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.

Comments:


Southern Pessimist
Joined
May '11
Southern Pessimist

If we can only sit down with the Afghans and share three cups of tea I am sure we can resolve this.

HVTs
Joined
Oct '10
HVTs

Dave Carter

Colin B Lane:   . . . 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.

You express my sentiments perfectly, Colin.  . . .  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.

Much as I may agree with your views---and think it would be both more effective and more humane in the long run---an American President sanctioning large scale reprisal air raids against goat herds isn't a credible threat for a whole host of reasons.  That's a set of rules we won't play by and everyone knows it.

If eliminating the virus in situ is not an option, we'd better start thinking instead about how we can more effectively contain it.


Joined
Feb '12
maureen dirienzo

What an irony if his "good" war factors against him in November. 

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

Dave Carter

Colin B Lane: I have come around to agree with this as well. ... 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.

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. ... 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.

Spot on.  I didn't like the original war because I thought logistics would be a nightmare.

You can't win a war by announcing the end of hostilities in advance -- not unless you are going to annihilate the enemy's ability to make war.  Even then, a timetable is just stupid.

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque

HVTs

Dave Carter

Colin B Lane:   . . . 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.

You express my sentiments perfectly, Colin.  . . .  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.

Much as I may agree with your views---and think it would be both more effective and more humane in the long run---an American President sanctioning large scale reprisal air raids against goat herds isn't a credible threat for a whole host of reasons.  That's a set of rules we won't play by and everyone knows it.

If eliminating the virusin situis not an option, we'd better start thinking instead about how we can more effectively contain it.

It would help if we included the cities (or offices) where the goat-herders get their support in our threats.

HVTs
Joined
Oct '10
HVTs
maureen dirienzo: What an irony if his "good" war factors against him in November. 

Can't see that happening. With the media in the tank for him, he just skates away from all unpleasantness.  If anything, he will play the "I pulled the plug on Bush's lost cause" card.  Which Republican candidate is going to say: "No, by God! Let the pointless killing continue!"?

John Walker
Joined
Oct '10
John Walker

How many cases are there of republics winning wars where the electorate was not strongly aligned with the goal of the conflict?  When the military action against Afghanistan was proposed, it was sold as a reprisal against a regime which harboured terrorists who had struck the U.S., and even Ron Paul voted for it.

I don't recall anybody back in 2001 signing on to turning Afghanistan into a constitutional republic, and when Bush did the full Wilson in his second inaugural in 2005 even Peggy Noonan winced.

    Fill full the mouth of Famine
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    The end for others sought,
    Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
    Bring all your hope to nought.
                          — Kipling, 1899

It was an excusable error to get in.  It is indefensible to stay in.

billy
Joined
Apr '11
billy

John Walker

That stanza came to my mind too.

Edited on February 29, 2012 at 1:47am
Byron Horatio
Joined
Jul '10
Byron Horatio

I've waffled for years about this, especially given the plight of women and the three or four Christians left there.  But Koran-Gate has done it for me.  I'm utterly opposed to this war...the nation-building at least.  The search and destroy was fine, but everything else is a waste.  We should leave, and then bomb the place to kingdom come if the Taliban take over.  We should have declared Afghanistan an American territory, declared the Constitution the law of the land, and enforced secularism at the barrel of a gun.   

One of our greatest generals of all time, Gen. Curtis E Lemay, had a simple doctrine about war.  If you're not willing to use every weapon in your arsenal to utterly annihilate your enemies and break their will, then you should not be in the business of waging war.  We are not, so we should leave.  

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

It is a big crowd, those countries that have failed to subdue Afghanistan.Might as well join it. They would never be able to maintain the swimming pools and golf courses that we had planned for them anyway. Can you imagine the problems in keeping the theater clean enough for the long run of " The Vagina Monologues" that Christiane Amanpour, Laurie David and Lorraine Newman were planning for the Kabul Womyn Festival in 2013 ?
Britain has been involved - check out what happened to the prisoners in the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war.

Edited on February 29, 2012 at 2:00am
Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas
Paul A. Rahe: . Our policy should have been the old British policy: Butcher and bolt. It is beyond our capacity to pacify it. · 2 hours ago

Rubble don't make trouble. 

Thing is, we WON decisively... I mean we basically wiped the Taliban out, and then we started our kindler, gentler nation building, and invited them right back. After that first year, we should have handed the keys to the Northern Alliance, and told 'em "run the place as you like, as long as it doesn't hurt Americans. Have at it".

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

I'm hoping that there's more to this story than is currently reported. I hope that Rush is wrong, and that there are other reasons why the soldiers would be subject to arrest. Because if this is really all there is to the story ... I'd impeach Obama and Hillary this instant.

I've never been a big fan of the Pottery Barn Rule. It's exactly the same rule as The Mouse That Roared. They made that into a movie with Peter Sellers and people laughed. Who knew that it would become the bedrock principle of our foreign policy?

If you attack us, we attack back. That's it. We don't owe you healthcare and schools, which we provide while you're shooting at us

I can support the Petraeus strategy in theory, but theory must give way to experience. It mostly worked in Iraq. It didn't work in Afghanistan. It doesn't work everywhere.

Dave Carter

KC Mulville: I'm hoping that there's more to this story than is currently reported. I hope that Rush is wrong, and that there are other reasons why the soldiers would be subject to arrest. Because if this is really all there is to the story ... I'd impeach Obama and Hillary this instant.

I've never been a big fan of the Pottery Barn Rule. It's exactly the same rule asThe Mouse That Roared. They made that into a movie with Peter Sellers and people laughed. Who knew that it would become the bedrock principle of our foreign policy?

If you attack us, we attack back. That's it. We don't owe you healthcare and schools, which we providewhile you're shooting at us. ...

That's the awful part, KC.  Years ago, we might rebuild our enemy's country,...after we defeated them.    We seemed to have bypassed that under a supposedly more humane approach to warfare that essentially says, "If you dare attack us, you'll get new schools, new electrical grids, and a  new country."  Add a healthy measure of apologies and bowing, and you have what passes for deterrence.  

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

Trust me on this, as I see in to the future. This century sees hundreds of millions of dead Muslim fighters and innocents or the death of the west. If anyone thinks I'm wrong then tell me how the force of Islam is met peaceably. Education of females is the only answer I can think of yet that will not happen. As they say in Afghanistan, a woman for breeding, a boy for pleasure, and a goat for ecstasy. Who can argue with such logic, either go away or kill them with extreme prejudice but for God's sake do something different than the imbecile in power now.

Chris Deleon
Joined
May '10
Chris Deleon

*Sigh*.  I hate to sound hateful, according to the standards of the Left of course, but I wonder really how we can fight fire if not with fire sometimes.

Or at the very least, let us fight with the truth.

Islam is not a religion of peace.  It is a religion of submission, domination and conquest.  It is incompatible with coexistence with other religions.  You may find isolated exceptions, but the great majority of the places where Islam has a significant hold are either full of religious violence or else, the process having culminated, there are no real other minorities left (and thus they have "peace").  The secular governments the West set up in the Middle East helped keep it in check for a time, but those are falling right and left.

Combined with the decline in our own culture, the ascendancy of radical (read: true) Islam will make for a very rough century.

Edited on February 29, 2012 at 4:00am
Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Byron Horatio: ................

One of our greatest generals of all time, Gen. Curtis E Lemay, had a simple doctrine about war.  If you're not willing to use every weapon in your arsenal to utterly annihilate your enemies and break their will, then you should not be in the business of waging war.  We are not, so we should leave.   · 2 hours ago

LeMay wouldn't survive in today's world.  You can't practice annihilation in a world of omnipresent live television.

This stuff is simply harder in the communications era, and those who can't stomach the length of time things take nowadays need to recognize that we have freely chosen our decline.

Byron Horatio
Joined
Jul '10
Byron Horatio

Duane Oyen

Byron Horatio: ................

One of our greatest generals of all time, Gen. Curtis E Lemay, had a simple doctrine about war.  If you're not willing to use every weapon in your arsenal to utterly annihilate your enemies and break their will, then you should not be in the business of waging war.  We are not, so we should leave.   · 2 hours ago

LeMay wouldn't survive in today's world.  You can't practice annihilation in a world of omnipresent live television.

This stuff is simply harder in the communications era, and those who can't stomach the length of time things take nowadays need to recognize that we have freely chosen our decline. · 38 minutes ago

Sad but true.  He was already too uncouth for the 1960s. 

Byron Horatio
Joined
Jul '10
Byron Horatio

 

DocJay: Trust me on this, as I see in to the future. This century sees hundreds of millions of dead Muslim fighters and innocents or the death of the west. If anyone thinks I'm wrong then tell me how the force of Islam is met peaceably. Education of females is the only answer I can think of yet that will not happen. As they say in Afghanistan, a woman for breeding, a boy for pleasure, and a goat for ecstasy. Who can argue with such logic, either go away or kill them with extreme prejudice but for God's sake do something different than the imbecile in power now. · 1 hour ago

I've had similar premonitions.  I will go out on a limb and say the 21st century will be more brutal, more totalitarian, and more murderous than the 20th century.  Africa and Europe will be graveyards of millions by century's end.  God help us when the Caliphate returns. 

Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas

Duane Oyen

LeMay wouldn't survive in today's world.  You can't practice annihilation in a world of omnipresent live television.

The only reason LeMay survived his world was that the press couldn't follow him around in his bombers. They followed Patton around, and destroyed him. I've no doubt that if LeMay got the same press attention Patton did, LeMay would have been drummed out too. The last general that was unapologetic about the need to completely kill your enemies without mercy was Blackjack Pershing.

Chris Deleon
Joined
May '10
Chris Deleon
Byron Horatio: I've had similar premonitions.  I will go out on a limb and say the 21st century will be more brutal, more totalitarian, and more murderous than the 20th century.  Africa and Europe will be graveyards of millions by century's end.  God help us when the Caliphate returns.

It may literally be only God who can help us at that time.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In