Afghanistan on the Brink: Is the One-Man ‘Kill Team’ the Last Straw?

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary) | March 11th, 2012 at 10:32 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

Early Sunday morning, a U.S. Army soldier reportedly left an coalition outpost in the Panjwai district of Afghanistan’s Kandahar province, walked a mile, broke into three houses, shot sixteen civilians to death, and burned several of the corpses. The soldier, a staff sergeant from Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, was deployed in support of Special Forces who were engaged in “village stability operations” on Panjwai. He reportedly returned to base after the shootings and turned himself in.

This was an inexcusable act, and the fact that the suspect, who is currently in custody, has a wife and two children at home makes his decision to throw his own life away by taking the lives of others simply inexplicable. With everybody from the president down involved in this issue, there can be no doubt that the investigation will be quick and complete, and that the perpetrator will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the UCMJ.

The reason the entire chain of command is involved, of course – all the way up to the Commander in Chief – is that this is much bigger than one man. The meandering effort in Afghanistan, which has been devoid of any clear goal for some time now (other than making it to 2014), has taken repeated PR hits in recent months and years, from the “Kill Team” to the incredibly overblown Qu’ran burnings in Florida (intentional) and on an ISAF post in Afghanistan (unintentional). Over ten years into the effort, U.S.-Afghan relations may be at their worst point since 9/11, and, to repeat, there appears to be no specific goal or end state in the minds of policymakers and military leaders other than a handoff to Afghan security forces in 2014 or earlier and a quick exit after that.

Given the toll that long years of repeated deployments to combat zones in which the enemy hides among (or is a part of) the general population, it is perhaps surprising that something like this hasn’t happened before. Further, the killing of coalition service members by members of the Afghan National Army and Police (or, in some cases, impostors wearing ANSF uniforms), and the shooting of two American officers inside the MoI, only adds to the stress felt by those who rightly see enemies or potential enemies all around them. The fact that no rogue individual has gone on a civilian-targeting shooting spree in the last ten years is a credit to the mental toughness of coalition service members, and to the oversight and structure provided by their leaders. The fact that those who have carried out heinous acts while deployed to Afghanistan have been prosecuted (the Kill Team, for example) also reflects positively on the structure and accountability of the commands in those countries, as well as the military justice system as a whole.

However, when added to what the New York Times refers to as “a cascade of missteps and offenses” by the coalition in Afghanistan, this atrocity takes on greater import. Whether or not riots break out in response to this event as they did in the wake of the Qu’ran burnings, there are bound to be repercussions on the Afghan street and in the myriad villages that ISAF forces, like the Special Forces unit that this shooter was deployed to support, are working day in and day out to stabilize, pacify, and convert. The job of every individual and unit conducting “stabilization operations” just became far more difficult, and the trust level between Afghan civilians and anybody wearing a coalition uniform just sank far lower than it had been previously.

The effective but controversial tactic of night raids was already a very touchy subject both among the Afghan population and in negotiations between the U.S. and Afghanistan over the post-2014 coalition presence. This one-man ‘night raid’ that left sixteen civilians dead not only adds to that issue, but also takes away significantly from Afghans’ ability to trust coalition troops with their lives and their security. Absent any clear larger goals in Afghanistan, it has to be fair game to ask what ISAF’s purpose in that country is if its ability to secure and protect the general population has been irrevocably compromised.

There is much that remains to be seen, both in this case and in Afghanistan as a whole. However, it’s as important now as it has been over the last ten years, since al Qaeda was disrupted and the Taliban government driven from power, to ask what our current goal is in that country, as well as how we measure its successful achievement — and, when we have a bit more time, it will also be worthwhile to consider how we found ourselves at this point in Afghanistan, over a decade after invading with what seemed to be a very clear short-term purpose in mind.

Tags: Afghanistan, War

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

hungarianfalcon

Click your heels together and tell yourself “this is the smart war.” See, it’s all better, right?

HF

newsscooper

We can only hope that Obama doesn’t use this random single-soldier purported killing of Afghan civiliants as an excuse to turn over
American soldiers to Islamic courts to try and execute them for burning Korans.

Article: http://www.specialguests.com/guests/viewnews.cgi?id=EFFEuFyVFECiyHGLlh&tmpl=default

whatsso4me

Somebody (me) had to show the Afghan killers who’s boss. Even if Obama says its ok, you can’t go around killing us soldiers because of burned Qurans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

A guy comes on the blog, makes a few snarky comments every couple of years and then figures that defending that feckless PoS we’re forced to call POTUS will be okay with those of us that have actually bothered to put on a uniform to serve in the capacity of national bullet-proof vest. Wrong, jerk!

Now to address a person who’s been there and done that. It bothers me greatly Jeff that you’ve written this piece, with this tone. There’s really little point in having a trial, the accused has already been convicted, now just the pesky little problem of carrying out the sentence.

How about this? This guy has been fighting for his life and the lives of his soldiers for over a solid week because King Sissypants in the White House couldn’t bring himself to tell Karzai that the lives of American troops are more important than the burning of the book of the Religion of Peace (RoP).

Obutthead should have said, I’m sorry, but your people desecrated those books and if one American is killed because of this, I’m sending 50,000 extra troops to kill every person who picked up as much as a pebble to hurt our troops. We’ll pull out on time, but the only thing that will inhabit your current space is a giant herd of goats.

The dipturd in the Oval Office has made it practically impossible for our Servicemembers to protect themselves with ridiculous RoE’s, but instead of acknowledging that first, we’re going to convict someone who has not even been arraigned in a military court of violating the law.
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Now.

funwithknives

The Russians ,British and who know how many others learn to their everlasting horror: ” Not This Place,and Not These People!!! ”

No matter what we do, they will always be there,{it is their house…} with the Qur’an and their narrow view of everything Non-Islamic.There is nothing you or I can do about it,except urge our leaving. On the double.

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Please do not include me in the ranks of people calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan, thanks.

funwithknives

Totally misinterpreted your meaning,broke in, and put my opine where it did not belong. Will be more careful from here, on out.

Some would say inexcusable, and they would have a point.
Nevertheless, I ask for one.

sjwrick

Just attended a conference where a speaker decried the diminishing influence and freedom Chaplains have (are allowed) in our “modern” military. When this sad story came out it struck me as another symptom of the removal of God and spirituality from our sons and daughters at war.
Tbone

for not being willing to win it.

It is time to leave Afghanistan as the CiC has no intention of winning or any form of winning. As such, we are wasting lives and money.

The only sane way to deal with these people is to tell them that if they do or allow anything to harm our nation, we will kill all of them and then do it. These countries are like cancer tumors on Western Civilization.

bobvious

What does winning the Afghan war look like, and how do we get there?

As for “we will kill all of them” you are obviously upset, and don’t really mean that.

Tbone

seemed to have a very beneficial affect on the survivors. I have absolutely no qualms about using nuclear weapons rather than the limbs and lives of our soldiers th make people behave.

aesthete

and frankly, the people getting in the way of us using nukes in Afghanistan aren’t “Democrats” or “liberals” — they’re friggin’ everybody.

Given how little was at stake in Afghanistan past Operation Anaconda, how the presumptive casus belli for Iraq was nuclear proliferation, and how bad it would be for us if nuclear weaponry were used with little to no compunction and hostile regimes decided to find deterrents and responses to that kind of death from above, you can go ahead and include me in “everybody”. Given how everyone on RedState seems to think that I’m a bloodthirsty monster whenever I opine on how we should wage war on savages and why, I’d say that puts your suggestion on foreign policy slightly to the left of “rape the women and enslave the children”, and about as likely to be adopted by the US.

BTW, just for funsies, I’d like to know *where* in Afghanistan you’d have used a nuclear device, and why: Kabul is one of the few (somewhat) densely populated regions in that particular hellhole, and has been pretty firmly under our thumb for this whole conflict. As a rule, the parts of Afghanistan that have given us trouble have been the less densely populated areas. Hell, pick anywhere in the Middle East: it’s cruel of me, but I do so enjoy watching people making fools of themselves on the internet.

Tbone

As usual, you make so much of your own noise, you miss the point. Kabul would have never been “under our thumb”. From day one, Kabul would have been a memory, no troops required.
texastaxpayer

would have been a good example to the rest of them. Unfortunately it was a missed opportunity to demonstrate just how freaking serious we are. I would much rather have turned Afghanistan into the worlds largest glass sculptor than trade the life and limbs of our children in a “civilized response”.
lapert

Looks like you found the one strategy that would have assured us of a Kerry presidency.
texastaxpayer

Afghanistan into an ash tray on September 12th 2001. Americans would have flooded the streets in protest. Get a clue….
lapert

As Aesthete says above – if you are picking a path that even he finds too far you it is a pretty solid bet that it would have been the one thing he could do to turn that moment south for him.
texastaxpayer

Did that post make sense to you?
lapert

To think that a nuclear attack would be a bridge to far – just a human being.
texastaxpayer

Yeah that doesn’t sound liberal at all. “Let’s kill and cripple thousands of American children rather than upset the rest of the world.” Very human, guess you spend veterans day at hospitals explaining to crippled and blind marines why its better that they suffer versus our enemies…. Oh wait, you probably wouldn’t be caught dead around our wounded warriors and probably need to Google “veterans day” to make sense of what I am saying.. Guess you believe Truman was worse than Hitler too huh…
lapert

Of course, only liberals try to minimize mass death of innocent people. It has nothing to do with upsetting the rest of the world, it has to do with remaining true to our own morality. There are appropriate times for that type of attack – Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than it took (and thinking it is anyway comparable to what the Nazis were doing is just asinine, so perfect as a ‘debating’ technique for you) – this would not have been one of them. But sure, if proving you are no different than the terrorists in your blood lust makes you feel like a man good for you. The rest of us will make the hard trade offs that being a civilized society requires.

And as for my relation to the troops and veterans – you know nothing of what I do so your as
texastaxpayer

As to the rest of that ramble…. Well…. Not worth the digital ink…
aesthete

There is a spectrum between a nuclear attack on Kabul, and unproductive attempts at nation-building in perpetuity, that would be accepted by the American people — punitive expedition, drones, a shift towards the use of spec ops, and the like. Keep in mind that our attacks which drove the Taliban out of power and which essentially eliminated them and al-Qaeda from decision-making power in government, was accomplished with American casualties in the low double digits (20-30, IIRC).

If the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc weren’t convinced by that display of force, what makes you think that a nuclear attack on a civilian target would convince them? I hope I don’t need to tell you that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s concern for the civilian populations that they ostensibly represent is essentially nil; in the meantime, plenty of civilians who had nothing to do with those attacks, and who largely knew nothing about the US or 9/11, die a fiery death and eliminate any notion of civilians working with us, of any centralized HQ for our operations. Indeed, Al-Qaeda’s mission has been to mobilize the Middle East to unite under radical Islamists and against “the West”; seems to me like a nuclear attack on a target that we could control or seize with little cost to ourselves would be pretty d*mn good propaganda for them. In the meantime, you encourage every state and its cousin to acquire nuclear weaponry, since there’s no telling who the US might attack next in their righteous fury. I kind of like not having third-world nations flush with nuclear weaponry, myself. There is no practical benefit to using nuclear devices to level cities in the Middle East, and certainly no moral high ground to be achieved.

Chuck DeVore and several other prominent conservatives have been calling for a move towards spec ops and away from nation-building since 2005. I think that’s wise, though I would favor a complete withdrawal from the region, to be followed up by the threat of punitive expedition and/or regime change in the event of another government which actively works with AQ and has the same relationship with them as the Taliban did prior to hostilities.
texastaxpayer

then your right. Afghanistan to Pakistan to Iran to Syria to Egypt ect. ect. ect. We can use special ops, drones and the like until the treasury is empty and we have entire generation lost to endless war(s). Which conciedently is their stated plan or we can make an example out of the next group of fanatics and their hosts. The misses have been paid for since the eighties. Just sayin…..
aesthete

and will be until the end of time. What, do you think that all our problems, enemies, and hostile non-state actors go away if we nuke a low-density city in Central Asia on a whim?

The Mongols raped, pillaged, and razed their way through the Muslim world, from Central Asia to the Levant. They destroyed the Islamic Caliphate and the then-capital of the Islamic world (Baghdad), depopulated much of Islamic Central Asia (at the time a large and prosperous civilization under the Kwarezmians), shattered the military resolve and slaughtered the populations of the Middle East. Upon conquest, they instituted pluralistic regimes ruled and staffed by either themselves, or the native minority Jewish or Christian populations. Yet within far less than 100 years, the entirety of the Middle East and the vast majority of Central Asia was under Dar-El Islam, the Caliphate was reconstituted, and Islam was re-established as the state religion by the successor states of the Mongol empire.

If you think we can be more brutal than the Mongols, or that the political opportunities and will for such exist, then you’re being foolish. Of *course* we aren’t going to be able to do much more than play whack-a-mole from a military standpoint — this is true regardless of whether or not we use nukes or not. In the meantime, I’d rather do something practical, somewhat more humane, and with the possibility of limited success when it comes to certain countries or objectives — it’s much easier to rinse, lather, and repeat when it comes to punitive expedition by way of drone, special forces, bombs, or the occasional regime change sans nation building, than it would be to nuke the same country more than once (heck, it’d be darned near impossible to accomplish that feat even once). The long game should be successful propaganda efforts to wean the region from the ideologies and religious beliefs that caused the mess in the first place.
texastaxpayer

I stopped reading after that. I remember 911.. I remember watching people dive to their deaths rather than burn alive. If avenging that constitutes a “whim” to you…. We have nothing further to discuss….
aesthete

I consider the murder of civilians in the Middle East and leveling of cities based on a loose sectarian allegiance that they themselves are probably not aware of to be arbitrary and capricious — and that’s what a nuclear attack on Kabul or any other city in the wake of 9/11 would have been.
texastaxpayer

” loose sectarian allegiance that they themselves are probably not aware of” that is pure stupidity. You either know they self identity as “Muslims” and your misrepresenting the fact purposely or your an outright fool. Either would make since at this point.

Would you have dropped the bombs on Japan?
Would you have bombed the “civilian” populations of Germany?
aesthete

which includes anyone from truly noble people like Ahmad Shah Massoud, to low crap like OBL. Mostly, it includes a whole bunch of people who were “raised that way” and believe a whole bunch of stupid and/or repellent stuff that they will never act on — both because they don’t have the opportunity, and because their core religious convictions are not strong enough to override their own personal “squick” factor. While you and I both find these views and their implications to be problematic, I think it’s an institutional problem, not one of blame — and certainly, not one which allows us to treat Muslims with no history of violence (i.e., civilians) as sub-human.

To use the example before us, I think that, despite advocating for a simply appalling policy vis a vis nuking a civilian target with little provocation or justification, you would think long and hard if you were actually in a position of authority, able to execute the policy that you suggest. Do I know what you would do? No, but there’s enough doubt, and little enough harm from holding this view, that I would find it appalling if a Muslim reading this post tracked you down and murdered you based on your holding these views, to “protect” his people or some such. I know for a fact that I’ve believed (and surely, continue to believe) repellent or stupid things that could harm or kill people, if put into effect. That applies to everyone I’ve ever met — so if we’re going to nuke Afghanistan due to either a sectarian affiliation or thoughtcrime, you’re going to need to nuke a lot more places than Afghanistan to stay consistent.

IMO, the following should be the attitude when it comes to war and casualties.

Military targets: destroy with extreme prejudice, mourn the civilian casualties.

Civilian target: unless there’s a very good reason (and sometimes there are), try to avoid. Don’t celebrate under any circumstances.
texastaxpayer

Would you have dropped the bombs on Japan? Would you have bombed the ?civilian? populations of Germany?

You know exactly why I am asking these questions and the specific relevance to our conversation. So?
aesthete

but I’ll restate:

1) No practical case made for it

2) Not a densely populated, industrial target

3) Alternatives are cheaper, safer, and more humane

4) Bombing of civilian targets is meant to erode confidence in opposing government holding territory; no such considerations apply w/non-state actor

5) Our goals vis a vis Japan and Germany were well defined and attainable

6) We were in a world with only one nuclear state

7) We were at the conclusion of a bloody war, and the only alternative for achieving our objectives was costly (in terms of lives) amphibious invasion

8) Non-proliferation was not one of our goals at the time

There are probably more that don’t come immediately to mind.

However… I will answer the questions anyways.

I think that we should have detonated Little Boy off the shore of Japan to show that we had the capability, and then used Fat Man after warning the civilian population, and giving both the civilian population and the military government time to respond to our diplomatic entreaties. I understand why Truman/FDR did what they did in this instance (certainly, more so that out-and-out abuses like the Japanese Internment); I don’t agree with it. I certainly don’t glorify it (not saying that you do) or hold it out as the ideal in military treatment of civilian population.

Regarding bombing of German civilian targets, that’s a broad range. I think some of it was justified, but more so for industrial targets early on in the war than against civilian, non-manufacturing targets later in the war.
texastaxpayer

YES, YOU DO SUPPORT THE DECIMATION OF A CIVILAN POPULATION TO MEET THE GOALS OF OUR WAR EFFORT.

Good to know..
aesthete

“Wartime rape is an unfortunate byproduct of throwing young men into emotionally charged contexts, authority, where they are encouraged to see belligerents as a monotone, and where repercussions and discovery of the act are difficult. We should attempt to minimize the incidence of wartime rape, while acknowledging that it does indeed occur, and will always occur, human nature being what it is.”

YOU SUPPORT RAPING INNOCENT BROWN PEOPLE FOR UNCLE SAM AND JESUS

“The penitentiary system is a terrible place, and inmate-on-inmate, or guard-on-inmate, extrajudicial violence is an oft-forgotten and neglected factor. Certainly, no innocent man should be punished. That said, in a human system, there will be error and thus the very premise of human-administrated justice invites the possibility of these happenings. We should reduce these to make said system of justice as truly just and frictionless as possible.”

YOU SUPPORT PRISON RAPING INNOCENT BLACK PEOPLE FOR THE 1%

No one would construe the all-caps summaries above to be accurate or ones made in good faith. Likewise, your summary of my argument is not one that is in good faith. I’ve done you the favor of trying not to misconstrue your position: I’d appreciate the same from you. If you’re trying to win an argument on its merits, you’re going about it the wrong way.
http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

…and your refusal to make simplistic arguments on complex matters such as asymmetric warfare against Islamic terrorist groups.
texastaxpayer

Attacking me personally also doesn’t change the hypocrisy of your statements either. If you want to argue that nuking Afghanistan wouldn’t have done enough physical or physiological damage to deter our enemies. Fine. But you argued the humanitarian angle… “innocent civilians” remember? You know as well as I do you lost the minute you got around to admitting you would have nuked japan and carpet bombed the civilan population of germany. Unless you want to argue that arabs amd afghanis are somehow better than the germams and japanese? Are you also a racist?

So let us move past the hypothetical…..
http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

Certainly a better way to debate than to construct straw men and then try to ignite them.
texastaxpayer

To answer your question, to save life and limb of U.S. Servicemen.
http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

…but that doesn’t really address nuking populations.

I probably shouldn’t have stepped in. I’m going to exit from this thread.
texastaxpayer

Though I am also tired of this particular conversation.
acat

Preventing future attacks is.

Nuking civilian populations does not, to this cat, seem like it’s required to prevent future attacks.

Mew

p.s. keep in mind, when you reply, that I argued we used too much of a velvet-glove and not enough steel-fist in Iraq…
texastaxpayer

However in this particular case with this particular enemie. I think we have been too weak for too long. I don’t think we would be dealing with Iranian threats for example had we taken the opportunity to demonstrate that supporting jihadis would have the most dire consequences. As it stands….. Well……Everyone knows where we are today…
acat

The threat of nuclear weapons does not “prove our strength” to the Islamists. They are, culturally, significantly different from the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets who we were able to threaten with nukes to find other solutions.

With the Islamists, we need something more …personal. Special Forces boots, operating inside their neighborhoods…

Mew
texastaxpayer

We have used that strategy to failure. For the record I do not believe that the islamists are fumdamentaly different culturally than the pre-nuked Japanese. A look at their beliefs, motivations and commitment demonstrates a striking similarity that cannot be ignored. After all the first “suicide bombers” where kamikaze.
acat

Have we used this strategy, or have we given lip service to it?

Seems to me that, since 2006, it’s been more of the latter and less of the former.

Mew
texastaxpayer

It has been years since the days I worked in windowless concrete buildings in Alabama. I know only what’s public. I can say however the terrorist leadership body count is stacking up as is the number of nations threatening our interests…..
acat

going through the former list fast enough…

Mew
texastaxpayer

So since we both agree we have at least “tried” your way…. I say we spool up one of those MX10′S Reagan built and try mine…. It’s already paid for and everything.
Hehehehehe……
acat

Seriously, we have not “tried it my way”, for the simple reason that there are not sufficient U.S. special forces types in uniform to “try it my way”.

I favor the concurrent destruction – not decimation, wholesale elimination – of known terrorists, in a way that sends a *very* clear “we will find you, we will kill you” message to others who think about terrorism as a career path.

Mew
texastaxpayer

Of course if we can somehow triple or quadruple or capabilities in the relevant areas I am willing to review this discussion. However until that time…
10…
9…
8….
7….
aesthete

who emphasized the orthopraxic, state-affirming aspects of religion (if they emphasized it at all), and who were, for all their barbarism in combat, fundamentally modern, Westernized, and industrialized prior to winning or losing any wars with a Western power. They had a tradition of civilization, and State Shinto was not adhered to, or seen in the same light, as Islam. (Many scholars believe that Shinto as an organized religion was not extant — I think that goes a bit far, but there’s some truth to it compared to what we in the West and Middle East would characterize as an organized religion.) Buddhism and the “new Religions” of Meiji-era Japan were competitors with, and complements to, State Shinto. Adherence to State Shinto in Meiji-era Japan was more akin to allegiance to the Communist Party in the USSR or China. In addition, Islamic states have been perpetually set back or made used to failure for years, whereas Meiji-era Japan had been an undefeated and rising power in its conquests for a century, and had been an isolationist nation before that. A defeat for Japan was more of a shock to the national psyche than it would be for a region accustomed to frustration, failure, and decline going on 700 years.

Islam is at its heart an extremely orthodox religion with a static set of documents that are considered even more divine and integral than the Bible is to Christianity. These texts mandate a “community” which pays deference to religious clergy when establishing law and government, and which encompasses everything from the most mundane to the most important functions of government and treatment of those who don’t adhere to Islam. In contrast to the period of State Shinto in Imperial Japan, where the Emperor (supposedly the divine protector of Japan) was little more than a figurehead from the onset, and where the clergy was little more than an appendage of government (or elsewise disassociated from any sort of politics), the Islamic clergy exerts enormous influence on the legislative and judicial aspects of government, and derives its power from the laity.

Japanese religion, and Meiji-era Japan, are fascinating and there are some parallels between them and modern Islam, but not as many as one would think from first glance.
Tbone

operating in their neighborhoods.

renl57

…nuclear weapons are useful against significant strategic targets. Hiroshima was (and still is) a major industrial center and port city.

al-Qaeda is not a geographically fixed strategic target. It’s the mobile spearhead of a worldwide militant Islamist movement.

And the number of port cities in Afghanistan can be counted on the fingers of one finger–with one finger to spare.

goodgovernance

The less qualms the rest of the world has about using them against us.

And keep in mind every US city is a strategic target for somebody out there. For those of you living in the rural areas and think you don’t have to worry – fallout and radiation don’t stay where the bomb goes off.
tnguy

Terrorists or rogue nations will be more likely to use nuclear weapons on us if we demonstate a willingness to use them? Is that really what you meant? Holy “I’ve got everything backards”, Batman.
goodgovernance

Guess that makes you the Joker.

Terrorists are already willing to use nukes on us, if they get their hands on one. Rogue nations like having nukes because it means everyone’s got to tip-toe around them.

It takes a little imagination to think how people around the world would respond to the US dropping nukes on a non-nuclear country, but not much. If you can’t see how that would seriously motivate foes and create new ones, then I’m glad you’re not in charge of our foreign policy. (And I thought the Dems were naive…)

By the way, if you think indiscriminately killing millions is the best way to secure your own position and get everyone else to fall in line, congratulations! You’ve got a friend in Joseph Stalin.
aesthete

to acquire their own — and that’s all sorts of NOT GOOD. Notice how we traipse around Pakistan and N Korea, and compare to how we changed our stance towards Libya at the drop of a hat. Now, let’s add to that equation a US that feels no compunction when it comes to using nuclear ordinance in a way that makes no sense: what do you think the more realistic fallout of that would be?

You and others seem to think that a blunt display of force of that sort, without any real consideration for how to apply said force, would suddenly have non-state actors like AQ, world nations, and individual citizens of those nations, turn subservient in response.

I think that some of them would — and that the rest would work on either 1) establishing deterrence (and nuclear ordinance of their own does the trick just fine), or 2) making our lives a living hell (we would almost certainly see an increase in terrorist activity, a rise in non-state actors, etc). This is to say nothing of what US citizens would do domestically to restrain the US on this front: Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, and every other controversial issue in this war would pale in comparison to a nuclear attack as our first move against a regime.

I have no idea why it would make sense to use nuclear weaponry against a mobile target which benefits and grows when populations in the Middle East are given a catalyst for their already backwards views to be used by organizations like AQ.
texastaxpayer

They are dedicated to the genocide of all non-believers world wide. Don’t believe me? Just ask the Jewish population of the Arabian peninsula. Oh that’s right you can’t.

The longer we pretend this action or that action is the cause of “Muslim anger” and ignore the reality that this is a clash of cultures rooted in theology. The more our losses will be. This is a war for the freedom of mankind folks and if we loose as we currently are. Every man, woman and child on the planet are likely to be doomed to a life of slavery mankind my never escape.
goodgovernance

That’s not really accurate (painting in such broad strokes rarely is). And what about the Christians in the region? I suppose vaporizing them in a nuclear blast wouldn’t trouble you one bit.
texastaxpayer

I spent a great deal of time after 911 researching Islam in general and “Crazy Mo” specifically….. Please provide some historical evidence that proves my supposed “broad strokes” are inaccurate. Just a single culture conquered by Muslims who weren’t forcibly subjected to shariah and conversation will do.

Why don’t you do a little research on their revered profit whom they view as the ultimate role model and then lecture me on broad strokes. This guy was the worst of the worst. Rape, torture and slaughter are just the highlights of his resume and every Muslim on the planet believe his example is to be emulated. It’s not a comfortable conversation I get that but lying to yourself can be fatal.
northwester

Hindus in India and Jews and Christians in Spain weren’t forced to convert and follow sharia. Jews in Iran only had serious problems after the 1979 Revolution. Lebanon would be fine if it weren’t under Assad.

If you want Muslims to really hate everybody else though, nuking them is probably a fantastic idea.
texastaxpayer

and as such are “allowed” to keep their faith in “submission” so long as they pay the “jizya tax” and follow shariah. India never fail completely under the control of the caliphate however those portions that did are now “Islamic”. Everyone who falls under the power of an Islamic government will say the magic words or loose their head with the exception of “the people of the book” of course. This practice was started by crazy mo himself. Although history is rife with examples a look at Sudan and Somolia provide contemporary evidence.
I would spend a little time educating myself friend. Your ignorance hurts us all.
northwester

India had Islamic rulers prior to the British, and Hindus are definitely not People of the Book. Islam and Hinduism co-existed over much of India prior to the bloodbath of partition.

Of course Pakistan uses religion as an excuse to cover-up their own shortcomings today. Just like the Iranian regime uses their nuclear program and religious extremism to cover up for their own inadequacies.

That’s nothing special about Islam though (which isn’t to say that it’s not easier than most religions to turn into extremism, but most Muslims aren’t extremists — although nuking them will swell those ranks).
texastaxpayer

it was founded by a mass murdering lunatic who used his “revelations from allah” to justify rape, murder and torture. I would encourage you to look at the history of this “prophet” closely. As crazy mo provides the model for the ideal “muslim” one must wonder how osama bin laden is considered an “extremist” when history shows he is simply following the “example” of the “prophet”.
jamesm

Most people do not understand. The so called “extremists” are just following the Quran and Hadith.
northwester

Isn’t one way to be an extremist to take something way too literally?

Again, that doesn’t seem to be something special about Islam. Follow any religion or political ideology to it’s logical conclusion, and you will be an extremist.

But very few people actually do that — that’s why they’re called “extremists.”
jamesm

How could you compare one religion, that may give you a headache, to Islam where they will chop your head off?
northwester

that chops people’s heads off. For example, the Christians that took Spain back from the Muslims (why were there so many Jews to convert or torture when the Christians got there?).

And wasn’t somebody just advocating for nuking all the Muslims of Kabul? Most of whom are just pious little Muslims that would rather everybody who’s been killing each other over there just go away and live their daily life in peace. I’m guessing the folks that have actually lived under the Taliban are a lot sicker of them than we are.
jamesm

political and religious system that advocates killing non muslims. It is the only religion that advovcates killing a person that converts from Islam It is the only religion the allows honor killings. The Quran is the antithesis of the Bible. Evil political and religious system. Women have no rights under Islam. They are the property of their husband. A woman’s word in court counts only half as much as a man.
northwester

Could apply the Christianity at different times in history. How’d women fair in the Plymouth colony?

Islam has a lot more extremists right now. It’s a moment of extremism in their religion. But you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think there’s been moments of extremism in a lot of religions — especially Christianity.
http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

We’re looking at religions today – and Christianity is not persecuting and or killing unbelievers, seizing their property, enslaving them, denying basic civil rights to women. Nor have they been doing this for several hundred years. And consensus Christian theology opposes such actions.

Whereas these behaviors are endemic among “Islamic” nations and are still mainstream in the theology.

And if you want a brief on secularism, the 20th century is witness to the high body counts and other atrocities associated with totalitarian ideologies.

What tactics we use to oppose radical Islam is fit for discussion. But one has to agree on the facts and recognize that Western liberalism (in the classical sense), which was rooted in a Christian (and Jewish) ethos, is not shared by Islam and sharia. Wishful thinking isn’t going to change that.
lapert

I think it is instructive to see that christianity was not always that way – it wasn’t inevitable that the christian west would liberalize and it is not inevitable that the islamic mideast cannot. And therefor, it is not in our purview as liberalized, civilized human beings to decide that it is for us to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I can’t think of anything less representative of what makes our civilization so great than the casual willingness of some here to destroy innocent lives and seemingly take pleasure in doing so as anything but an absolute last resort when faced with the same threat to ourselves (and as tragic as it is, 9/11 doesn’t come near that).
http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

…but I am arguing for fact-based decision making and recognition of the situation today. And recognizing at a minimum that the predominant source of terrorism today finds root in an interpretation of Islam that enjoys significant toleration among co-religionists. And that is a worldview very different than what prevails in our secularized Western cultures.

But our response must be based on confidence in our cultural and religious values and not this constant apologizing and acting as though we are responsible for their bad behavior.

I have no argument with your last paragraph.
lapert

I was speaking of others on this thread there. And I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t have our eyes wide open to the reality of these societies and their shortcoming – just need to recall that human societies are all capable of falling and are all capable of rising beyond that, whether they do or not is up to them.
jamesm

is instructive to understand the history of Islam. Mohammed was a butcher who personally cut of the heads of 600 jews. He took their women and made them concubines. I could go on and on.

The Bible was always peaceful religion from it’s inception. The Bible does not advocate what the Catholic Church did. The Catholic Church has renounced it’s mistakes in the past. The Protestant Reformation (Christians) broke away from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The point is this: The Bible is the source of Christianity. The Quran and Hadith are the source for Islam. Islam through the teachings of the Quran and Hadith demands that the whole world be converted to Islam. These books (Quran and Hadith) cannot be liberalized..they must be outright rejected.
lapert

The bible has plenty of violence in it – including the destruction and enslavement of people in the name of conquering their land.

But that really isn’t the point it doesn’t matter if the bible does not advocate what the Catholic Church did – the Church did it and justified it with their religion regardless of how true it was to their origins. The empires of the west were at times capable of just as ruthless behavior as the worst of Islam.

And if Judaism could move from an eye for an eye to arguing over what court was less likely to carry out the death penalty as a badge of honor (something the bloodthirsty here who are so willing to drop a bomb on innocent people might want to think about) than their is nothing to say that Islam can’t move beyond its current backwardness; your ‘point’ not withstanding.
jamesm

the west is capable of ruthless behavior..if needed, I never advocated dropping a bomb on innocent people. The teaching of Christ (Jesus) written in the New Testatament are in direct contradiction to Mohammed. (600 years later). There is no platform (book) for Islam to move beyond these teachings. I don’t see it our lifetime. In fact the whole middle east is trending the opposite direction..unfortunately.
northwester

I absolutely agree, Christianity today is far more tolerant than Islam is today. I was taking issue with the idea that Islam is inherently incapable of having tolerance for other people (therefore they’re all bad so let’s nuke ‘em).

Therefore, the history.
acat

He’s got some thoughts on this topic.

I believe that Islam is undergoing a fundamental reform .. but, as happened with the Spanish Inquisition, some parts are reforming while others are degenerating further…

At the end of the day, it’s still a human institution, and all human institutions can be reformed… some just require significant events to get the wheels turning.

Mew
demsaresatanic

Can’t you at least come up with a more plausible strawman?
aesthete

Christianity’s main premise and foundational texts don’t really justify those behaviors — oftentimes, those actions contrast with what is written in those texts, and the history of the early church. Many of the behaviors of modern Islamists, OTOH, are either justified or somewhat ambiguous in Islam’s main text. That is problematic in a religion that is strongly tied to its foundational text.

Judaism and maybe a few of the religions that originated in India are the only ones comparable to Islam in terms of positive references to religious violence in their foundational texts, and in Judaism’s case, almost all of these are found in the books of history. There is no doctrinal support for anything in Judaism or any of the world religions approximating the legal status of dhimmi or jihad in orthodox Islam.

I agree with Hashem Aghajari — an Iranian war hero and university professor jailed for dissent — who criticized Islam and his government, and stated the need for “Islamic Protestantism[...] A rational, scientific, humanistic Islam[...] a thoughtful and intellectual Islam, an open-minded Islam.”
funwithknives

“Full of it you are, Youngling…”

1) go find one Zorastrian in Iran, nw. Trouble is, you cannot,as many moved to India. The founder of TATA /Air India was a transplanted Iranian Zorastrian, and there’s lots more where He came from….

2) Jews and Christians in Spain converted to minimize Muslim persecution and this has been well documented, if you look. No, they were not forced. But were they persecuted ? Certainly so. {…off the top of My Head…}

3) Lebanon has been a mess for since 1970, if not earlier. Nothing but power grabs of one sort or another, by all sorts of bad actors. Syria was just the latest.
{Backround; one of my closest friends was an expatriot Lebanese in the late 60′s. Family originally from Armenia and ran from the Turks in 1915/16. They left , citing various Muslim factions, not all Syrian, as the cause. They were openly Armenian Catholic and were harassed, repeatedly. Fater worked for Int’l 3-M, and got assistance in relocating, as did some others I met ,personally.
northwester

If the founder of Air India is a transplanted Iranian Zoroastrian, and Iran has been under Islamic rule since the 7th century, isn’t that an indication of a more recent change?
funwithknives

Father and family before him ,being persecuted that led to their flight.{in the 20th century, so yes, recently is correct but not as you imply}

In addition you totally ignore the other talking points present. Cherry Picking your Faves ,gets you Zip, here and now.

Since you are so interested in purported reform in Iran, answer this: What of the Ba’Hai and why are there virtually none in Iran anymore? Because like so many other factions in Islam, it is not the religion that squeezes non-believers, it is the local and national imams,mullahs, and ruling councils “interpreting” the Qur’an that does the damage.

What other religion permits a local,singular interpretation of a holy book and even allows believers to issue edicts {i. e. ” Fatwas” } condeming people to be hunted down and killed by these self-same “Peaceful Believers”.

It’s all in whose gettin’ the knife , friend. You or I, in these societies would not stand a chance. We would be subordinate and that is written right into the Qur’an. Everything else is just inane mutterings. An imam gets up on a pulpit on a Friday and by Monday you are toast, if *… Allah wills it… * {…blessings and peace, be upon Him…}

And that is a fact, Jack….. Is that a call to prayer I hear? {Dearborn is right down the road from me}
aesthete

There’s clearly a difference between, say, Turkey’s relationship with Islam and other faiths, and Saudi Arabia’s. Personally, I don’t think it should be a concern of the US government to wage wars on behalf of Christendom worldwide; I just want for the governments in the Middle East to stop helping terrorists. That’s possible to do within reason, without using nukes. In fact, nukes are rather counterproductive to that effort. I agree with you regarding the corrosive effects of Islam on freedom in the Middle East, but it really isn’t something that we can change in the short run or through violence, nor does it warrant the response that you have proffered. Speaking as someone who actually favors the “making a desert and calling it peace” stratagem in many contexts, it’s not something that will work in this one, or to the extremes that you’re implying.

westcoastpatriette

episode and this incident is a tragedy on many levels. These are classic actions of someone suffering from PTSD — a condition that ensues when under sustained hyper vigilance for long periods of time. It is time to bring the troops home ASAP.
GordonTaylor

Having served two enlistments in the USAF as a combat controller, just as my brother Jeff has, we have both seen the effects of stress related disorders.

Frankly, these guys are spending way too much time in-country and it’s taking it’s toll.

It’s the direct result of the massive downsizing our DoD has been burdened with. We just lost a Marine Sargent here in our little town of Walton (natural causes) and when I attended the services yesterday I was shocked to find out that he has had 5 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan in 6 years.

That is WAY to much exposure and time living on the edge. Jeff can tall you, the adrenaline runs thick through your veins and becomes almost addictive. Eventually, you come apart at the seems and that is most likely what happened with this young Sargent.

I served during the Viet Nam conflict (no, it wasn’t a war – the HELL it wasn’t) and was in country more than once, however my subsequent tours after the first full year were TDY’s for some special purposes. I ran into an old classmate on one of those short trips and it was his third trip back, the last two voluntary.

I knew Tony well in High School, we played sports together and the like, double dated a few time. When I ran into him it was like I never knew him. He was dazed, confused and … well just no the same guy I knew.

He didn’t make it out alive from that third tour, he was killed in a card game. He had so many Bronze and Silver stars, purple hearts and many other medals it was baffling. Yet, he lost his cool over a silly poker game…he just came apart according to his fellow troopers.

To much stress, too much adrenaline addiction and too much sadness in his heart…

I’m really surprised that it took this long for something like this to happen and don’t be surprised if it happens again.

My heart goes out to his family…they now have to live with a memory as unpleasant as any imaginable. He’ll go to jail, lose his status, benefits for his family…his and their lives are ruined for now.

Jeff, is there someway we can reach out to his family? Something we can do to comfort them? Your contacts are superb and I’m willing to do what I can to help

They have a very long road ahead of them and the sadness and hurt and shame will be overwhelming and can certainly destroy them as a family unit.

Gordon Taylor
dapala

With the endemic corruption, unreliable Afghan army and police, the recent news that the Afghan air force has been using their US supplied planes to ferry drugs and weapons, and now this tragic story, its time to go. There’s been no mission for several years. Its been little more than build a road then have it blown up build a school with no plan to staff it.
There hasn’t been much downsizing of the military yet. Yes it could be PTSD but the military just like any other organization has some bad people in it. This will really open the flood gates or retribution. Glad I’m not there now. Pray for those who are.

demsaresatanic

is a futile waste of lives and money.
vaaztx

?was the day after bin Laden was shot. The POTUS should have declared victory that day and brought our sons & daughters home within months after that.

Adjoran

when it no longer became costly to oppose our objectives.

It’s that simple. Had we chosen to make the cost of smuggling arms from Iran and Pakistan high enough, it would have stopped cold.

There are no halfway, cordial, low-profile wars. Either you are at war, or you are not. If you are at war, those who aid your enemies are also your enemies and fair targets.
rick554

but in any case…when BHO decided to tell the enemy when we were leaving, it was game over. My plan….clear a path for those guys to get out of the country with B-52′s.
http://www.cosmoscon.com garythompson

Our men and women are in more danger now than at any other time in this conflict. Tensions are high and the Military’s job went from “difficult” to “impossible” so let’s get them out. Radical Islam hates us not because of this dreadful incidence but because we are a Free Country that doesn’t follow their faith. Nothing we can do now in Afghanistan will change a terrorists mind.

After we leave the only thing Afghans will remember about us is burning Korans, urinating on dead bodies and now murdering women and children. I have no doubt that leaving the country now will only embolden other terrorists in teh country and another Osama Bin Laden will rise up. But that probably would’ve happened anyway. Get our brave men and women home now!

BTW, all this happened on Obama’s watch. Just one more thing POTUS has totally screwed up.

More here – http://cosmoscon.com/2012/03/11/its-time-to-leave-afghanistan/
texastaxpayer

For too long we have spent our blood and treasure in Afghanistan without a clear since of the purpose. Is it to deny Islamic jihadist a base of operations? To free the afghan people from the tyranny of Islamic rule? Some twisted combination of both? I thought originally it was revenge for a cowardly attack on our citizenry but we have long since moved past that. I think it is time we load our service men and women into plains and return them too their families. If this war was retribution, mission accomplished Osama is dead and al queda is a joke. If this war was about denying jihadis a base of operation, mission accomplished they now live in Pakistan. If this war was about freeing the afghans from cruel Islamic rule, mission accomplished they have had elections and “self rule” for nearly a decade. I do not believe we can reasonably achieve anything further for these people. We have killed the terrorists, removed the taliban and placed them in control of their destiny. It is now up to them to succeed of fail on their own dime and children’s lives. The men and women of our armed forces have met the goals, defeated the enemy and earned our love and respect. Now its time to deliver on our obligations to them and remove our children from a situation from which there can only be loss. God bless our troops and their families who sacrificed daily along side them.

renl57

…has been that failed states provide havens for terrorists like al-Qaeda. Hence the U.S. has to “help” these countries succeed economically and socially: An economically growing democracy won’t create terrorists (they claim).

Both former President Bush and SecState Hillary have said as much.

The problem is: That theory has since been disproven.

We’ve seen home-grown terrorists commit serious terrorist acts in London (the bombing of their Underground), France, and even in America (remember Major Hasan?). Britain is not a failed state.

These people lived their lives in wealthy, democratic countries–and then turned on those countries with violence. Evidently it’s possible for a Muslim to live his life in a Western country–and grow to hate it.

We should recall that Sayyid Qutb–the founder of modern Islamism and the inspiration to men like Osama bin Laden–visited America in 1948. He wasn’t impressed with the American model. In fact, American society circa 1950 disgusted him:

“The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs ? and she shows all this and does not hide it.”
— Sayyid Qutb

The more we try to make failed states like Afghanistan resemble Western countries–with market economies, female empowerment, civil rights–the LESS the Muslim citizens like it. They view all that as un-Islamic.

We’re wasting our time and treasure trying to make societies like Afghanistan over in our model. Over 90% of the Afghanistan GDP is now due to U.S. aid. That’s right, we’ve made Afghanistan a protectorate. A worthless protectorate.

It’s not economic failure but Islamist ideology we should be combating. Just as they see our society as un-Islamic, our leaders should see their ideology as un-American.

BTW, it’s striking how much American women disgust the Islamists. I remember in October 2001, a reporter was interviewing an African pastor, as to why so many of his congregation were converting to Islam, and why Islamism is sweeping through Africa.

The pastor replied, “They don’t like what they see in America.”

The reporter was surprised and asked, “Just what don’t they like about America?”

The African pastor replied:
“In America, your women dress like half-naked sluts.”

aesthete

I’d add to that that the premise — a central government that disburses justice and economic opportunity to all — has never been possible even in Western states. In the Middle East and Muslim Central Asia, where governmental institutions, bureaucracies, and military/law enforcement are all much weaker and easier to subvert than in the US, and where non-state actors and religious/cultural/filial ties are of much more importance, you’re not going to get much out of a strategy that engages government… and not much more.

goodgovernance

For raising this topic in a serious manner. What this lone individual did is appalling, but we do all need to keep in mind our forces have been subject to stresses the rest of us can’t even imagine. Even so, that does not excuse this soldier for his actions if they were as described, and I hope a truly just outcome is reached when determining his punishment.

The fact the actions of one severely troubled individual could threaten the U.S.’s overall strategy in Afghanistan does indicate how weak our standing there really is, after a decade of war. Our fighting men and women achieved the real objective in Afghanistan, eliminating Al Qaeda’s capability to use the country as a staging ground for attacks against the US, a long time ago. I worry everything else we’ve done since that time will just backslide into tribal conflict once our forces leave.

I hope I’m wrong. Things looked very dark in Iraq for a time, before the surge. But Afghanistan is an altogether different place.
Common_Cents

The CIC creates terrible morale, terrible lack of mission, apologizes to the enemy, doesn’t defend the murder of troops, and wonders why there could be a problem like this?

I can’t imagine the stress our warrior troops are under over there, especially having one hand tied behind their backs, largely service as targets.

This one is on the CIC. I cringe when I see that fraud make an attempt at a salute.
http://lukos.com Ed54

There have been some really stupid commients in this thread, most of them not worth addressing. The evil actions of this individual soldier (and they were evil) have nothing to do with politics. This evil action is not on Obama, any more than previous evil actions were on Bush.

Likewise for PTSD, though at least the motive for blaming that is a little more benevolent. Combat veterans with PTSD avoid violence because the memory of carnage haunts them. They don’t seek it out, and they don’t create more. Let’s not create some new myth of the homicidal maniac veteran.

However, there is one potential culprit that needs to be seriously looked at: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). It is being reported now that the soldier who committed the murders had a previous head injury in combat. That is a significant fact, and goes farther to explain how this could have happened than anything else I have heard. It also has significant implications for Army policy on redeploying injured troops, and on VA treatment protocols. These are serious issues that should be examined in an environment free of partisanship and blame.

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Afghanistan on the Brink: Is the One-Man ‘Kill Team’ the Last Straw?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL