disastrous US president in history? I’m not holding my breath."

Just you wait Bob.India, the knives are out, soon it's payback time for trying to ruin the country and harm our allies while coddling freedom's enemies.

Not everyone is asleep over here.

Sam ARMSTRONG

Dixon hits the nail firmly on the head once again. Bravo.

John Holland

What is most admirable about the sage Dixon is his majesterial sense of proportion.
While suggesting it's fine to liquidate a significant portion of the globe with the proviso that the civilian population should be allowed to leave "if they can", he takes time out from his genocide porn fantasies to claim a point from teacher by telling us that,importantly, Vietnam is two words.Well done boy!
The dull irony is, of course, that the likes of Dixon and the Islamist religious psychopaths are essentially the same morally bankrupt pedants,just born in different places.

Dixon

Carl, no, on second thoughts, "ditto" rescinded, I dont give a proverbial monkeys one way or another what your opinion is of anything, least of all my opinions.

Dixon

Harold, it was YOU who said my "strategy" (your term, not mine) was to "destroy the region", not me. What I said was that the region (in that version of prospects) could be rendered uninhabitable. Which is entirely feasible. Meantime, your lovely mountains are virtually uninhabitable anyway. The savages who hide in them like the Boers of a previous century are sustained by supplies from the "civilians" of the plain. Eliminate (or, in the milder version, isolate) the host and you eliminate their parasites.

As for NAZI this and Stalin that, your argument is the pathetically feeble one of suggesting that if there is a point of resemblance between two viewpoints then they are the same. DOH! By that "logic" because NAZIs (aside from their multitude of sins) also dissaproved of incest if you dissaprove of incest that makes you a NAZI! Cripes, not even Bertrand Russel managed to attain such a feat of sophistry.

The rest of the time you sink to silly nincompoopers style name calling. Well, two could play at that, but the names by which I and my mates refer to the likes of you and your like arent liable to be published. So you'd best just stop it.

Dixon

Oh Harold, I know my typing is bad but your: "...contains know weapons porn,..." has to be semi-illiteracy!

Thanks mate, but I'll have "know milk today" issit?

David Star

The policy which may be costing the lives of our kids and grandkids probably needs pushing harder and without deadlines,or be abandoned at once. Anything in between is assininty and obscene in the waste of our youth.
Karzai and the lying thieves about him are only interested in lining their personal pockets. The rebels are only standing in line waiting their turn to loot.
That bring said, one is required to make the Hebrew "Shechiyanu" prayer thanking God for allowing us to live to see the day that the self styled Messiah in the White House made a decision!
And it was the proper decision.No military leader has the right to open his mouth regarding his political master and should not be allowed to resign. He must be dismissed.
Now only if Obama were intelligent, and or, honorable enough to admit his incompetence and resign, can there be hope for the safety of the democratic world.
PS: Rumor has that this year's Noble Prize committee is having a difficlt time deciding between Putin and the Mufti of Jerusalem.

Dixon

John Holland, like a lot of people, you seem unclear about what the conflict is about. Its not about the "bad guys" being defined as such because they use "bad" tactics, ie "terrorism". I have no quarrel with the tactics used against us: they are proving pretty effective. On the contrary, I would employ even greater "terror" on our behalf against our enemies than they could ever muster. I would consign them to a living Hell before even bothering to kill them. In fact, I can think of absolutely nothing that I would not inflict on our...my...enemies if to the asvantage of myself, my friends, family, community.

The difference between the likes of you and me is not that you are possessed of some kind of moral protocal that would prevent you inflicting agony on others if necessary to protect yourself and your family...but that you IMAGINE that you do.

We are really the same,except that I am honest about myself. There is almost never a Human born who would not under the right circumstances kill or torture others to protect themselves. But you, Harold, and the rest of your self-deluded, pompous kind, due to your lack of either experience or insight (into your own character) manage to convince yourselves of the fantasy of "ethics" in which like the proverbial emperors robes you wrap yourselves but which most people can see right through to the callow, posturing and chinlessly feeble core.

The problem people like you create is that (as in the 1930's) your "moral" equivocation will delay the harsh awakening that lies ahead for you until it is too late for any of us to do anything about it. Except that I look forward to thinking "I told you so".

Harold

Dixon
June 24th, 2010 8:14pm

So much to enjoy in your considered response.

To address your most serious point first: yes, the lack of three separate encounters with tertiary education has left my typing and my brain no match for yours.

I am sorry that I did not realise that when you said "raze" you did not mean "destroy". Foolish of me. Tertiary education, lack thereof, my only excuse.

Your education leads you perhaps to over-complicate in your defence of your preferred rules of engagement. You are perfectly at liberty to condescend to me (de bas en haut, as it were), but to condescend to one of the greatest of logicians is a bit silly. In any event, you have incorrectly identified the unspoken assumption in what I said: the Nazis approved these rules of engagement, Dixon (aged 49 3/4) approves these rules of engagement, therefore - NOT Dixon is a Nazi - BUT Dixon and the Nazis are ideologically-driven psychopaths.

I am not sure whether my clarification on the standard operating procedures of the US army in its "hearts and minds" offensives in Vietnam has led you to an increased respect for the US army and forced you to look for another explanation of its failure.

As ever, your honesty provides great entertainment.

John Frary

The general should be sacked. Glad he said what he said.

Now we are all a lot clearer about the lack of clarity in the administration's proceedings ("strategy" can't be the right word, "policy" is no better. I'm not really satisfied with "proceedings, but the mot juste escapes eludes me.

steve mann

But who has he replaced him with.
General Petraeus-
Was he not a G.W.Bush man?
Was not he a General that Obama and his followers looked down on?

James

Dixon with your claims that "civilian" and not "civilian" are abstractions, your admiration of the use of concentration camps in the Boer war, your suggestion that the region can be made 'uninhabitable' and the retread idea that people can be told to move out of it as per the 'free fire zones' of the past, the suggestion that after 2 million dead in Vietnam the Americans failed to kill enough "civilians"/"not civilians" to win but were too humane.

Having dispensed with the laws and rules of war and those of humanity have you any morality in mind at all?.

Dixon

Lets just cut through the BS Harold, if you had to choose between being boiled alive and ten strangers being boiled alive instead, which would it be?

Its no challenge to me. The answer, as it would be to most people, is obvious. Are you going to pretend you would make the virtuous self sacrifice of an ecstatic martyr and die in agony rather than ten strangers because its the lesser of two evils?

Another one, would you rather your sister be incinerated in a bombing or ten Afghans? Sacrificing your sister results in a tenth of the net suffering. Most people, overwhelmiongly, have the honesty to declare the Afghans can roast to spare their sister. Only people like you fantasise that you would do otherwise. If indeed you did sacrifice your sister to spare ten Afghan strangers, that really does pose questions about the attribution of psychopathy here.

My views on the expendability of Afghans, Iraqis or any other tribe that poses a hazard are in my experience pretty much the same views that most Britons share, irrespective of their background. Most would rather that the inhabitants of an entire region be annhilated to spare even a risk to the lives of their children. You and your tribe are the odd-balls here and you are the ones who need to look at themselves.

Dixon

"James
June 25th, 2010 10:20am
Dixon with your claims that "civilian" and not "civilian" are abstractions, your admiration of the use of concentration camps in the Boer war, your suggestion that the region can be made 'uninhabitable' and the retread idea that people can be told to move out of it as per the 'free fire zones' of the past, the suggestion that after 2 million dead in Vietnam the Americans failed to kill enough "civilians"/"not civilians" to win but were too humane.

Having dispensed with the laws and rules of war and those of humanity have you any morality in mind at all?."

Short answer: NO.

No affectation of "morality" clouds my thoughts. There is no such thing as "morality" and, unless you have a religious basis for such a notion (do you, I doubt it) to refer to such a thing as though it were posessed of an objective existence in the same way as gravity or chemistry is merely foolish. "Morality" when not rooted in religious belief is, like religion itself, merely an artefact of culture. We think (or I do if you dont) that it is wrong for a fifty year old man to marry a six year old girl...in the "morality" of our enemies (for they are your enemies as well as mine whether you like that or not, they repeatedly declare as much) that is considered positively virtuous for being an emulation of "The Prpophet".

The only arbiter of action is what is to the advantage of oneself, ones family, friends, community and, at its broadest application of the principle, ones national group.

I have stated these views on these blogs repeatedly in the past, either you are new here or have not noticed this.

One small point to add, though, "2 million" dead in Viet Nam. Well, leaving aside the fact that the war between northern and southern parts of that country began three centuries earlier, had resulted at one stage in the entire and comprehensive genocide of the inhabitants of the south by the aggressors from the north
before they became the southerners and themselves subject to further assault, had continued through the occupations of both French and Japanese, your attemot to attribute such a loopy faery-tale figure to American involvement (what, none of that history ever happenned, China and the USSR had their hands clean) simply marks you out as one of those for whom anything and anyone who is anti-American is in your consideration worthy of favouritism.

Most of the Viet Namese people I knew in the immediate aftermath of those events endorsed the American involvement and only regretted their not having done more harm to their northernern "brethren" who they so loathed.

Dixon

One further thought on Harolds last post:
"... but to condescend to one of the greatest of logicians is a bit silly..."

Bertrand Russel, to whom he refers, advocated on several occasions a pre-emptive nuclear strike to obliterate the USSR before it could develop nuclear weapons. How doeas that sit with the pacifist mind-set?

Russel then repeatedly tried to deny having said that, in spite of it being a matter of record both in print and broadcast. How do you square that with being a great logician?

Abstractions on paper and views in life dont necessarily tie up. Which rather well illustrates my broader point I think.

John Holland

While it's obvious to (almost) anyone that taking the gorgeous Dixon seriously is like studying the lyrics of Metallica for philosophical insight, it would nevertheless be relevant if you could just clarify one thing.
Why, if you are such hard, scary, take-no-prisoners Nihilist(who's awfully good at typing),a Nietzschian Uberblogger standing magnificently aloof on his craggy outcrop holding the self-deluded opinions of the decadent cowards below in total contempt, why, then, do you spend quite so much of your life sat behind a computer desperately trying to impress anyone who will listen with your cleverness and erudition and grown-upness? In short, why do you care so much that we are all impressed by the fact that you don't care? I'm sure I don't need to explain the irony of this to a man with as many PHD's in Knowledge as you.
I tried asking you this before ounce, but you didn't give an answer, because you were so busy telling everyone that you didn't care what they thought.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold" the Nazis approved these rules of engagement, Dixon (aged 49 3/4) approves these rules of engagement, therefore - NOT Dixon is a Nazi - BUT Dixon and the Nazis are ideologically-driven psychopaths."

Dear Harold, soemtimes I wonder if you are the master of the excluded middle or just Golem creeping around Middle Earth...

You really should take care with that Logic thingee...

Harold

Dixon,

It is always unalloyed pleasure reading your comments.

I suppose it would spoil it if you could concentrate long enough to remeber what your point was from one contribution to the next. You condescended to Bertrand Russell on account of his logical failings: "By that "logic" because NAZIs (aside from their multitude of sins) also dissaproved of incest if you dissaprove of incest that makes you a NAZI! Cripes, not even Bertrand Russel managed to attain such a feat of sophistry."

In your latest, I particularly enjoyed, "Most of the Viet Namese people I knew in the immediate aftermath of those events endorsed the American involvement". Oh, please keep them coming.

Lizzy

A case of publish and be damned. McChrystal had had it up to here. Someone with some credibility had to say how incompetent Obama and his cronies are.

Dixon

We really do get them here, firstly this John Holland. His tortuous rhetorical question in the interest of obloquy might as easily be posed of him as of me.

On the other hand I do enjoy aggravating people like him. Its not as good as what might be possible "in the flesh" (quite literally) but quite rewarding nonetheless.

Then Harolds:

"...In your latest, I particularly enjoyed, "Most of the Viet Namese people I knew in the immediate aftermath of those events endorsed the American involvement".

Oh, please keep them coming."

So what are you saying Harold, that I wasnt for three years an English as a Second Language tutor to a list of Viet Namese people. Or what? Whats your point.

Its quite apparent that those who do not like my views and variously slate me as a NAZI, a "psychopath", a Metallica fan ( where that comes from I cannot imagine), and risible for simply stating facts that are disagreeable to them (such as the views of refugees from Viet Namese Communism) havent actually any arguments to bulk out their disagreement. Its all name-calling. I dont expect many people to actually agree with those of my statements that are less constrained by conventional thought but in the current "debate" (being as it is a one sided slanging match) I find myself roundly vindicated by the character of those who disagree. There are people who could muster an argument to counter my own (myself one of them) but these characters are clearly not among them. Hence the juvenile name calling.

Harold

Dixon
June 26th, 2010 2:49am
I'm sorry you're feeling persecuted.

I'm sorry you don't notice the arguments and corrections presented to you.

On Vietnam: if you wanted to get an idea of the nation's opinion of bankers' bonuses, and took your sample of opinion in a City wine bar, would you expect people to take your conclusions seriously?

On the Nazis, you are aware, are you not, that the moral stance you love to strike in public, is very similar. The only difference is in the "Volk" whose interests you feel justify any action however vile.

This is not an insult but an attempt to explain the entertainment you provide: it is your encyclopedic ignorance and confidence in your own judgement against all evidence.

As for "schoolboy goth", as I recall it is the nickname someone gave you because you reminded them of an adolescent attempt to impress the playground with nihilism and reading of Nietzsche, possibly also your fetish for weaponry.

Carl

I love the way some people can think that Dixon's comments are reasonable. One punter even described his insane ranting as a strategy - wonderful stuff folks, keep it up!

Adam B.

...says Carl who refuses to condemn the Hamas charter, which calls for the extermination of every Jew on earth.

Cameron

Some of the posters here are as mad as melanie herself, no easy task. Anyone would think there were Afghan troops occupying the West and not vice versa.

How exactly is the west going to 'decommission' Pakistani nukes? In the same manner they've been so successful doing it in North Korea?

Cameron

@GeoffM,

Have you been reading Flashman? Or are you attempting to wrest some crown of absolute nuttiness from Dixon?

Okey

This is not news.
From the very beginning of Obama's election campaign, he signalled his determination to withdraw US resistance to the jihadisisation of Afghanistan.
It is, therefore, totally unsurprising that he allowed US forces resources for only a half-hearted holding action.

Perhaps the USA no longer has sufficient material or emotional resources to resist the global forces that are working for the demise of democracy, liberalism, freedom and modernity.

The white angel is mark not magdalene

I think he fell into Petraeus's trap and Petraeus will appease far more efficiently and professionally than the middle men screwing things up to make way for theri golden boy of the balkans and all that is a feather in Bidens cap and Hilary's. Their eyes are surely on the prize - turn the war on terror into another vietnam and somehow blame George Bush wipe their hands of it and work out how to make more money out of their betrayed nation.

John A. Davison

I believe McChrystol was so disgusted with the restraints that are placed on our military that he deliberately made it impossible for him to continue. I don't see how we can posssibly win in Afghanistan. Iraq was an entirely different sitution with a highly literate nation which had been suffering under a despot. Afganistan is a nightmare with a corrupt government, a heroin economy, an illiterate population and no hope for nation building. We should immediately withdraw from there and regroup for the impending confrontation with Iran. I am sure there are many in the Pentagon that feel the same way. To continue to spill the blood of our youth in a hopeless venture is unacceptable. Didn't we learn anything from the Russian experience? I say let the Caliban and the Pakistanis destroy each other. They both hate our guts just as every Muslim nation does. Afghanistan is much worse than Viet Nam. I think Gates is in bed with Obama. Obama is happy as a clam as we bleed to death in Afghanistan. He didn't lift a finger when the Iranis rose up. Obama loathes democracy whether in Israel or in the USA. As matters get worse in Afghanistan and they will, a military coup may prove to be necessary to unseat Obama. He is now praying for a crisis that will permit him to suspend habeas corpus and declare martial law. That is his only hope for survival.

jadavison.wordpress.com

"Let my enemies devour each other."
Salvador Dali

Rob-NY

I wonder what our British allies who also sacrificed a great deal in the Afghanistan conflict starting with over 60 UK citizens lost on 9/11 in New York, must be thinking about President Obama who they cheered for so much in 2008.

John Holland

Lovely Dixon- I'm sorry you thought my question was tortuous, I didn't think it was so hard. You nevertheless failed to get my point.
The reason the question doesn't apply equally to me is that I'm not a self-styled Nihilist who dismisses the existence of morality, and the relevence of the opinions of others.
If you can't see why, given (the apparent) nature of your beliefs, it's very funny that you spend so much time trying to impress bored office workers with your erudition, then maybe it's time you sent off for another degree.
And please don't try the eternally adolescent "I like winding idiots like you up" routine. Can anyone think of a more dismal way to spend one's short time on Earth?

John Holland

One last thing ( I'm bored and sat next to a computer, I'm sorry)
Dixon, again; I just made the mistake of actually bothering to read one of your posts all the way through, and I was wondering if you could clear something up?
Whilst proudly claiming you have no delusional belief in the existence of morality, you say that you disapprove of the marriage of sixty year old Afghan men to six year old girls, and you question if "James" has the balls to condemn this example of the teaching of the Prpephet, by which it take it you mean Prophet(Yes, we can all be tedious pedants).
Why the wet moralistic hand-wringing? Why should you care what happens to some fly-blown six year old in a distant dust-bowl?
We don't expect much from the world's most coruscating Truth-teller and logician, but some degree of intellectual consistency would be nice.

clem the gem

Mchrystal is not the first General in US history to put the knife into The President - think back to Korea, and "nukem" MacArthur, or further back to the often ineffectual Generals of the Army of The Potomac, whispering and plotting against Lincoln.
To believe everything that a general, any general says is just a little silly, given historical precedent.

Drakken

Dixon my friend you are correct, I will even go a tad further myself, the only thing these savaes understand is the mailed fist, give it to them in spades. Unfortunatley reading a few comments by the people who love to take the moral high ground forget their history, hence are buried in it. Untill you take the gloves off and use disaportionate force we are doomed to lose.

John Holland

Obama "hates democracy".
So you want to depose him with a military coup.
In that searing nugget of political analysis and logical deduction by John A Davison, everything you need to know about the level of rational debate within the American Far-Right is laid out. Thanks.

MairT

Dixon a man with his eyes wide open and the guts to face and state the truth.

Thos003

I am just curious. But I was told that the day Al Gore announced his movie in New York, that it was the coldest day recorded for that date.

Don't mind me I'm just a pest control guy.