Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

When somebody like Max Boot writes an op-ed supporting Obama, my concerns with Obama turn to despair

not good...
President Obama and his aides continue to impress with their handling of Afghanistan. Not only have they approved a major troop increase and a de facto commitment to nation-building, but now they have shifted personnel to make the most effective use of the added resources and turn around a failing war effort.

max boot is right up there with bill kristol, charles krauthammer, michael smerconish, and karl rove in being a neocon to the bone... i've been less than thrilled with the obama administration so far, but to see one of these guys jumping on board is more than deeply troubling...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, March 13, 2009

Boot, Kagan, and Kagan - the neocon dogs of war attempt to justify more troops and more war in Afghanistan

Photobucket

why in god's name are these discredited, blood-thirsty hacks still getting prime op-ed space in the new york times...?
In addition to sending more soldiers, we must also increase our efforts to expand the Afghan security forces. It may be impossible to speed up the pace of building the Afghan National Army, but the current proposed end-strength of 134,000 troops is far too low. We should immediately commit to a goal of 250,000 troops for the army, and a substantial increase in the national police as well. Afghan troops also need lots of better equipment — everything from armored vehicles to night-vision goggles.

[...]

The key question for those who advocate pulling back is this: Where will we get the intelligence to direct the raids? If we have few troops on the ground, we will have to rely on intercepted communications. But seven years into the fight, the terrorists have learned a thing or two about keeping their communications secret. The only way to get the intelligence we need is from the residents, and they won’t provide it unless our troops stay in their villages to provide protection from Taliban retribution.

This struggle is not just about Afghanistan. It is also about tracking and effecting what is going on in Pakistan’s tribal areas. That is where the global Qaeda leadership is. It is the nexus of terrorist groups including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is implicated in the Mumbai, India, attacks last November; the Tehreek Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammadi, which now has control of the Swat region in Pakistan; and Baitullah Mehsud’s Pakistani Taliban, which are said to have plotted the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani prime minister.

From their positions across the border in Afghanistan, American forces can literally see these areas. They can also gather invaluable intelligence from, and spread our influence to, the tribes that straddle the frontier. But we get that vantage point only as long as we have something to offer the Afghans — security, improved quality of life, hope for a better government. If we abandon them, we will become blind to one of the most dangerous threats to our security, and also hand our most determined enemies an enormous propaganda victory — their biggest since 9/11.

Make no mistake: there is hard, costly fighting ahead in Afghanistan. But the fight is worth pursuing, and the odds of success are much better than they were in Iraq when we launched the forlorn hope known as the surge.

Max Boot is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Frederick Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Kimberly Kagan is the president of the Institute for the Study of War.

good lord, please spare me... (special note to the nyt: please keep this crew the hell away from the op-ed page...)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Speaking of wingnuttery, let's hear it for THE IRAQ WAR!

permanent war... permanent occupation of iraq... ya gotta love it...
The 'surge' is working

Casualties are down and security is improving in Iraq; Washington must give the strategy more time.

By Max Boot
September 8, 2007


[...]

Notwithstanding all the political hype and hyperbole, events on the ground do matter, and there is no denying that events in Iraq have been moving in the right direction since the surge started. Not even the Democrats deny it. Sens. Jack Reed, Hillary Clinton and Dick Durbin, among others, have acknowledged that, as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it, "The military aspects of President Bush's new strategy in Iraq . . . appear to have produced some credible and positive results."

yay, war...!

Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, May 31, 2007

The new ownership of the LA Times is proud to bring you - NEOCONS!

what a great way to start the day... i open up the la times email headlines only to find that two out of three of the featured op-eds are written by neocons, pleasuring themselves by writing about war... yeah, i know, that's how neocons get themselves off, but, doggone it, they really should be doing it in the privacy of their own bedrooms...

first we have dr. strangelove




Peter Sellers as
Dr. Strangelove
The lessons of Vietnam

Iraq desperately needs a political solution in the short term to make the war more manageable for the next president.

[...]

The Nixon administration was convinced that it had achieved a decent opportunity for the people of South Vietnam to determine their own fate; that the Saigon government would be able to overcome ordinary violations of the agreement with its own forces; that the U.S. would assist against an all-out attack; and that, over time, the South Vietnamese government would be able to build a functioning society.

American disunity was a major element in dashing these hopes. Watergate fatally weakened the Nixon administration through its own mistakes, and the 1974 midterm congressional elections brought to power the most unforgiving of Nixon's opponents, who cut off aid so the agreement couldn't work as planned. The imperatives of domestic debate took precedence over geopolitical necessities.

[...]

A political settlement has to be distilled from the partly conflicting, partly overlapping views of the Iraqi parties, Iraq's neighbors and other affected states, based on a conviction that the caldron of Iraq would otherwise overflow and engulf everybody. The essential prerequisite is staying power in the near term. President Bush owes it to his successor to make as much progress toward this goal as possible; not to hand the problem over but to reduce it to more manageable proportions. What we need most is a rebuilding of bipartisanship in both this presidency and in the next.

oh, ya gotta love henry... he sounds so very, very erudite and professorial as he reminds us of his vast reservoir in the management of u.s. involvement in other countries' civil wars, gained in vietnam, yet ANOTHER war criminal escapade, where we ALSO shouldn't have been in the first goddam place... then he has the unmitigated gall to propose a diplomatic initiative, based on - put your hands over the kids' ears - BIPARTISANSHIP, so the NEXT PRESIDENT will have an easier go... great god almighty in heaven above... henry really needs to wake up and smell the coffee... it makes no difference whatsoever how much bush may posture over "political settlements" and "bipartisanship..." he has proven in countless ways that he is indeed only posturing... we may be talking to iran and he may be looking twice at the iraq study group report, but those are only red-herring tactics, buying time while the u.s. presence in iraq becomes ever more entrenched, which, of course, is precisely the plan... you'll notice that the one thing he DOESN'T discuss is getting the hell out - permanently - preferring instead to leave it to us to decide what he means by the oh-so-academic term "geopolitical necessities..." bite me, henry...

and, as if that wasn't bad enough, then we have max boot as colonel klink, implying that the current horror in iraq would be going ever so much better if we sacked some of those incompetent lieutenant colonels and colonels who "simply aren't effective leaders or who consistently fail to achieve results" and replace them with blood-and-guts, patton-types... i won't even go there...




Werner Klemperer as
Colonel Klink
Fire the incompetents, find the Pattons

Our armed forces need to do a better job of punishing failure while rewarding those who succeed on the battlefield.

ok, i'm done...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments