Bob W., you refer to today's CNN story, "NATO Official: Bin Laden, Deputy hiding in Northwest Pakistan."
Regarding Afghanistan, the story concludes: "The U.S. military could sustain the war 'indefinitely,' the [NATO] official said. But the goal is to achieve reconciliation and allow the Afghan government to function and provide security and services to the people. Without that, he said, 'we will be fighting here forever.'"
Fighting forever. The NATO official's remark is another cog in the wheel of endless war being turned by, among others, the Bergen and Hoffman report, "Assessing the Terrorist Threat," and the mainstream media. Beware: a Pavlovian reflex-style program to condition the American public to accept the unacceptable is now in gear.
Well, in Obama's words, the NATO official just doesn't get it. Question: why did we send troops into Afghanistan? Answer: immediately after 9/11, the Afghan government (then the Taliban) refused to hand over bin Laden. We did NOT go into Afghanistan "to achieve reconciliation" and to allow the "government to provide security and services to the people." If bin Laden is killed or captured, we will have achieved our purpose. We can pull the troops out -- mission accomplished. American voters: take note. Taliban, too.
What will likely happen in Iraq and Afghanistan? Answer: the same soiled fairytale that took place in Nicaragua and elsewhere. The U.S. invades a country, and then tries to set up a democracy. Simultaneously, the U.S. builds up that country's army/other armed forces; after all, the people have got to have "security." The U.S. withdraws its troops. The armed forces stage a coup. So long, democracy. Washington shrugs: too bad. However, we have to deal with somebody there. So …. Another Anastasio Somoza or Fulgencio Batista emerges. Another Saddam Hussein.
A society and government are no better than what they reward. In 2009, the U.S. awarded $7.5 billion in aid over a 5-year period to Pakistan, where bin Laden is hiding. Instead of giving more money, the U.S. should start knocking off a fixed amount -- say half a million -- for each day bin Laden is not captured or killed. The money saved should be earmarked for domestic spending, e.g., health care, public education, so that it would not be rerouted to Pakistan.
Bob, you will have your man in a few weeks, maybe days.
Regarding Afghanistan, the story concludes: "The U.S. military could sustain the war 'indefinitely,' the [NATO] official said. But the goal is to achieve reconciliation and allow the Afghan government to function and provide security and services to the people. Without that, he said, 'we will be fighting here forever.'"
Fighting forever. The NATO official's remark is another cog in the wheel of endless war being turned by, among others, the Bergen and Hoffman report, "Assessing the Terrorist Threat," and the mainstream media. Beware: a Pavlovian reflex-style program to condition the American public to accept the unacceptable is now in gear.
Well, in Obama's words, the NATO official just doesn't get it. Question: why did we send troops into Afghanistan? Answer: immediately after 9/11, the Afghan government (then the Taliban) refused to hand over bin Laden. We did NOT go into Afghanistan "to achieve reconciliation" and to allow the "government to provide security and services to the people." If bin Laden is killed or captured, we will have achieved our purpose. We can pull the troops out -- mission accomplished. American voters: take note. Taliban, too.
What will likely happen in Iraq and Afghanistan? Answer: the same soiled fairytale that took place in Nicaragua and elsewhere. The U.S. invades a country, and then tries to set up a democracy. Simultaneously, the U.S. builds up that country's army/other armed forces; after all, the people have got to have "security." The U.S. withdraws its troops. The armed forces stage a coup. So long, democracy. Washington shrugs: too bad. However, we have to deal with somebody there. So …. Another Anastasio Somoza or Fulgencio Batista emerges. Another Saddam Hussein.
A society and government are no better than what they reward. In 2009, the U.S. awarded $7.5 billion in aid over a 5-year period to Pakistan, where bin Laden is hiding. Instead of giving more money, the U.S. should start knocking off a fixed amount -- say half a million -- for each day bin Laden is not captured or killed. The money saved should be earmarked for domestic spending, e.g., health care, public education, so that it would not be rerouted to Pakistan.
Bob, you will have your man in a few weeks, maybe days.