If you back escalalation, you need to answer this question....

[Ken Burch]

How many deaths(American and Afghan)would be TOO many for you?

[high density]

1. 2973 people was too many.

[Ken Burch]

2. This isn't about 9/11 anymore

And the deaths of those people can never be honored by the deaths of innocent Afghanis, who are going to end up being most of the people killed, since most of the deaths in ANY war are those of the innocent.

And what happened on 9/11 doesn't justify a war to force a gas pipeline through a country.

[WeDidIt]

45. Actually, yes, it is still aout 9/11

Sorry if you can't deal wiht that fact, but Afghanistan is 100% about 9/11.

[Ken Burch]

47. Even though killing thousands of Afghani citizens to punish Al Qaeda is inherently unjust?

And even though it's Republican to use 9/11 as a "bloody shirt" issue?

[WeDidIt]

49. War is hell

and Afghanistan brought war on themselves.

[Ken Burch]

51. The Taliban brought war on ITSELF

It's wrong to blame the entire population for the Taliban. And if you're going to tie it to those responsible for the Taliban being in existence at all, we should be bombing the Reagan Library as well.

[WeDidIt]

54. The Nazis brought war on itself

but the German people as a WHOLE paid the price.

That's war. War is hell. Afghanistan is experiencing what happens when you allow a group to take control that is at odds with the rest of the world.

[Ken Burch]

55. There was no way for the Afghan people to STOP the Taliban

Especially with the U.S. arming them to the teeth. It's wrong to blame the Afghan people for the Taliban. Only the Taliban deserves blame for the Taliban. The civilized world no longer accepts the idea of collective punishment.

[WeDidIt]

57. There was no way for the German people to STOP the Nazis

It doesn't matter.

That's war and they brought war on themselves.

[Ken Burch]

58. There was a way for the German people to stop the Nazis

They came to power in an election. The Taliban didn't. You can't compare the two situations.

Also, and I shouldn't have to say this, there was never anything in Afghanistan remotely like Belsen, Dachau or Auschwitz. It takes the "Christian" West to come up with things like THAT.

[WeDidIt]

59. WRONG!

The Nazis DID NOT come to power via an election. They were thrust into power by Hitler being made Chancellor by Hindenburg. They were a fucking MINORITY party.

So yeah, I can compare the two situations. Once Hitler became Chancellor, the rest is fucking history and the German people could do nothing to stop it.

[Ken Burch]

60. Hitler was only chosen as chancellor because of his party's parliamentary strength

And the fact that he won the support of the Catholic party(one of the forerunners of the so-called "Christian Democratic" party that was invented by the CIA after the war to keep the right wing in power in Germany despite its support for the Holocaust).

A large block of the German electorate VOTED for the Nazis in the last free elections. There was never any comparable declaration of public support for the Taliban by the Afghan people.

Once again, Germans as a nation deserved punishment, while Afghans as a nation don't.

And the Afghan body count so far clearly exceeds the losses of 9/11, so vengeance has already been taken. It's time to move on. Only those who hate life and despise the notion of a peaceful, positive future for their children would want this war to go on.

[WeDidIt]

61. I disagree completely

Afghans, as a nation, deserved punishment.

I stand by that statement.

[rasputin1952]

70. I take exception to the notion that an entire population must

somehow deserve "punishment" for what some of that population are responsible for.

If that were the case...the entire population of the earth should be condemned to death...for every nation, every society, every sect, every community...has things that some have done that would require your idea of "punishment". You bring perpetrators to justice, you do not summarily dismiss an entire population, nor hold them accountable for what a few have done.

[Bragi]

74. Collective punishment is a war crime

Just thought I'd mention that, though I suspect you're okay with war crimes against populations you feel are demonic.

[spoony]

65. Nice, using a cheap slogan to dismiss the carnage we've wreaked. nt

[Jamastiene]

67. If you believe in the war so much, instead of being an armchair hawk,

you should enlist and go fight it.

[Orsino]

69. No. Somewhat fewer than 100% of the people we kill there...

...were involved in 9/11.

[tblue]

23. And no war can bring a single one of them back.

But it can make that number go higher and create more fuel for violence directed at innocent Americans and others.

[WeDidIt]

46. That's where I stand on Afghanistan.

[Ken Burch]

48. That's where you SANTD?

:eyes:

[WeDidIt]

I love the typo nazis.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

52. Aw c'mon, you have to admit it takes some of the Patton-like quality out of your post

It'd be like Truman having a sign on his desk saying "The Buck SPOTS Here".

(It was an easy set-up...no real offense intended).

[The Traveler]

3. Here's a complementary question

If extremists gain access to live nuclear weapons (perhaps via a coup in Pakistan, or military betrayal, or ...), how many lives are we willing to incinerate to prevent those weapons from being transported or deployed? I ask this because the most likely containment strategy at that point would imply civilian casualty rates three or four orders of magnitude greater than we currently confront. (Even if we elect to not resort to a nuclear preventative strike, it is unclear to me that either Russia or India would feel compelled to be so restrained.)

An objective of strategy is to avoid (if possible) a situation from which there can be no decisive resolution. Bush and Cheney succeeded in miring us in two of these situations ... and I just gotta suspect that was deliberate, because they sure worked hard to accomplish it. I myself am unconvinced escalation will help the current situation at all. The absence of good alternatives is what really concerns me ... that, and the number of different ways the current situation can evolve into an event that kills a million innocent bystanders.

I'm all in favor of escalation if it pulls the fangs of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, stablilizes the region, and prevents a megadeath scenario. But me, I'm just not a believer. Too many questions in this room, and there may be no good answers.


Trav

[Ken Burch]

6. That actually makes a case for insisting that Pakistan give UP the bomb

The Pakistani government has never really been stable. Temporary periods of nominal democracy and civilian rule have been ended by repeated military coups. Pakistan's civilian rulers have made reckless and at times insane foreign alliances(Benazir Bhutto, of all people, supported the Taliban, a group that would probably have killed her had she been an Afghan citizen.)

There's also never been a good reason for India to have the bomb.

What is needed is a nuclear-free subcontinent.

No military solution will ever absolutely prevent the scenario you've outlined.

I do respect the thoughtfulness of your post, even though we apparently disagree.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. India actually has dual deterrence motivations

Their reasons for getting the bomb (depending on what theory you subscribe to) had more to do with China than with Pakistan. And a nuclear free China isn't even remotely possible given that they are a legitimate nuclear weapons state under the NPT.

And while Chinese-Indian relations are better than they were when India was getting the bomb, China is becoming the dominant force in the region and possibly in the world. Even if you solved the Pakistan problem, India is going to want to keep their nuclear weapons to act as a check on China's power.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. If the Taliban takes over Pakistan, it's a first strike by India I'm worried about most

Conventional deterrence theory would suggests that nobody strikes first if they know they will be obliterated in retaliation. And I'm not one of those people that believes deterrence theory doesn't apply all of a sudden because Muslim extremists don't fear their own death. Sure the foot soldiers that they manipulate might not, but the people at the top are rational power seeking actors just like everybody else.

What concerns me is that in the wake of a Taliban takeover, India might strike first to eliminate Pakistan's arsenal in hopes that the chaos will make it difficult if not impossible to launch a second strike.

[Flaneur]

33. Show me how the Taliban takes over Pakistan.

I think that's extremely unlikely.

[stevenleser]

39. Some say significant portions of the Pakistani intelligence service and army are sympathetic to the

Taliban. Hard to know if that is accurate.

[stevenleser]

38. I think that is a near 100% certainty, IMHO

If you are the prime minister of India, its hard to imagine a scenario under which you wouldn't do that in the event of a Taliban/Al-Qaeda take over of Pakistan. You would have to fear a first strike by the extremists once they consolidated control. I've been predicting a nuclear war between India and Pakistan for a few years now and this is one situation that I think could touch it off. Two of the worlds most densely populated nations with poor housing infrastructure equate to a horrific casualty rate too. Tens of millions would die.

[tblue]

4. Just the question makes me wanna cry.

And, no, I am not for the escalation. Guess I'm not "realistic."

[Ken Burch]

5. Eloquently put.

The worst part of this process is the idea(as expressed by Jonathan Schell's article in The Nation last month, that the administration is committed to Afghanistan because it believes it has to be in some kind of a war just to avoid looking "McGovernite".

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Lets say they do look end up looking McGovernite

How many more (Americans and others) will die when Sarah Palin gets elected. Political calculations are real and elections do matter and not just for the people running in them. Sometimes you do bad things to prevent people from getting elected who will do worse things.

BTW, remove politics and I don't support this war one bit. The only reason I'm really engaging in this discussion is that the article you mentioned has the exact same thesis I do. The administration is fighting a war because they fear looking weak on defense. However, I think that is a very legitimate concern and war may be necessary for this administration's survival. Quite frankly I could never be President because I could never send troops to die to win an election even though that might be the best thing for the country because my Republican opponent will send even more troops to die if they win.

[Ken Burch]

9. You're assuming the voters wouldn't reward our party for NOT getting stuck in an unwinnable war.

I prefer to think that the American people have a learning curve, and that they are not tied to the same foreign policy mindset that held sway in 1960 or 1972. Far better to hope for that than to see them as an angry god to whom sacrifices must be offered.

All we have to do to beat Palin is to defend our values and let her remind people of what a blithering idiot she is. We can win with a confidence-and-principle based campaign.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. People have short memories, nobody remembers the lessons of Vietnam

And relying on confidence and principles didn't work out so well for us in 2000 and 2004. The American people are not an angry god that requires sacrifice but they are easily frightened and easily manipulated. Furthermore, they see the Republican Party as a party that they can trust by default on national security. Democrats constantly have to prove that they can be trusted.

If Obama does pull out of the Middle East and there is a successful terrorist attack it is the end of his administration no matter what happens. Even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the attack, the Republicans will win by talking about how tough they are and how they are not afraid to use force to fight our enemies.

[Ken Burch]

11. And the only way we can prove that is by INVADING somebody?

Also, our candidates DIDN'T show any confidence or defend our principles in 2000 and 2004. Gore and Kerry both spoke with no real conviction and acted like being a liberal was the political equivalent of selling kiddie porn.

You're basically arguing that we can only win if we give up our humanity. Why assume that strength can't be displayed without saber-rattling?

We COULD make the case that the way to build global stability is by supporting the right of people around the world to have a decent life and a decent standard of living, and to have these things on their own terms. True stability can only be built from below-not through shady deals with the temporary self-appointed elites of the day.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Sometimes yes

Of course Obama hasn't invaded anybody, he's continuing a war that his predecessor left him. But Jimmy Carter, for example, would've had a far better chance of being re-elected if he had been willing to drop some bombs on Iran. Not that I think in terms of policy it would've been a good thing for him to do. But if it had spared us Reagan, it might have been the right thing to do in the long run.

[Ken Burch]

17. Carter's mistake was in ever SUPPORTING the Shah

By the time he came in, he already had intel that the Pahlevis no longer had any support and weren't going to survive. Backing the Shah to the bitter end was a mockery of his commitment to "human rights" and turned the Iranians against us when we might have had a chance for a fresh start. It was the defense of the Shah that caused the hostage crisis, and it was the conservative economic policy that caused the massive increase in unemployment. Those factors were what ensured Carter's defeat. He'd have lost even if he'd obliterated Iran with tactical nukes.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Carter was lukewarm to the Shah, far moreso than any of his predecessors

And while letting him come to the US for medical treatment was stupid, that ultimately didn't kill his presidency. His approval rating went up after the hostages were taken and if he had responded militarily they might have stayed up. What killed him was Reagan's ability to successfully portray him as somebody who was naively pursuing human rights over supporting anti-communist regimes.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships--double-standards-6189

Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who would ultimately be Reagan's UN Ambassador) was the brains behind that sort of tactic and it worked. Carter lost because people felt he should've supported the Shah more, not less. And while the economy had a lot of problems, the main one was OPEC which no fiscal policy liberal or conservative could possibly fix.

[Ken Burch]

21. If Carter had bombed and then the hostages had been killed

(which we can assume would've happened)he'd have either been doomed to losing renomination or would have lost in a general election. It would also likely have led to an all-out war with Iran, with the Soviets throwing into the thing in some way or another)and the prospect of that would've horrified and sickened the American people. And even if it hadn't and even if somehow a war with Iran would've reelected Carter, this would in itself have almost certainly pushed his post-reelection policies so much further to the right that we never would have known Reagan hadn't won.

Even the rescue mission could never have succeeded, because such a mission would have required all the hostages to have been kept in one easy-to-locate place. We now know(and the administration almost certainly knew at the time)that the hostages were scattered all over Tehran. Had the helicopters come anywhere near the city, the people holding the hostages would've been given the order to start executing them. How could THAT have worked to Carter's political advantage?

[Hippo_Tron]

24. I can't envision a world where Carter's second term is as right wing as Reagan's or even close

Reagan was right wing on a level that this country had not experienced since Calvin Coolidge. Subsequent Republican Presidents and candidates (save maybe Barry Goldwater) accepted the role of government in some form or another and most of them accepted the New Deal. Furthermore Reagan brought about the rise of the religious wrong. And his meddling in Nicaragua and El Salvador had horrendous consequences for those countries. Not to mention completely ignoring the AIDS epidemic and the country's need to end our dependence on foreign oil.

Military action in Iran might've resulted in some hostages dying (although I doubt they would assassinate them all as the objective was to use them as bargaining chips) but more importantly it would've been a demonstration that Carter was willing to use military force to deal with the problem, which Reagan was basically accusing him of not having the guts to. And since Iran isn't exactly capable of waging war against the United States, the scale of the conflict would have been up to us. The Soviets might have gotten involved but more likely than not it would've been on our side since they backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war as well. Khomeini was not just a threat to US and Israeli interests he was also a threat to the Soviet Union's Arab partners. One thing I really have to give Khomeini credit for is that he managed to survive when basically all of the regional and world powers were against him.

[DutchLiberal]

72. It's useless. You're arguing with a blood-thirsty warmonger.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Bottom line is that its never been done

Bobby Kennedy was the closest thing to a potentially successful anti-war candidate in the Post World War II era. But the experiment never got far enough to know just how successful it would be.

Giving up our humanity is the only way that we know of to win because that's what the other side does. I'm sure there's another way, but nobody has formulated and implemented a coherent strategy to do that yet. Believe me you're not the first person to think "what would happen if we ran a candidate who was firm in their anti-war beliefs?" The answer is that if you look at the history they all seem to get their asses kicked.

[tblue]

15. That's kinda like destroying the village to save it.

I get your point, sweetie. This is not a criticism of what you're saying. But isn't that just awful? Oh what a hellish choice: Obama's escalation or Sarah Palin's End of the World.

Lord help us, please!

[Hippo_Tron]

16. That's how the world works unfortunately

Some day somebody will figure out how to convince the American people that peace really is a good thing, but nobody has really seemed to figure that one out yet.

As I said down thread, I couldn't be President because I couldn't sleep at night having to make that kind of decision no matter what my decision was.

[tblue]

22. I wouldn't be him, either.

Unlike W, Obama's got a conscience.

[Flaneur]

35. We have to have a war so Obama can be reelected? That's just wrong.

And the ultimate in cynical political manipulation.

[DutchLiberal]

71. It makes no difference if Palin or Obama is president.

That straw man is old, overused and totally worn out.

[tblue]

14. Obama "McGovernite"? Don't make me laugh.

If that is the reason for the escalation, then we are in greater danger than I thought.

That is fricking scary!

[Ken Burch]

8. And the "Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out" crowd are out and unrec'ing.

Imagine my lack of surprise.

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Whining about unrec's will get you another unrec

[Moochy]

31. oooh that stubs is so fucking meta!!!!

word!

[Ken Burch]

34. Actually, I was JOKING about unrec's, not whining.

Just for your information.

BTW, if DU had existed in 1968, would you be starting "Westmoreland Rocks!" threads?

[27inCali]

19. this is the smartest discussion of the war

I've seen on here in a while.

thanks guys/

[Ken Burch]

20. You're welcome.

The scary thing is, people could still show up later and bring teh stupid.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Well thank you

Ken and I see this situation in a fundamentally different way (it wouldn't be a good discussion otherwise) but I'm glad we can discuss this in a civil and intelligent manner. And I have to say that I'm glad nobody has showed up accusing anybody of either being a cheerleader or hating the President. That certainly doesn't make for intelligent discussion.

[invictus]

28. K&R

[Moochy]

30. Kick and Reccomend

How many recs of this post would be too many for our pro-war DU'ers?

[Kltpzyxm]

32. +1

War isn't any less deadly when their is a D running it.

[cornermouse]

36. We've already had far too many.

kick

[stevenleser]

37. This is failed logic, and I don't support the escalation.

This is one of the few areas where I do not agree with what President Obama has done. But you dont go to war or stop a war because of body count. You either have a legitimate reason and concrete objective, or you dont.

[treestar]

41. True, both sides use the troops to try to bolster their argument

Argue that the war is unnecessary on other grounds. Those who support the war can use the troops too, like the freepers do.

[stevenleser]

42. Exactly. Another similar piece of failed logic is "the drones"...

... you find that universally, those who complain about "the drones" are against the war. Use of these drones does not violate the Geneva conventions. And the fact of the matter is, the weapons these drones use, the hellfire, are very low yield in comparison to the damage by any other alternative. You would either use loitering aircraft that would use bombs, the smallest of which is about 5-10 times more powerful than a hellfire, or they would use a maverick missile which is 5 times as powerful as a hellfire, or you would send in ground troops and they would kill a lot more people trying to get the intended target than the drone would kill.

If you are against the war, be against the war because the war is wrong, dont focus on these side issues where the logic is just not with you.

[Ken Burch]

44. To decide on whether to go to war, you should be expected to think about the consequences

loss of human life(and btw, I included Afghani lives in the OP)is part of that.

[stevenleser]

63. Loss of life is a given with war. That is why you need a valid reason and a solid objective.

There are many things that go into the idea of "valid" war. Suffice to say that if the international community considers your war "Illegal" as Iraq was illegal, then you dont have a valid reason.

[treestar]

40. One is too many

then on the other hand, how many are we saving by putting that country in order? The trouble is we cannot really ever know.

[mkultra]

43. How many dead americans would justify an escalation?

that would be the valid inverse of your question. In other words, given a vacuum such as you established, if Al queada set off a chemical attack and killed X number of people, how high would that number need to be for you to back an escalation in order to route them out?

I personally don't think either question is fair.

[Ken Burch]

50. You're making two spurious assumptions

1)That 9/11 justifies collective punishment of the Afghan people, even though only the Taliban itself was responsible for AQ having any Afghan connection at all;

and

2)That it's actually going to be possible for us to FIND any AQ's still in Afghanistan if they haven't been found after nine freaking years.


Deaths of the innocent in the past can't justify killing more of the innocent today.

[mkultra]

53. and your making three yourself

1) that those Afghan people being punished where not connected to either the Taliban or AQ

2) The single report put out by the MIC alluding to AQ numbers in the 400 is true(i.e. Bush killed them down from 4000 to 400)

3) that the purpose of my illustration was to make an assumed point which led you to make assumptions about my purpose.



I was merely demonstrating that your premise can be put on a scale of equality which demonstrates that even you are probably a moral relativist and less of a moral purist. In essence, the question you dodged was to demonstrate that even you have your limit. So what is that limit?

[LWolf]

56. One.

But then, I don't back escalation.

[THUNDER HANDS]

62. what do you think the Taliban is going to do to civilians once we leave

not that that, in itself, is a reason for escalation, but it is a grim reality.

[spoony]

64. We're going to leave eventually

Right? Whatever they're going to do, they're going to do, because you can't wipe out an ideology with guns.

[Bragi]

75. I can answer that!

When the US finally leaves, the same warlords, drug barons and religious medievilists who for the past two hundred years have made Afghanistan one of the poorest and most backward places on earth will continue to run the country, just like they do now.

Do I win a prize?

[depakid]

66. One might easily turn that bit around and ask:

what ought to be the alternative(s) this point?

And how would any of them fare better- for all of the peoples of the world- not just Americans.

[vaberella]

68. Hmm..compared to a possible Middle East war---which would involve the US w/o escalation?!

Hmmm...

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.