Charlie Rose

robdverity  10/13/2009 01:19 PM Report

Charged Charlie with commentary cowardice in a comment that was purged - thus validating my charge - which stated couldn't stand the heat so he was removing the kitchen.

Shalome Freedman, Michael Bloomberg having their way with Charlie? You betcha, as Sarah would say. Too bad. That's the way fascism begins. Shut it down a little by little.

This will be short lived as well.

robdverity  10/11/2009 09:06 PM Report

Due to delayed ‘activation’ of pertinent sites, taking second relevant choice.

Brian Glyn Williams and David Kilcullen, both orthodoxy spewing foils for the MI oligarches, were disingenuous to a fault. Especially Williams. To full of certitudes - an ipso facto disqualifier. Anathema! Richard Engel, two nights earlier, was much more credible.

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..Note the innumerable number of countries represented.

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.

SHAZAM  10/11/2009 11:59 AM Report

website video player buggy, yes, I want to echo a plea to get the lara logan video up on the site. I was attracted to the interview when I heard her credentials noted as a longtime embed coupled with her call to remember this is not simply a strategy, but rather a war. However, the more I read ( and view) videos of Miss Logan's past war coverage, the more I am wary that there may be a hidden agenda in her call to "kill the Taliban" i.e, is this call for open war on enemies a push toward an extremism that would fuel an anti-war effort or is it Loagan' candid assessment that war is the only realistic way to end the threat of instabliity to Pakistan and permanently route Al Qaeda in Afhganistan. Yep, it would be great to see the video once more and listen carefully to Miss Logan. Her years of coverage give her the kind of credentials that call for a careful ear to listen;but her opinion on the way forward is another matter that needs to be looked at in the context her past reporting career and editorial comments.

charliesheep  10/10/2009 07:24 PM Report

WAR ON WHO ? AMERICAS EARS? PERHAPS A MORE REAL QUESTION IS THAT-- 1986 TAX LAW CAPTURES ONLY TWO CLASSES OF TAX PAYERS, THOSE ABOVE 50K AND THOSE BELOW I.E.--AND SINCE NEITHER SIDE CARES FOR THE OTHER- VIOLA !--LIES; ARE MEDIA-WHICH-REVOLVES DAILY ON ITS WEBWORLD OF 24HRX7 NEWS CYCLE, ITS NEVER ENDING SMORGASBOARD--OF "CREATE" DRAMA TO FILL THE "DEAD" AIR WAYS--WITH FODDER--CALL IT--PICASSO OR PORNOGRAPHY - WHAT PASSES FOR NEWS; IS MOLDED TO PRODUCE THE "PINK NOISE' OF--NOTHING HARD--JUST PABLLUM FOLKS ! BON APPETITE !

robdverity  10/09/2009 06:01 PM Report

arenaud333 - don't let your libido get in the way there. Don't you ever wonder about having relations with anyone that had bigger cajones than yourself, that your orientation would be worthy of a university style analytic analysis?

Would your ardor cool any if she were pathologically sadistic (even a man-hater) and got-off on the carnage of war? Possibly not, but one wonders.

But you see I (unfashionably) think it takes an ignoble sensibility to be a voluntary mercenary to offer to risk having to kill someone for your employment. Trumpeting their sacrifice encourages more and is counter-productive. Lara, as a major trumpeter wins my disdain as a counter-balance to your gushing accolades. Markets and horse races thrive on such opposition.

arenaud333  10/09/2009 12:47 AM Report

the subject of my commentary is Miss Lara LOGAN, who affords me the perfect pretext to join the conversation.

i am certainly not the first person (nor likely the last)

to have had this reflection upon seeing a segment of war reporting from this oustandingly courageous and intelligent correspondant, who (in my opinion, & even on the faith of this sole interview with Mr. ROSE, can be deemed to be one of a very few in the "mediacraty" (another obvious name that comes to mind is CNN'S Ms. Christiane AMAMPOUR) who totally "gets it" - i mean, has got it right... to the last detail of the big picture - about the AF-PAK conflict.

that here is this woman of truly astounding beauty -

maybe one among the 25 most beautiful women in the world -, who decided a long long time ago that she wasn't going to use that gift to carve out an easy, comfortable life for herself. or, if she did, it would be to go beyond where others have gone (COULD possibly have gone) to be witness to the world to what it really means to be on the frontlines of the battlefield where so many courageous women & men fight, combat, struggle, and live to tell

the tale, but also die & pay our freedom with the sacrifice of their young lives... so that the "mission" set forthby the generals is accomplished.

doubtless, there are very few men in the world,

let alone women, who are so dedicated to the ideal of a profession (i.e. "war journalism") that they're willing to risk a whole lot (risk it all, in effect) by

entering conflict zones to tell a story of what has happened. all the more courageous of them if they happen

to be a woman, whose lot in war is to be among the first casualties (& prime ones at that), since wholesale rape has become such a commonplace occurrence in modern warfare (so much so that it's barely ever even mentioned in news reels)

at the same time, i would not altogether discount the fact that is the reverse of the coin (so to speak), a thought which has often occurred to me specifically when watching footage of Miss Logan accompanying soldiers on patrol. namely that she cannot (i would think) not know, at some level, that,

just as soldiers are known for their spontaneous heroic actions (& incommensurable bravery) in the fog of war to rescue one of their imperiled own - No Man Left Behind -, there are no doubt many men of valor, among the ranks of those she joins on the frontline, who wouldn't give it a second thought to risk their personal safety and physical integrity in the line of sight of enemy fire to jump out of a hole and attempt (should the occasion arise) the rescue of such an uncommon, extraordinary woman, given how she has taken to task to share their perils of combat so that we, the western viewer in front of our tv sets, get a sense or feeling (a very rough approximation, obviously; but a valid one nonetheless, since she has assigned herself that very

perilleous task of conveying it to us) of what it means

to be in the shoes of one among the faceless & nameless (for us, not their families) military personnel

sent by the U.S. President to carry out the actual fighting of the "war on terror" to the taliban (on our collective behalf, so to speak).

so, therefore, if few can ever be deemed to have shown anything approching unquestionable bravery, courage or valor in the service of the free press, Lara can without a doubt claim that mantle of glory. i, for one, feel indepted to acknowledge so much. because we DO take that privilege

to have a quality press, without ever much thought for those who endeavour to bring the war-torn, turbulent fraction of the world into our living rooms.

for what it's worth, you (Miss Logan) have certainly earned the unqualified respect and admiration of this one viewer of these most recent wars covereage (Iraq AS WELL AS Afghanistan...; & now maybe Pakistan).

a tip of the hat, then, for such unfailingly commendable professionalism... alan r., Montreal, CANADA

charlizecourriers  10/08/2009 03:32 PM Report

Logan is seriously deluded about where the safe havens for the Taliban are-they are in the minds of the people of Afganistan. Just like they were when I was in Vietnam. How to get into those safe havens is the key to creating a new

Afganistan and moderate Muslim world. I doubt this administration will learn this lesson before it is too late. Obama has triangulated himself and misguided war correspondents and pundits can't save him.

robdverity  10/08/2009 03:00 PM Report

Side-bar observation. Charlie had Michael Moore scheduled this week (tonight?), but no longer. Conjecture time. Who concelled whom? Pressure applied? If so, on whom and from what quarter?

Affect of capitalism the way I think it works in the good ole plutocracy (formerly a feeble democracy).

Probably just as well. Bettin Charlie would have been less than even-handed, to placate his A-list contemporaries.

hrc  10/07/2009 11:38 PM Report

War. We use this term very loosely on the public airwaves. War. The War in Afghanistan. The War in Iraq. The War on Terror. Constant war, war, war and always with malicious intent, to kill them. To kill them. Or to sanction them to cause us to kill them. To free them of their earthly bonds or their alliances to evil in the name of the good. Kill them with our weapons. Kill them in the name of War, your God, War.

lacraft  10/07/2009 04:25 PM Report

Lara Logan, as Charlie said, is excellent AND courageous!...please have her back on many more times!

cello10  10/07/2009 02:14 PM Report

The war in Afghanistan is one more reminder that the United States is exhibiting all the classic signs of a collapsing empire. We should have learned our lessons from the war in Vietnam. Barrack Obama is poised to make the exact same mistake made by Lyndon Johnson more than 4 decades ago.

robdverity  10/07/2009 01:32 PM Report

Btw, isn’t preemption the province of the president? Both Gates and McChrystall have overstepped their bounds. Which exposes their lack of objectivity and thus renders them unqualified to continue. They both should be summarily removed. Playing to the galleries is not what war decisions should be based upon. Their respective jobs are related to wars but not dependent on sustaining them. Their bias against not sustaining them by subverting the established chain of command should make them dependent and removable post haste.

This would have an incidental advantage. The MI oligarchic plutocracy should encourage Obama’s measured, calm style put into play to remove both Gates and McChrystall to fortify the illusion that he is indeed not their puppet and is in control - THE Commander-in-Chief.

Sad to see PBS complicit in this illusion creation, calling their documentary “Obama’s War.” What’s next NPR? I guess “The MI plutocracy’s War” doesn’t have that jingo ring. Ding-a-ling!

Disclaimer of sorts. For those of you who think this a bit radical and too cynical, I offer this. In Michael Moore’s, “Capitalism, A Love Story,” Walmart et al purchased “Dead peasant” insurance on their sick employees collecting millions upon their death. Now Gates and McChrystall may not have equivalent policies on troops in harms way, but I wont go that far for the MI plutocrats and CEOs. Stock ownership could prove revealing all around.

Do I think we’re a callous war mongering nation that would wage wars for greed (Gulf of Tonkin) and profit (WMDs)? In the currently popular vernacular, “you betcha!”

robdverity  10/07/2009 01:28 PM Report

Posting behind REMant is always fraught with comparative dangers. Exercising my noncompete clause here. I like what he said and the way he said it. My contribution here is less sophisticated, more emotional but heartfelt. So . . .

Jingos a dime-a-dozen tonight. The Rendon Group would be proud (the Pentagon contract group for ranking journalists positive or negative toward their current ambitions - which says a lot. A masses manipulator index - MMI). Charlie will get a five-star positive ranking for this parade of Military-Industrial (MI) jingoistic lobbyists. Foiling for the orthodoxy drums-of-war tooth and nail.

Robert Gates preempted the need for the whole program in the setup piece when he announced at the outset that leaving Af-Pak was not going to happen. So BANG, right off the bat the only sane and responsible option was taken off the table, rendering the subsequent discussion of mindless conjecturing that merely fortified the futility and expense we will undeniably embark upon.

Frontline on PBS has a coming (10/13) documentary on Afghanistan that, I’m betting, will validate the futility of our continued presence there. They wont blatantly say that but the slightest bit of independent reasoning should do it for those that don’t have MI stock.

Lara Logan was dutifully orthodox, waving the flags of war declaring we needed troops sufficient to carry the war to the cities, towns and outlying regions as well (a la WWII?). The MI oligarches had to be proud. Our conflicts seem to be designed for her addiction to the adrenaline rush-of-war she seems to thrive on. Impartial she isn’t; thoroughly discounted. Blood for her thrills and amusement aint good enough.

Live vicariously! Visualize the raucous frolicking about the Bahamas tax haven, yachting from island to island, visiting CEOs of Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed, Halliburton, Xe (aka Blackwater), and of course ArmorGroup (the deviants). Patriots arise - and get naked. (The State Department has warned the ArmorGroup about security problems for at least two years, yet they renewed their contract as recently as July.)

.

There are 250 thousand (no bid) contractors fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Poor old Karzai. We accuse him of corruption (cause as experts we know it when we see it). He’s been taught by the best. Gravy trains abound. No way they’ll be abandoned - for anybody.

Obama couldn’t stop any of this (Iraq or Af-Pak) unless the Military-Industrial Oligarches gave him an all clear. Until then he remains a puppet, and our system an oligarchic plutocracy. Or as Michael Moore calls it a Plutonomy. Democracy on paper only. A lingering illusion.

We’re invaders, OCCUPIERS, ugly Americans (unemployable, uneducated teenagers - tribal interaction requires tact). A 9/11 encore guaranteed. The same adults that allowed the financial meltdown are still in charge. Expect the same level of self-serving wisdom.

Lastly, is it a conflict of interest for Robert Gates, Hillary, Barack et al to own MI stock? Particularly Northrop-Grumman? They make the (civilian killing, terrorist recruiting, V2) drones. Rhetorical only as it fits the venality of it all. Send us your sons and daughters and hurry, Barack is making a show of thinking. But it’s a canard, the MI plutocrats says they’ll go on demand - theirs. They promise not to show you their coffins. They’re big on decorum.

REMant  10/07/2009 11:19 AM Report

Ms Logan's reporting is impressive and she must be the center of attention on those lonely nights in obscure hotel bars, but she seems cut from the same cloth as Jeremy Bentham, Henry Mayhew, and the current British prime minister, who thinks money grows on trees. (I'm sorry, what trees?) And I have little doubt she owes her CBS position to this quality. Such crusaders, unfortunately, tend to be more "Nazi" than those they label such. Just because al Qaeda is at war with us, we do not therefore have to be at war with the it. We certainly do not have to if they are, in fact, not at war with us, but we with them, which, I'd allege has been the source of most of the world's conflicts. I think Ms Logan agrees with me that the McChrystal and Petraeus approach is insufficient, but it doesn't follow that we therefore have to declare all out war on everything and everybody in the Near East in an attempt to eradicate every last vestige of Islamic fundamentalism, and I'm sure the latter would in fact welcome that, because I can't think of anything that would help further its cause more. The president tho appears set to do exactly what JFK did at this point in Vietnam, which is to send in just enough troops to get themselves maimed or killed, but not enough to do anything significant.

BTW, you put outposts (we used to call them fire support bases) astride infiltration routes precisely so that they and the patrols they support will have to be attacked or the routes abandoned, not so they will become Dien Bien Phu's. That we lost eight ppl is the result not of a bad game plan, but its execution.