How Do You Spell Inadequate?
I went and read Bill Whittle's latest. And I wished for a moment that I could come up with stuff like that to write, and then actually write it. I can't. Then I thought I'd make myself feel better by going off to some lefty blog to make fun of them, but then I see that Bill already did, and much unlike I could ever do. Darn it! I guess I'll just have to stick to what I'm good at, whatever that may be.
"... it woke my inner Balrog." Heh. Unfortunatly, the best I seem to get is a stirring in my inner orc, which is usually grumpy and not a little bit smelly, but does not evoke terror in my enemies in the way the Balrog would. Such is Mango.
"... it woke my inner Balrog." Heh. Unfortunatly, the best I seem to get is a stirring in my inner orc, which is usually grumpy and not a little bit smelly, but does not evoke terror in my enemies in the way the Balrog would. Such is Mango.
7 Comments:
Don't sell yourself too short. Your VPC/Rambo post is a masterpiece.
It's an incredibly long piece, but the guy lost me with the assertion that we won a war in Afghanistan. If that's true, then why do we still have combat forces there? Why are those forces daily engaged in combat?
You win if and only if the other guy gives up. Being stuck occupying some third world cesspool forever because the other guy won't give up is not winning.
That's one definition of "win." Or you could say that we won because we kicked the Taliban's butt and helped a new government form with elections and all that. Sure, we're still fighting the wack-job hangers on in the caves wherever they are. If that's not a win, it sure is winning, and a heck of a lot better than the Ruskies managed.
We went into Afghanistan initially to capture Osama Bin Laden. We failed. Having been fighting a "War on Drugs" since Hitler was a corporal, we might have claimed a temporary victory by shutting down Afghan opium production, but Afghanistan remains the source of much of the world's illicit opium. We did succeed in installing Hamid Kharzi as mayor of Kabul, but so what? Does it really make any difference to you who claims to govern Afghanistan? If so, why?
Maybe so, but it's difficult for us to go after Osama when he's probably hiding in Pakistan.
Militarily, we beat the crap out of the Taliban. That's a victory. Sure, they're skulking around in caves and still being a nuisance, but they're hardly a threat to our military in any significant way. They are somewhat of a political threat, especially if they can help the media here foist the Dems into power here.
We beat the crap out of the Taliban? It was my understanding that, when Dubya cut the deal that made Kharzi the nominal president, a whole lot of Taliban warlords changed hats and became Northern Alliance warlords. By agreeing to allow the Afghans themselves to participate in the pursuit of Bin Laden, Dubya ensured Bin Laden's escape.
By the way, the Democrats are already in power here. They won majorities in both houses of Congress in the 2006 election. It was in all the papers. If the Democrats win the presidency this year, they'll win because the Republicans insist on fighting foreign wars that few Americans perceive as having anything to do with their interests.
"We went into Afghanistan initially to capture Osama Bin Laden."
Not.
We went in to take the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, because they provided a base of operations and a good deal of Al Qaeda's support for the attacks on 9/11. They are no longer running Afghanistan, while they are doing their (increasingly less effective) best to take it back. And their operations outside Afghanistan/Pakistan have been greatly disrupted, primarily in Iraq.
Capturing OBL never was *the* primary goal, except perhaps in the overactive imaginations of some journalists, perhaps.
Post a Comment
Testing ...
<< Home