Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Rush Limbaugh was worked into a lather on his show earlier today over the news that the Afghan government is saying that NATO officials have agreed to prosecutions for the military personnel responsible for the recent Koran-burning controversy. El Rushbo responds:
Two quick thoughts on this:
(1) In the past few years, there's been a lot of pent-up anxiety on the right over whether the war in Afghanistan is still worth the candle. Having Rush voice even qualified misgivings about our mission there is going to give a lot of conservatives the courage to head for the exits.
(2) Best I can tell, Rush's position is "we've bollixed this up so bad, there's not much point in staying anyway." Even if you think the conduct of the war over the past few years has been exemplary, however, the case for staying has only gotten weaker with time. At its origin, the Afghan War was the most just of just wars -- fought to avenge a direct attack on the homeland, to kill and capture those who perpetrated it, and to overthrow the regime that sheltered the perpetrators. With those goals long since accomplished, the legitimate national security concerns have now taken a backseat to nation building in a place that's not really a nation and stubbornly refuses to be built. It's not my first time saying it and it likely won't be my last ... but Rush is probably right.
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
I agree. At some point you have to get out of the cat-herding business. We tried. Still no end in sight. Time to leave.
Aug '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
I agree with Rush on this - it's time to leave the country to the Taliban, the poppy farmers and the buggers. I hate to abandon the women and children to such men but there's no way we are going to change the culture there.
Also, if we can't even trust the people with whom our advisors are working, how are we going to help them? Time to bring our people home.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 12:06amRe: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
For the record, I was doubtful about the wisdom of going into Afghanistan back in 2001 and expressed my doubts on NRO Online. In retrospect, I think that I was wrong, but not entirely wrong. Our policy should have been the old British policy: Butcher and bolt. It is beyond our capacity to pacify it.
May '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
There is, however, a legitimate and important issue, and a swivel is called for. First, here is a NYT summary of the situation.
Second, Walter Russell Mead explains how it got totally screwed up- essentially, Obama's re-election plans to withdraw and split the difference by surging with a deadline, the single most asinine policy idea ever sold by an unprincipled politician. This is a critical issue vis-a-vis Iran, and here is the infuriating story on our failure to take the Iran opportunity so Obama could do his "reset".
But, third, as Kim Kagan's ISW expert pointed out in Foreign Affairs, we can decide to leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, but we should engage in a full strategic campaign to put the Haqqani Network out of business due to its rise as virtually the new al Qaeda; they have gangster financing and rackets, dedicated to jihad, extending to the situation with Pakistan and India. We should spend as much time and effort trying to kill the three top people (father and two sons) as we did going after bin Laden. This isn't just about Afghanistan.
A very real question: will the world survive Obama?
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 12:12amJun '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
I have come around to agree with this as well. However, to honor those who fought and died there, and even further back, to honor the memory of those who died on 9-11, I think we need to make it crystal clear to the esteemed Mr. Karzai that any future 9-11 type planning we discover to be taking place in his country will be met with extreme force, and we will not even try to discriminate between good Afghans and bad Afghans when the bombs start raining down.
Dec '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
The West in its present state does not have the stomach for the wholesale slaughter that will follow our withdrawal from Afghanistan -- much of it perpetrated out of necessity by us.
The resurgent Taliban government in Afghanistan - because no one else is strong enough to take over - will engage in reprisals and repression that make Syria today look like the proverbial church picnic. They will commit widespread atrocities against women in Afghanistan who've had the audacity to strive for education and a better, freer, more modern life. And to the extent that they agree to harbor terrorist groups again, we'll be bombing Afghanistan a lot.
Add to that the chaos in Pakistan that will ensue, with the Pakistani Taliban in outright civil war against the civilian government there and with the ISI emboldened to embark on new schemes to destabilize the region with terror to create windows of opportunity for Pakistan, and there will be ample need to kill a lot of people in Pakistan.
If we aren't willing to engage in our fair share of that killing, we're going to be exposed to a resurgent al-Qaeda or its successor.
Jun '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Duane Oyen:
A very real question: will the world survive Obama? · 3 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
This is such a perceptive and serious question!
Dec '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
A variant on Napier's gallows:
"You say it is your custom to engage in jihadist terror against the West. Very well. We too have a custom: it is to annihilate jihadists and anyone who harbors, finances, arms or encourages them. You may follow your custom, and then we will follow ours."
Oct '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Stuart Creque:
Add to that the chaos in Pakistan that will ensue, with the Pakistani Taliban in outright civil war against the civilian government there and with the ISI emboldened to embark on new schemes to destabilize the region with terror to create windows of opportunity for Pakistan, and there will be ample need to kill a lot of people in Pakistan.
Exactly. Isn't that the reason why we need to have troops there? Add to your comment that Pakistan is a nuclear power which increases the stakes. It seems to me that Pakistan is what's tying us down there, or at least making the issue as complicated as it is.
Apr '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
We really bit off more than we could chew with regards to Afghanistan. The idea that we were going turn this isolated, backwater, tribal-ridden society into something like Vermont with more exotic costume was and is a bit much.
The irony is that this was, for the left, the "good" war.
Oct '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Some of us arrived at this unhappy point a while ago.
Prof. Rahe has it right (as usual): "Our policy should have been the old British policy: Butcher and bolt."
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 12:28amDec '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
bereket kelile
Stuart Creque:
Add to that the chaos in Pakistan that will ensue, with the Pakistani Taliban in outright civil war against the civilian government there and with the ISI emboldened to embark on new schemes to destabilize the region with terror to create windows of opportunity for Pakistan, and there will be ample need to kill a lot of people in Pakistan.
Exactly. Isn't that the reason why we need to have troops there? Add to your comment that Pakistan is a nuclear power which increases the stakes. It seems to me that Pakistan is what's tying us down there, or at least making the issue as complicated as it is.
Pakistan, even with its nukes, would hardly be enough to tie us down there by itself: it faces another nuclear threat, India.
But what really adds the layer of complication that you're driving at is the involvement of China. China has said that it would view an attack on Pakistan as an attack on itself. Thus we are badly constrained on what we can do from a distance to keep Pakistan in check, and that is a real reason to keep Afghanistan garrisoned.
Dec '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Colin B Lane
Duane Oyen:
A very real question: will the world survive Obama? · 3 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
This is such a perceptive and serious question! · 11 minutes ago
Imagine what a True Believer in International Socialism (aka Communism) must have thought at the collapse of the Soviet Union. The engine for the spread of Communism around the world was gone! How, then, to keep the dream of one world under Marxism-Leninism alive?
One approach such a person might consider is to foment a war between the ascendant but decadent West and the fervent Muslim world. Start those two fighting each other, let them weaken each other to the brink of destruction, and then step in at the end of the war to vanquish the staggering victor and offer the suffering people of the world peace and bread under the Communist banner.
It helps that scenario along if the President of the USA isn't much interested in keeping capitalism and democracy the pre-eminent political-economic system in the world.
Feb '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Get out of Afghanistan and drill in North America for oil and gas. Drill here like crazy.
And will Obama do either of those things? I fear not.
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
You express my sentiments perfectly, Colin. I would add that from the time Obama announced a date of withdrawal, he ceded the war. The apologies, the ostensible plan to prosecute troops for destroying enemy message traffic, this is madness. Rush says, "The hell with the place," ...but to consign Afghanistan to Hell is at the very least a redundancy. Better to tell these maniacs that if mischief against us is ever again launched from that place, next time it won't just be books that will burn.
Apr '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
A great read on Afghanistan, Robert Kaplan's Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Amazon link
Kaplan provides some great on the ground reporting from the brutal end of the Soviet occupation to the rise of the Taliban. Written prior to 9/11 and revised afterward, Kaplan really underscores the folly of trying to fundamentally transform Afghan society.
Oct '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Stuart Creque: The West in its present state does not have the stomach for the wholesale slaughter that will follow our withdrawal from Afghanistan -- much of it perpetrated out of necessity by us.
Add to that the chaos in Pakistan that will ensue . . . and there will be ample need to kill a lot of people in Pakistan.
If we aren't willing to engage in our fair share of that killing, we're going to be exposed to a resurgent al-Qaeda or its successor.
We don't have the stomach for the killing in Afghanistan (we're instead taking a counterinsurgency approach) so why would anyone believe we've the stomach for extending the fighting around the neighborhood as you describe?
Call it a win, call it a loss, call it a draw ... doesn't matter. Whatever comes next, this game it over. It's unconscionable to lose more American lives in this lost cause.
Oct '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Stuart Creque: Pakistan, even with its nukes, would hardly be enough to tie us down there by itself: it faces another nuclear threat, India.
But what really adds the layer of complication that you're driving at is the involvement of China. China has said that it would view an attack on Pakistan as an attack on itself. Thus we are badly constrained on what we can do from a distance to keep Pakistan in check, and that is a real reason to keep Afghanistan garrisoned. · 20 minutes ago
True. But for awhile there it looked like Pakistan's gov't was about to lose control to the Taliban, and control of the nukes would become a big problem, for the world that is. I'm not sure if that risk is still very great right now but that's what's on my mind.
Dec '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
HVTs
We don't have the stomach for the killinginAfghanistan (we're instead taking a counterinsurgency approach) so why would anyone believe we've the stomach for extending the fighting around the neighborhood as you describe?
Call it a win, call it a loss, call it a draw ... doesn't matter. Whatever comes next, this game it over. It's unconscionable to lose more American lives in this lost cause.
We may not have the stomach for "extending the fighting" (that is, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations on the scale required to keep the threat under control). But that's my point: if we don't have the stomach for it and thus don't do it, the threat WON'T stay under control, and the next attack will be to 9/11 as 9/11 was to the first World Trade Center bombing.
I am coming to the conclusion that Colin Powell's "you break it, you bought it" was dumb. It should be more, "you provoke us, we'll break it and you can see how you like putting it back together." But given the situation in Pakistan, it's no longer that simple.
Dec '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
bereket kelile
Stuart Creque: Pakistan, even with its nukes, would hardly be enough to tie us down there by itself: it faces another nuclear threat, India.
But what really adds the layer of complication that you're driving at is the involvement of China. China has said that it would view an attack on Pakistan as an attack on itself. Thus we are badly constrained on what we can do from a distance to keep Pakistan in check, and that is a real reason to keep Afghanistan garrisoned. · 20 minutes ago
True. But for awhile there it looked like Pakistan's gov't was about to lose control to the Taliban, and control of the nukes would become a big problem, for the world that is. I'm not sure if that risk is still very great right now but that's what's on my mind.
I'd say the risk of Pakistan falling to the Taliban is as high as it's ever been. It's not clear if the Pakistani military can manage a coup to prevent it, but the Supreme Court there is doing its best to undermine the civilian government. The situation is dire.