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:
May '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
How come the Islamists get away with it? How come they still get defended even when their carnage is on full display on the nightly news?
I think the problem is not just with media exposure, but with the viewers.
Jan '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Agreed.
The Marshall Plan made sense, especially to the Germans and Japanese, because they knew that we were rebuilding in our own self-interest, and in theirs. I mean, they were under no illusions. They knew we were offering a deal that benefited both of us.
We weren't apologizing for having demolished Germany. Same for Japan. It was a business deal about the future, really, not an apology for past attacks. We offered it on that basis, and they accepted.
With Islam, we seem to rebuild their countries because .... why? ... we feel so bad about it? They don't believe that as a motive, probably because they couldn't believe we would be that naive and stupid. The sad part is that we often are.
Jul '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Lemay's grandson is a professional locally and a friend. Apparently not the most loving of men but that's a different issue. A fishing buddy was in the pacific in 45 as a b29 gunner. Lemay said there was a volunteer mission but the he was going in the lead $;&@ plane. Everyone volunteered. That's a leader who ought to be remembered for being a stud. He got the job done.
May '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
1. The books shouldn't have been burned. Not out of respect Muslims, but because the material should've been shipped back to the states. Intel analysts would've loved to to get their hands on it. So, somebody in the chain of command screwed up and didn't follow the protocol. That's bad. They over-apologized, yes, but at least some apology was warranted.
2. We'll leave, but we won't really leave. We'll have some covert presence over there. If anything, the war isn't really ending, just changing to something like a Cold War situation. Our military service members have done an exemplary job, not let's turn it over to the spies to wreak havoc.
3. If we were to wrap up the war at least in the public's mind, denying Obama a second term would be a good bookend. I don't believe the Obama Presidency would've been even thinkable without 9/11. His election was a collective national apology of sorts. Sorry for our foreign policy, sorry we exploited minorities, sorry for capitalism, etc. Not until the Obama era has passed, can we move on.
Jul '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
President Obama has truly screwed the pooch on this one. In instance after instance, culminating with an announced withdrawal for re-election purposes followed by an insane apology, he has created a situation similar to stopping in the middle of the prescribed dosage of antibiotics: the result is the creation of a strain of bacteria more virulent than that which caused the original infection.
But Dr. Rahe is correct: “Our policy should have been the old British policy: Butcher and bolt. It is beyond our capacity to pacify it.” Unfortunately, the Bush Administration didn’t see it that way and tried to do some good there. Once Prez O arrived on the scene, tho, there was no cogent strategy, merely politics favorable to the Administration.
And Colin B Lane (comment # 5) is also correct: "...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" -- and for the reasons he states. But expect nothing of the sort from this crowd. We must vote in an administration with spine in November.
Oct '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Except 'the nation' doesn't feel the need to apologize. That's the obsession of a small but influential minority. What made Obama 'thinkable' was an unprincipled Republican twit for a predecessor and the need of cultural elites to feel good about themselves by taking Affirmative Action to its logical conclusion: not a color blind society but a highly color-conscious society. Oh yeah, the even less principled Republican twit McCain didn't help much either.
One problem with all the apologizing is it doesn't actually result in 'moving on' but instead in wallowing. The Obama era won't pass unless it's repudiated, much like the Carter 'malaise' was repudiated by Reagan. Leadership matters. Would that we could find a leader.
Dec '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
This should be our default policy for most military engagements.
Mar '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
From the beginning I was inclined to take the word of the military men over the politicians--Republicans included--regarding any parts of the war on terror. They're the ones who have to look their subordinates and soldiers in the eye and send them off to their possible death. So, I think they're more likely to tell the truth as to what was happening the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But, if military leaders are going to come out and grovel (and that's what it was) regarding this Koran burning, then I have to think the entire operation is kaput. Yes, I'm sure some Obama official made them do it but I think our military leaders have to have a little more courage than that since these prostrations will only serve to get more soldiers killed.
In retrospect, I think we went into Afghanistan, and Iraq, with too light a hand. Too much precision. Too much accuracy. Too much caring. Had we treated Afghanistan like Dresden I'm not sure we'd be in this spot now with officers being shot in the back of the head by s0-called friends.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 4:09pmMay '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Yeah, CINC will send SECSTATE to wag her finger at him...that'll certainly convince 'em.
Mar '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Chris Deleon
How come the Islamists get away with it? How come they still get defended even when their carnage is on full display on the nightly news?
I think the problem is not just with media exposure, but with the viewers. · 14 hours ago
Those who control the media can shape the viewers. Which is why it is so vitally important to have your own institutions and not trust the other side to do the right thing.
May '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
"Butcher and bolt." I'm so glad that's coming from an armchair general and not a real one.
Mar '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
KC Mulville
The Marshall Plan made sense... because they knew that we were rebuilding in our own self-interest
The Marshall Plan worked because we completely conquered them, broke their will, destroyed their civilization, and rebuilt it from the ground up in our own image. We did what the Romans used to do: conquer and assimilate. We destroyed the old Prussian culture, and impressed our own upon it. We killed their men, women, and children without remorse (and if you dispute that, I have one word for you: Dresden). This was not an unfortunate error. We planned it this way. It was our strategy to kill as many civilians in residential areas as possible to break their spirits. We trained for it:
"For the sake of improving the US air-force Fire bombing capabilities a mock-up German Village was built up and repeatedly burned down. It contained full scale replicas of German residential homes. Fire bombing attacks proved quite successful, in a single 1943 attack on Hamburg roughly 50,000 civilians were killed and practically the entire city destroyed."
We no longer have the stomach to do these things. And that's why we'll fail in Afghanistan.
Mar '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
The object of war is to kill your enemies. What do you think we're doing over there?
Aug '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Karen,
" War " is not as metrically fungible as " art " , choosing a poor example. Douglas reminds us of one of the starker truths in life/death.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 2:01amOct '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Douglas
The object of war is to kill your enemies. What do you think we're doing over there?
Actually, the object is to break your enemy’s will to fight—to make him combat ineffective without the added risks, losses and expenses of actually killing him.
Generally, his will to fight can be extinguished without killing lots of his non-combatants. The reason for annihilation bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the fanatical devotion of Nazi Germans and Imperial Japanese. Neither nation would quit fighting no matter how objectively hopeless its condition. In military terms, this extraordinary will to fight was a “center of gravity” (COG). A COG typically must be eliminated or greatly diminished before victory is achieved.
“Butcher and bolt” is shorthand for the historically more common experience of Imperial Britain: overwhelming, ruthless force used to intimidate a hostile population for decades. This meant Britain could simply extend colonial administration and control—nation “grafting” not "building" if you will—a cheaper, more effective, albeit less culturally sensitive option.
Mar '11
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Douglas
We destroyed the old Prussian culture, and impressed our own upon it.
Hitler did a pretty good job of that after the July 20th bombing. The remainder of the Junker class was tainted by craven obedience to the Nazi elite. Besides, the Junker homeland was in East Germany, and their aristocratic and monarchical leanings left them with no piece of the Worker's Paradise pie.
May '10
Re: Rush on Afghanistan: "The Hell with the Place"
Byron Horatio:
....................
. God help us when the Caliphate returns. · Feb 28 at 7:41pm
I'm not worried that the Caliphate will return- I'm more concerned about the innocents who are destroyed while the jihadists have their brief moment in the sun. Those kinds of movements can't win enough or last long, but they can do a lot of damage before they flame out.