IVAW is OK with the Taliban
TJ Buonomo, a long-time meber of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, but not an Iraq veteran, writes on their website;
On 8 March 2011, IVAW requested that Senator Diane Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, request declassification of intelligence reports on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. To date there has been insufficient public debate within Congress on whether the defeat of the Taliban is vital to the protection of the American people from terrorist attacks and numerous prominent national security commentators have made compelling arguments that this is not the case or at the very least that this assumption should be re-examined.
I has an hours long conversation with TJ back in 2009 and I got the impression that he thinks he’s a pretty smart feller, but this missive proves otherwise. Everyone on the planet knows that the Taliban protected and at least provided minimum logistical support to al Qaeda. And before 9-11, no one on the planet thought for a second that goat-roping Stone Age shepherds were a threat to the American people.
So why is Buonomo trying to end the war against the Taliban? He did the same thing before the “surge” in Iraq. It’s so scary to them that we might actually be successful in a war against our enemies, they’re willing to let an entire country fall under the iron sandals of the Taliban again.
If Buonomo had read even the slightest bit of history from before 9-11, he could answer his own questions. His contention that there has been “insufficient public debate within Congress” proves he hasn’t been listening. But that’s Buonomo’s favorite tactic – it’s only rhetorical flourishes for the sake of discussion.
On a similar note, the anti-war hen house formerly called “After Downing Street” has renamed itself “War Is A Crime“. Doesn’t that, in turn, mean that the troops are criminals? Haven’t these dolts learned anything in the last forty years?
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Terror War
“numerous prominent national security commentators have made compelling arguments” against the war on the Taliban?
Name one credible “commentator”, IVAW. And no, Olbermann, Maddow, Maher and Matthews don’t count.
I think the question would be better put, Does the allocation of resources to fight the war against the Taliban actually make us safer? When the majority of container ships are not inspected, our borders (all four of them) are pourous and problems with VISAS are still not resolved, the answer may be “no.”
There will always be a corner of the world where those who wish to do us harm can gather, train and plan. The solution is not to attack everywhere that happens. The solution is to focus on what we can control and what we can defend rather than playing a game of Whack-A-Mole with the globe.
“Haven’t these dolts learned anything in the last forty years?”
Um, no, they haven’t. Did you expect them to?
#2 HM2 FMF-SW Ret,
The short answer to your questions are yes: it is much less expensive to fight terrorists on their own ground. To do what you imply, which I interpret as closing our borders, would require a massive outlay in infrastructure, personnel, and training and end up, in the American style, as a total wipe out because some judge on the 9th Circus thinks inspecting containers violates the search and seizure amendment of the Constitution.
Not to mention I’m allergic to jack-booted thugs, which our border protectors would have to become in order to implement your recommendation. But that’s a personal problem of my own.
I’m waiting for historians and Thursday morning quarterbacks to begin the Cambodia-Laos comparisons to Pakistan (and the other -Stans).
Davo:
It’s a logic problem to me. I was 12 when I took my first flight. I remember wondering then why the security was so lax. (This was in the late 80’s). It was not like we had no warning that people want to kill us, nor did we lack the technology. We just made a choice not to better protect ourselves.
If we keep attacking countries because they might hold terrorists bent on our destruction, we will be in a constant state of war, which has never worked for any society in the past. What I described may be very expensive, but not as expensive as perma war.
HM2 FMF-SW Ret, The natural state of society is war, punctuated by periods of prepping for the next war that we as a society call peace. At issue is the perception. Is the US of A making war for the purpose of war, or is it reacting to acts of terrorism? Secondly, to your logic problem. What actions are necessary to ensure adequate security? What is adequate? Losing one passenger plane a year? Loss of a port? Loss of life for one civilian citizen? Defining what is adequate in both the political sphere (i.e. Not One Cent For Tribute) and in the practical sphere scopes the problem. From there, we have to determine what actions are required to ensure the adequacy of security. ID checks? Sounds reasonable, but is it Constitutional? Does it defeat John Doe, the recently radicalized convert to Islam? As we’ve seen in Madison, Wisconsin, we can’t just protect against men from the Middle East who follow the Religion of Pieces. Students and thugs striking a blow against The Man for any number of causes, or just because they feel they can get away with it. Terrorism doesn’t have to be about suicide bombings either. Some hacker with a mouse and an internet connection and suddenly: economic chaos as the NASDAQ gets hacked and stock values crumble. Likewise, hacking into a hospital’s computer Rx system and changing the doses or medicines altogether: nurses and aides and such begin executing patients – and the chaos that ensues! To simply protect the US of A, we would have to transform into the tightest-run police state ever seen in history. To pay for the police, equipment and such would pretty much force non-employees of government to enter involuntary servitude in order to pay the taxes necessary to fund the effort. Far simpler, and less expensive, to take terrorists to the woodshed in their own back yard. They’re not going to stop hating America, and trying to kill Americans – but killing them over there means we aren’t doing what the Japanese are doing now: looking for survivors, shocked, mourning, fearing… Read more »
Davo:
You post reads almost like you just threw a bunch of words on the page and most of it barely hangs together. I am not really sure how to respond but, here goes:
It does not matter why the US is making war. The US is a war in a region we do not adequately understand and attempting to acheive a goal that has not been acheived in that region before.
Adequate security is a larger debate that has yet to be had. To be free in our persons, papers and homes requires some inherant risk. We should be screened at airports, we should have police attempting to spot those who intend harm. However, no security mechanism is entirely fool proof.
There should be id checks in certain circumstances as has been done to this point. Securing the border and inspecting incoming ships is imperative too. Islam is not the problem. Mcveigh was not a muslim, nor was Eric Rudolph, nor was Dan Cooper. Yet, your solution does not prevent any of these senarios nor the one you present. It is a distraction vs a solution.
Wisconsin was a peacful protest and a beautiful demonstgration of Democracy in action. I do not understand your point.
Again, you hacker with a mouse happens daily and we are fighting against that. However, troops on the ground in A-stan does not stop hackers everwhere from being hackers. Everywhere.
Finally I bet that a battalion of Marines could have kept the teutonic plates in place or a good sniper could have shot that Tsunami dead. Japan suffered a natural disaster. What is your point?
HM2 FMF-SW Ret,
BLUF: to provide the security you seek is too expensive in terms of freedom and dollars (or yuan), and will still fail to provide security.
Davo:
My solution is likely no move costly than yours. More over, fighting “them” over ther does
not preclude fighting them here. Searching container ships as they arrive is already done, but not to the. Extent that it matters. We already have border security, but not to the extent that it matters. The threshold is not and never has been that there will never be another attempt, but rather to prevent as many attacks with the least loss of life possible. At what point are we going to invade Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Chechnya and the internet just to get started? Because that is where we go if we keep on the direction we are heading. It is too expensive and does not provide security
I know TJ, and he is a good guy that takes care of his friends, especially those who are in trouble, I should know because TJ has been there for me. Don’t go bashing TJ because he is a member of IVAW, and don’t go bashing these other IVAW members and allies because they are doing more for the men and women of the armed forces than the YOU. You need to take a page out of their book and read it, let your brain absorb the knowledge it lacks and start making the right choices.
Basically speaking, “Un-fuck yourself asshole”
Brilliant comment, C, it all makes perfect sense. Actually, I’d join IVAW if I was qualified, but unfortunately, I’ve been to Iraq during a shooting war, so I’m excluded from membership.
C; you “think” that IVAW members have done more for the men and women of the armed forces? Really? Please explain, because I haven’t heard that line in a while, so I have already forgotten what IVAW does for the troops. I know they march around in their desert camo pants with their black shirts and kafiyas on, oh and their desert camo boonie hat, so they really look cool. Is that the standard uniform for IVAW members? I’m just asking so when someone asks me who those guys are over there looking like a monkey fucking a football, I will be able to positively identify them by their official uniform. I remember seeing video of several IVAW members wearing that particular uniform, like Rick Duncan/Stradlof and a few others. Even recently, right here on TAH, I saw the picture during the march in Austin.
So; what is it that they do for the troops? Do they provide college scholarships to the children of parents killed in the line of duty since 9/11? Do they work to organize getting troops that have lost everything at their COP new personal supplies? Do they promote and donate to the Wounded Warrior Project or Soldiers Angels or any of the many programs to help deployed and wounded troops, as well as their families? Please list it all, I patiently wait your response.
IVAW is a damn joke, these assholes are a bunch of cowards that either got kicked out of the military for being gay, couldn’t hack being in the military, just joined the military for college, or all of the above! Do you honestly think anyone respects these low lifes at all? The answer is “hell no!” Now as yourself this question, “What does IVAW have to gain from their bs pretend missions and bs campains” Speaking of Campaigns what the hell would they know about a campaign when most of them have not served in a military campaign in the first place? Oh an so there is no confusion I do not mean the 2008 Presidential Campaign where you all slapped on Obama stickers over your toilet paper bumper stickers.