Charlie Rose

tartufe  02/18/2009 09:57 PM Report

Holbrooke on the newshour was pitching the adopted party line swill. The M-I oligarchy has and is winning once again. The practiced propaganda is insuring by default an ipso facto continuation of the policy of yet another protracted stupid, mindless, and unnecessary killing - ours and theirs. The same sort of culture that would create a world financial crisis - solely for the soulless pieces of eight.

Venality, greed and profit still trumping common sense. Where are the statesmen? Where are the adults?

charlizecourriers  02/18/2009 03:36 PM Report

Something was missing from this conversation-inreverse-elpoep eht. Just what the fops of the times woulldn't see.

ShalomFreedman  02/18/2009 03:20 AM Report

Dexter Filkins says that the United States is in Afghanistan because of 9/11. I take him to mean that it is there to prevent another 9/11. But what if the next planned 9/11 is coming from another part of the Islamist civilization?

This discussion spoke about the mistake of seeing Afghanistan in isolation from Pakistan. Right. But it made the cardinal mistake of seeing Afghanistan and Pakistan in isolation from the real global problem, which is radical Islamic fundamentalism.

The panelists reportedly spoke about Iraq as the good example. But as another recent Charlie Rose guest Thomas E. Ricks pointed out the story of Iraq is far from over. Iraq is part of the Iranian story and that story too part of the whole radical Islamic fundamentalist story. And now Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons is about to acquire a capability for destruction which dwarfs even the horror of 9/11.

What the United States is doing in Afghanistan is dissipating its own power, fighting on terrority it has no real hold on or grasp of. It is wasting itself and committing itself to a battle it must lose.

It has to instead go for the most urban most developed centers of the Islamic Terror world. It above all has to make certain that no nuclear weapons, whether Pakistani or Iranian or in the hands of Islamists.

For this it needs special operations, thinking outside the box, a kind of initiative and daring a plodding ground force cannot provide.

The United States needs new thinking on the whole subject. And it needs to think of the Islamic Terror world as a whole, and not one piece of it.

ShalomFreedman  02/18/2009 02:27 AM Report

I simply do not understand what the point of the United States remaining in Afghanistan is. These four observers report on an impossible situation, and no clear way to victory. It seems to me that the one vital interest in the area is Pakistan's nuclear weapons. If the United States could somehow quarantine or get a hold on those weapons, then there would be no other reason to stay there.

The Afghanis have a long history of defeating foreign forces. The Afghani territory, the nature of its society, all argue against further American involvement and sacrifice.

I believe that the United States should simply withdraw from Afghanistan. It will save lives, save forces , save much else.

cody  02/17/2009 08:41 PM Report

It's obviously people in the Pakistani military who you have to ask yourself what they want to do. They should be able to get al qaeda.

You have to ask yourself not what decisions they will take but what is the reason they take these (present and future) decisions. Is it based on their own beliefs in islam, is it based on a fear of India wanting to bully them, is it a friendship towards the taliban or is it to get islam spread in other countries?

Whatever the answer is, this is the question you should ask yourself and when you know this argument, then you have to make it not valid anymore: for instance if they fear India, you should try to build the relationship between India and Pakistan, and if they want to get islam spread, you should tell them other people should be able to decide what they believe in themselves and be able to decide how they live their lives for themselves.

REMant  02/17/2009 05:45 PM Report

I can see Afghanistan going the way of Vietnam, tho perhaps without the kind of help the Chinese gave the latter. We are already starting to employ basically the same tactics in the border areas, and I can see a lot of defoliation, and attempts at population concentration to come. As Filkins pointed out, we will never be able to really "pacify" most of the country, and we risk turning more of the ordinary ppl against us by adopting tactics designed to avoid American casualties at the expense of the well-being of the inhabitants. I suspect, too, that the Russians will be willing to help us in their own self-interest as they probably haven't forgiven us for arming the opposition to them 30 yrs ago, and because they are likely to come out ahead no matter how it turns out. I was thinking about India, myself, when Bearden mentioned it. I think they will likely become involved one way or the other if the situation deteriorates.

tartufe  02/17/2009 04:54 PM Report

EGREGIOUSLY DISAPPOINTING! THESE PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.

But, alas, no proof was forthcoming in this conversation.

Analogous to the blind men describing the elephant-in-the room from their respective vantage. Each portrayed an impossible (quagmire?) and irresolvable situation. When four-of-four hit a brick wall, its time to stop hitting the wall. Like the Henny Youngman(?) joke: “Doc I broke my leg in two places.” “Then stop going to those places.” It’s as simple as that.

The elephant-in-the-room is WITHDRAWAL! Immediately. Declare victory (a la Vietnam and Iraq) and leave - pronto.

Disappointing and (ethically?) questionable. Their respective intelligence shouts that their analysis led right up to it’s a lose-lose situation. Then incredulously they avoid declaring - with certitude - that it’s time to cut-bait and leave. Makes them all come off as complicit foils of the M-I oligarchy. A self-serving withholding, as they all revel and profit from the fortunes of war as much as their keepers.

They’re all subscribing to fighting the last (good?) war - a good old fashioned western land war. Never mind that terrorism and anti-Amercanism is a concept, an idea, NOT GEOGRAPHY. PBS recently aired an indictment on Yemen as a plotting ground for terrorists. Indeed the 9-11 hijackers weren’t P-A. For the most part they were Saudis. They (the terrorists) can go anywhere.

Our M-I oligarchy led by the Obama anointed Raytheon point man will lobby hard to sustain all extant conflicts - economics notwithstanding.

These four lap-dogs and the ruling oligarchy in these matters will in the end produce counterproductive results by continuing our disregard (disdain even?) for human life. Our hubristic techno-arrogance killing villagers with drone-fired missiles is as CS as it is stupid. We’re recruiting for the Pashtune (be they self described Taliban or al Qaeda).

It’s telling when our absence would be more productive than our presence. The longer we stay, the more enemies, shorter the fewer. Like we want to ASSURE a terrorist attack ultimately. “Act like an asshole, things could conceivably turn crappy.” ----- Confucious.