Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000
RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Countrymen,
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT
Speculations — — A Miracle?
The word Kandahar means Alexander. The principal city of southern Afghanistan represents the Macedonian Marvel.
In the hands of families and tribes controlling poppies and logistics uneasily lie the power and wealth of Afghanistan. The mountain passes, especially the Khyber, and the Circle Road around the Central Hindu Cush Mountains are the Afghan logistics.
The world cannot afford drugs and barbarian hordes in her midst. Soft (Progressive) and Hard (Caliphist) Terrorism are conjured and funded by drugs. They issue from barbarian conditions: droogies.
The only solution to the problem that is Afghanistan is colonization for a very long time. Leaderships of Great Britain and India realized this centuries ago but effected it half-heartedly. India is re- entertaining the idea, and properly so.
Alexander had the right idea, bequeathing his name there to this day. It is still the right idea and demands implementation: colonize and control the place to make it modern and mature.
Update 1: Reynolds: Afghanistan and Iraq history lesson (reread often)
Update 2: Bruce Gilley: The Case For Colonialism
A shame Gilley retreated. The benefits of much colonialism — especially British — to colonized areas or countries has been noted before now. I am but one of those noters. I am also, with original-Gilley, a proponent of recolonization, especially in MENA, as one vector for quieting the joint.
Update 3: Kurt Schlichter: Get the Hell Out of Afghanistan Now
Related: WaPest: At War With The Truth: The Afghanistan Papers
Update 4: Robert Gast: Lost Cause: A Special Forces Soldier’s Case For Leaving Afghanistan
doc_steve
There is an actual (Inter)National Security argument for staying in the Middle East, but to articulate it is impossible in today’s (or even yesterday’s) political climate. Like all polygamous societies, the Arabs need to kill a certain fraction of their sons every year, or end up with wild bands of rootless young men raping and pillaging at home. Islam explicitly turned this requirement outward – to spreading Islam though conquest, murder, rape and slavery of others, not your own tribe(s). Thus, Islamic Arabs literally cannot be peaceful for too long, or the wifeless men go amok… and Islam explicitly tells these angry young men how to solve their problem – jihad.
If (and this is a big if) you accept the premise that some fraction of Arab men must die and/or expand by conquest, and that historically the primary front for expansion is Europe (for the Arabs), then the only question is whether to indulge them here, or there. Our stance in the Middle East under Bush, Obama, and to some extent even Trump, is that Arab culture requires conflict, and we would rather be blowing things up over there than over here.
There is, of course, also the question as to why the US is still trying to solve feckless Europe’s problems; the argument there being that Europe has proven incapable of managing their own affairs, and the US was twice drawn into a World War to sort them out. Like the “fight them here or there” argument, this is the “fight them now, while they are weaker, or later when they are stronger” argument; i.e. if the French had done more than “oui, oui” at Hitler at the beginning of WW II, would there have been a WW II?
This is not, by the way, meant to necessarily argue that that we should stay in the Middle East; I’m merely pointing out that no one really stupid gets to pulling the levers in DC; whether right or wrong, there is always a reason for these kinds of policies; and if you want to argue against them you first need to drag them into the light of day…
David R. Graham to doc_steve
Very insightful statement in several directions. Thank you! Sound 50K feet high view of the field. I am folding these facets into my own contemplations of the matter.
There is another course of action: colonize Afghanistan. Finding wide support for that course of action would be difficult. But it is as rational a course of action as the one Gast commends.
And strong pluses of several kinds can be adduced for colonizing Afghanistan, starting with the fact that a foundation for doing that is in place.
The inner question is not get out or stay but rather: what strategic interest(s) has USA in Afghanistan at all?
Falling Up
A friend recently suggested we were maintaining Afghanistan as a country sized live-fire training base and weapons test range. I don’t have a better answer beyond a sense that the some people are getting very rich from us being there. I’d like to see a Venn diagram of them and #NeverTrumpers.
David R. Graham to Falling Up
Very close to the truth. The live-fire training aspect is an excuse for being there, not a reason. Some CDRs there have summoned the excuse to placate Soldiers’ displeasure with having no good military reason for being there if they are not allowed to just win the war, which they are not allowed to do. Strategic and tactical planning as well as the more well-known ROEs prevent US Soldiers from winning the war there. They easily could do if ordered to do it.
GO career promotions, CIA/SEALs/NGO analyst and operator promotions and just plain cussedness, as well as contractor income are the actual reasons for keeping US forces in Afghanistan post-success of the punitive expedition that completed in 2002, as Gast points out. Remember, school and contractor boards are stuffed with retired GOs and ADMs, and their staffs include clouds of retired COLs.
And yes, probably most of those worthies are NeverTrumpers because Trump wants to close the gas tanks inflating their name, fame, and retirement accounts. Think Barry McCaffrey and a murmuration of others.
CreativeDude✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ Terran
“High-ranking members of two administrations and senior military commanders were aware of a clear lack of purpose in Afghanistan, yet lied to the American people to justify the continuing conflict.”
A clear and concise statement that explains how many of us feel about both the republicans and the democrats in congress. A sizable percentage of republicans would instantly sell their voters down the river if democrats would guarantee them a permanent seat at the table where tax dollars are carved up.
David R. Graham to CreativeDude✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ Terran • 36 minutes ago
Don’t forget the GOs and ADMs sitting on the boards of defense contractors and their big law co-conspirators.
David Barno and Nora Bensahel: When America’s All-Volunteer Force Loses A War
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
