Charlie Rose

robdverity  10/12/2009 07:12 PM Report

Hear, hear ivangrt.

ivangrt  10/09/2009 08:49 PM Report

The one absurd thing Engel said was that we have to stay long enough to devise an honorable withdrawal. We didn’t enter this war honorably, we haven’t proceeded honorably, and there is no way to fabricate an honorable end to this war.

The military can’t win against this “enemy” any more than the military could win in Vietnam. We should send in the NFL, and this is not a joke. Winning against terrorists is a matter of recruiting, and the NFL has the best recruiters in the world. The reason things are getting worse is that our military “foot-print” is getting bigger. Every time our military engages the “enemy” they force the people to choose between the corrupt government America is supporting and the “enemy” that posses no threat to the people. Forced to this choice the people of Afghanistan are going to choose the “enemy” by the millions. To beat the “enemy” at recruitment we have to learn who the people of this country are, what they want, what their dreams and fears are. We don’t know any of this. We don’t know these people. The NFL recruiters would find out these things, and then use the information to do a better job at recruiting the population of Afghanistan than the “enemy” can. This is a winnable strategy, but it doesn’t involve military combat action.

Back at home the biggest problem we have is the Economic Crisis, and if you want to know how bad it is (much worse than impotent terrorist threats from the Middle East) go to Digdug’s blog at:

http://culturalevolutionscience.blogspot.com

robdverity  10/09/2009 02:00 PM Report

Richard Engel, NBC (Charlie Rose 10/07/09), gave (at last) an honest assessment of Af-Pak. But, alas, with a paradoxical conclusion, i.e., not to leave posthaste, despite a realistically hopeless outlook. Engle lamented leaving the Pakistani’s after exhorting them to take up the battle against the Taliban. ???? I don’t get it. It’s their problem to resolve (or not) in any level of efficiency (or not) they chose. The Pashtun (Source of Taliban) are 15 per cent of Pakistan. In other words doable if they have the will.

Engle could discern no distinction between Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban were Pashtun (but all Pashtun are not Taliban). He further asserted that drone missiles were not the answer because of civilian casualties and lack of target definition.

As an aside, for those who like to keep score against the 3,000+ World Trade Center 9/11/2001 deaths, the raw score in body count is more than settled with Afghan troops killed at 11,522; Afghan civilians killed at 7,589; [1,371 coalition troops, contractors and six journalists]. So the eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth (until we’re all blind and toothless crowd) should be satiated.

Given that and the fact that Osama bin Laden has apparently safely ensconced himself out of reach, what is our objective? The elusive end-game? How about an Hippocratic Oath takeoff, of “Second, Do no (more) harm!” The hardliners are shuddering, but remember tough guys we’re already more than even based on body count - what other metric is there as far as vengeance?

Formulations to consider, where: O = Outcome, T=US Troops, E = Enemies, C = Created, V = Vanquished (killed), I = Indifferent.

Scenarios: 1- Add 40,000 to 68,000 troops and 75,000 contractors already there. 2-Add 20,000 troops. 3-Add none. 4-Add none and remove all troops and contractors.

Assumptions: 1- For each Enemy (Pashtun) killed a MINIMUM of three other Pashtuns will grieve and harbor resentment, 2- The current rate of say (11522+7589)/68000x8 = 35 Pashtuns/US troop/yr vanquished (euphemism for killed) per 1,000 troops will continue.

Therefore, the outcomes O for for the four scenarios are shown below:

Where: Outcome O = T in thousands x Vanquished per year per thousand = Annual Pashtun Kill.

Scenario 1: O = (68k + 40k) x 35 = 3780 / yr

Scenario 2: O = (68k + 20k) x 35 = 3080 / yr

Scenario 3: O = (68k + 0 k) x 35 = 2380 / yr

Scenario 4: O = (68k - 68k) x 35 = 0 / yr

These hypotheticals could be reduced by strategical policies and actions. But at whatever level, they have consequences. If it can be safely assumed that at least three generations carry emotional trauma for at least three survivors of the ‘vanquished’ 150 enemy-years (E-yrs) will be created for each Pashtun killed. Therefore, for the four scenarios the following potential E-yrs of terrorists will be created ©.

Scenario 1: C = 150 E-yrs x 3780 = 567,000 Enemy-years

Scenario 2: C = 150 E-yrs x 3080 = 462,000 Enemy-years

Scenario 3: C = 150 E-yrs x 2380 = 357,000 Enemy-years

Scenario 4: C = 150 E-yrs x 0 = 0 Enemy-years

Reminder, these figures are for one year. Another eight years increases Scenario 1 to 4,536,000 Enemy-years for example.

Simplistic example: they experience casualties when they go out on patrols in the remote outposts. When they don’t, they don’t. DUH!

Iraq will never REALLY resolve their Sunni - Shia problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not. Repressive a la Sadam or not, they’ll own it.

Af-Pak as well will never REALLY resolve their Pashtun (aka Taliban, al Qaeda) problem until we leave and they are forced to reach an accommodation one way or another, equitable or not.

WE NEED TO CUT OUR LOSSES, PULL OUT AND COME HOME - NOW!!

So, there you go Mr. President, for every 1,000 troops sent to Af-Pak, the potential for diminishing the NY sky-line is increased by 5,250 Enemy-years, for each year they are deployed. Such scientifically, mathematically derived S.W.A.G. precision is undeniable. Ignore at your own peril and demeaning of your newly acquired Nobel peace prize. Prove it and bring em home!

With all these potential enemies (below), we can’t waste resources on a select few. And we can’t conquer the world - even though the list is long enough to warrant paranoia - we have to ramp up our intelligence, ramp down our arrogance, and pressure ME peace settlements.

Yemen and Somalia are probably more real threats anyway. Terrorism is not geography, it’s an idea. Like Engle said, when someone says he’s al Qaeda, he pretty much is (regardless of race, creed or location on the planet) We had to work at this world-wide disenchantment..

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

Al-Shabaab

Ansar al-Sunnah

Armed Islamic Group

Asbat al-Ansar

Aum Shinrikyo Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Communist Party of Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)

Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

Gama'a al-Islamiyya (IG)

HAMAS

Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islam/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)

Harakat ul-Mujahadin (HUM)

Hizballah

Islamic Jihad Union

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

Jaish-e-Mohammed

Jemaah Islamiya Organization

Al-Jihad

Kahane Chai (Kach)

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)

Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LT)

Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group

Mujahadin-e Khalq Organization

National Liberation Army (ELN)

Palestine Liberation Front – Abu Abbas Faction

Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Shaqaqi Faction

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command

Al-Qa’ida

Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn)

Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

Real IRA

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

Revolutionary Nuclei

Revolutionary Organization 17 November

Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front

Shining Path

United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia

constancek  07/06/2009 03:40 AM Report

I highly regard Richard Engel and am grateful for his amazing work in Iraq.

spaulds  07/04/2009 04:36 PM Report

I am concerned @ what will happen when all American Troops Are Gone. I am very glad you had Mr. Engel on to explain what is going on in Iraq. Please invite him back to your show when possible.

tartufe  07/01/2009 06:36 PM Report

Inasmuch as Iraq prior to our arrival experienced violence, why do we fill the need to be concerned about it now or when (and if) we leave?

The M-I oligarches would love for us to stay forever, while they mount up profits (Iraqi and US deaths be damned).

Likewise in Af-Pak. We have no REAL exit strategy for all three.

Engel a la the oligarchs has too much vested in the status as well to be totally objective.

trevorfairweather  07/01/2009 02:12 PM Report

"there will be an uptick in violence everyone expects that...[O'dierno] thinks they can handle it otherwise they would'nt be doing it," perhaps they are facing undue political pressure from the commander in chief?