« So imagine a section of Baghdad being blasted | Main | On the edge of the ghetto »

July 17, 2014

How to Withdraw From Afghanistan The Right Way

6. Cease the logistic effort, from outside, introduce troops, en masse, and attack with no higher purpose than to kill as many Taliban as we can. Use maximum feasible firepower and maximum feasible frightfulness, short of re-enacting a Lidice. - EveryJoe

Posted by gerardvanderleun at July 17, 2014 8:20 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

I'd always thought that was one of the fundamental choices from the beginning. Do we stay and build our Minas Ithils to keep the Enemy from re-entering? Or do we go in with his number 6, and then tell the survivors, "We'll be watching, don't make us come back here, it'll be worse the next time." And go home and sharpen our swords.

I guess the Bushies decided the first way. Because we don't do full Roman. When we elect somebody, both we and they are supposed to know that they may be required to make crappy choices that affect us all.

Well, after two crappy decisions on our part, the Usurper's work is done, and he's begun enjoying his well-earned emeritus status. He doesn't believe (or doesn't care) that an unlooked-for preference cascade may yet catch him unawares. It's not clear to me, but I don't see any evidence that he gives a fig what happens to our guys in 'stan. He acts like he believes he's untouchable and living a charmed life. Mao and Stalin yes, Il Duce and Ceausescu, no. Magic 8-Ball reports "Ask again later."

Posted by: John A. Fleming [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2014 1:55 AM

Wrong going in and ipso facto wrong going out.

With all the weapons in our arsenal we should have done a Dresden on them, left no stone standing atop another. The purpose of fighting a war is to win.

Posted by: chasmatic [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2014 4:36 AM

He was doing OK I guess until he got to that *we* word.

John Fleming expanded that by dragging in the word *our*.

Take away the *stolen money* aspect and all of it disappears.

Posted by: ghostsniper [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2014 6:55 AM

"The purpose of fighting a war is to win."
Well, who?
The soldiers? The Generals? The shield salepeople,
the subsequent "welfare" administration parasites?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all about "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds follow", and "....to hurt people and break things". I'm just pissing on folks like Keynes, Kissinger, Krugman, and Pope(fill in the blank) that can orchestrate a really complicated matrix
to defend why they're getting the fruits of your labor,-"Because, it's complicated.".

Posted by: CaptDMO [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2014 8:33 AM

How about taking 5 steps at a time?

1. Cut off the enemy's funding and ability to buy.
This includes all banks involved in the blood-money obscenity.

2. Destroy all madrassas, clerics, imams, mullahs, politicians promoting, by our definitions, hate/murder
3. Offer attractive bounties, ~$100,000, for the assassination of each of the individuals noted in 2 above. The first 1,000 will cost us $100 Million. Easy enough to offer these bounties to the opposing Muslim sect members.

The 2nd i,000 assassinations will get the supporting majority to reconsider their interpretation of Koran, Sunna, and Sharia -- hopefully along lines of last century's Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the 'Frontier Gandhi,' a Pashtun Afghani/Pakistani, great ally of Mahatma Gandhi, and a pacifist AND a DEVOUT Muslim!!! He was respected by all Muslims in the area. Thus,

4. Educate the children, women, men in the Islamic principles that inspired, and were necessary and sufficient to enthuse Frontier Gandhi

5. As necessary, apply Black Jack Pershing's means (anecdotal?) for disempowering murderous Muslim rebels in the Philippines.

Posted by: Stug Guts [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2014 11:21 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)