The simplistic anti-intellectual BS of Jake Diliberto
Marine Corporal Jake Diliberto, co-founder of Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan went on CNN yesterday to spread his simplistic bullshit about withdrawing from Afghanistan because bin Laden is dead. The same crap he wrote the other day.
He says that we went to Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda and that the war isn’t against the Afghanistan people. He’s right in that respect – but he forgets that we went there to destroy the Taliban, too, because they were the government which welcomed al Qaeda and any number of other terrorist organizations and created an environment which allowed them to flourish and a base from which they could launch attacks.
And al Qaeda is by no means destroyed. I’m sure they’re busy right this moment planning retribution for the death of bin Laden. That’s why my initial post on the subject was cautious.
It’s short-sighted and naive to think that the death of bin Laden is excuse enough to cut and run from Afghanistan. Like I wrote yesterday, every time we’ve left the job unfinished, it’s come back to bite us in the ass – all the way back to WWI Germany.
The Taliban is convinced they’re at war with us, why does Diliberto think we’re not at war with them? The last person I’d like to find myself in agreement with is Barney Franks, the guy CNN uses to open the discussion.
Thanks to Jake for sending us the video. Obviously he subscribes to the theory that any publicity is good publicity. I hope to disabuse him of that notion. For the crowd that prides themselves on being the ones who actually do “critical thinking” they sure don’t get that 1+1 doesn’t equal 1.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Terror War
My apologies go out to Joseph Diliberto. You were always the good egg to Jake’s over-impulsivity.
I went to school with Jake (High School at Marmion Academy), and it’s comforting, in a way, to know that some things never change. Jake was always long on rhetoric, and short on critical thinking. There’s a reason that I hid him from my FB feed, namely that I couldn’t stand his short-sighted rambling and rabble-rousing.
Anecdotally, when we were in school, we were almost certain that Mr Diliberto would run afoul of what would become the Stolen Valor Act. He would approach other Cadets, and remove ribons, medals, and lanyards for his own Class A uniform, often without knowing what the items that he had removed stood for. This practice was so common that we termed anyone defacing another’s uniform “Jaking”. A “Jake’d” uniform was a valid excuse for ‘out of uniform’, ‘improper display’, and several other demerit-worthy offenses.
Jake, you didn’t fool anyone then, and you sure as hell don’t fool anyone now. Instead of using your dubious stature, both personally (Jake stands a whopping 5’5″), and professionally (Corporal? That’s it?), to start another campaign of short-sighted, divisive nonsense, why don’t you go get a real job, make an honest living?
Hi Rob, nice to talk to you again. We had some good days back then. Yeah my brother is a good soul, I love him and he loves me. Were a good family, just like we were back then. Just to make things straight, we may disagree about the policy, and that is a good discussion to have. Do me a favor and leave my brother out of this discussion. Joe is a great guy, and my family is as well. Sorry you don’t agree with me, we should continue to have this discussion and debate. I am wiling to go at great length and discuss the problems of Afghanistan and the Global Jihadist threat. I have spent the majority of my adult life working in the islamic community abroad and inside the US and doing extensive research on the topic. I could write you 250,000 word dissertation on why the Obama administrations decision to nation-build in Afghanistan is a bad idea. I could explain it at great length, but you would never read it, because who wants to discuss this issue at length, with seriousness? Most likely, academics and policy wonks are the only people that discuss it like this. Let me be brief and exactly what policy I endorse. The Afghan study group is signed by the best and brightest people who don’t agree with Counter-Insurgency. I also agree, Counter-Insurgency is not a good model for our adventure in Afghanistan. I have co-signed the policy, and can explain why if you want to get into deep analysis. Here is the policy. http://www.afghanistanstudygroup.org/read-the-report/ On a personal note, I don’t espouse to be a war-hero. THis is simply my advise on the policy. If you don’t like my policy, lets talk about what needs to be better in the policy. My entire family served in the military, from WWII, Vietnam, Gulf War, Enduring Freedom, Iraq Freedom, etc. Were a good tribe of American folks who love our freedoms like anyone else. I take issue with the policy, not with being American or killing bad guys. Were talking about keeping insight… Read more »
Thanks, Jake, you able to address absolutely nothing I wrote.And it took you ten paragraphs to say nothing I didn’t already know. I hope it was as worthwhile for you as it was for me.
Jake, you could write it, but could you do it COHERENTLY? Just a cursory glance at your blather shows it full of punctuation, syntax, and spelling errors. Who the hell wants to listen to anyone who can’t express themselves effectively?
To put it another, more succinct way, quit jacking the bandwidth, fag.
You do realize the Taliban is in fact in the middle of their spring offensive and that Bin Laden’s death hasn’t slowed that down a bit, correct?
Gentleman. Thank you for letting me know that my blog post did not have academic clarity. (sigh) Now, lets get to the business of the Taliban. Indeed, the spring offensive is beginning again. Now lets first start by asking the question, “to what extent does that matter”? Now, I know your probably furious that I will start with that simple question. However, we should not go into this discussion without clarifying a few things. Virtually, everyone in the national security policy world is suggesting that the spring fighting season means very little for the LONG TERM. From David Kilcullen to Christina Fair and across the policy spectrum, most everyone agrees the extent to which the spring fighting season matters only matters for short term thinking. (Again, we need to think about this as a chess game. Three phases, opening, middle, and end) The insurgency will always be there as long as there is a corrupt government in Kabul. The insurgency is a product of years of intra-civil war that occurs as a result of Afghan culture. If we want to change the culture of the people in Afghanistan, we better buck up for a 100 year occupation. That is not a viable solution. So, lets consider “changing the culture option as irrational. A more rational discussion occurs when we ask, to what extent can we leave the country in, once we leave. That question posed begins to ask what are the tactics being employed on the ground, and how are they accomplishing our political goals. Tactically: Rule #1 in COIN operations is having a viable local partner. I have been doing COIN research for nearly 5 years, in every single successful COIN operation a viable local partner exists, and is respected by the people. One of the reasons the Kabul Government is not viable is because it has been getting rich off the US money, and stealing from the people just like many other corrupt regimes in the world. This should not come as a surprise, Mubarak, Zardari, Ali-Abdullah Selah, and countless other regimes share the same guilty pleasure. The… Read more »
So, Jake, you are a pseudo-intellectual who engages in mental masturbation on someone else’s bandwidth? Can you clarify why you can’t make a cogent point, much less a cogent point succinctly?
So, Jake, you’re saying that the Taliban is launching their Spring offensive because Karzai has a corrupt government? To use your expression; (sigh). You’ve studied Afghanistan for five years and that’s your conclusion? Maybe you should have started studying ten years ago…or fifteen. Apparently you think only the events that occurred during your studies were relevant.
Do you honestly think that the Taliban would be rational actors “at the negotiation table”? What have they done in recent history that would lead you to that conclusion? What would make you think that those 20,000 troops that we’d leave there wouldn’t be engaged in a 360 degree firefight every morning?
Like I said “Short-sighted and naive”.
Diliberto, Your argument makes zero sense because your logic construction is if/and, not if/then. For example, you say start the strategic withdrawal. And leave 20,000 troops behind to do mentoring. Which is it? A withdrawal, or an occupation? Second, you failed to note the differences between the strategic, the operational, and the tactical. Please be precise in your terminology. A “strategic withdrawel” (sic) means something very different from a withdrawal, redeployment, retrograde operations, or movement to the rear with the gear. Strategically, the US can not afford to surrender the region. Whether one’s metrics covers diplomacy, industry, military, or economics (DIME), the US has a strategic reason to remain. Strategically, and in keeping with the AUMF and the intent of the war on terrorism, expanding the war operationally into Pakistan is the right and correct operation to take. Jihadist pressure is focused on seizing control of Egypt, Syria, and several other hotspots. This action will re-focus terrorists on SWA, and permit American-friendly groups across North Africa the necessary relief to install pro-American regimes. This is vital to our DIME, and also serves to stab jihadist recruiters and financiers in the back. AQ, the Taliban, and to a degree the HiG are primarily concerned with survival. The Pakistani Army is split into three factions: pro-jihad as lead by the ISI, pro-anti-India, and pro-isolationist. Seizing Pakistan’s nukes destroys the the goal of jihadists in Pakistan; and by securing the southern part of the country ensures we can have a safe, orderly withdrawal of men and materiel. The jihadists use negotiations to buy time for their forces to refit, rearm, and recruit. Negotiation, as a tactical tool to meet an operational or strategic goal, has zero value to the US. Expansion of the war, seizing their most sought-after prize (the nukes), and destroying the means of their financial survival are what will end this war on terms favorable to the US. Anything less is defeat. Now for your pithy remark on having international development of Afghanistan – this is already happening. Afghanistan is (literally and figuratively) a gold mine that the Russians and… Read more »
Jonn and DaveO– good remarks! Indeed I share some of your thoughts. A few things. Do any of you know Tom Pickering, Christina Fair, or Brahimi? Probably not, otherwise you might not ask me some of the questions you did. So, that in mind allow me to provide some simplistic analysis on some of the issues that these three bring up. A few things I would counter with that you directly mentioned, Q: “Do you honestly think that the Taliban would be rational actors “at the negotiation table”? A: Well, I am skeptical to the extent that the insurgency labeled as “the Taliban insurgency” can be reconciled. However, Pickering, Brahimi, and Korb are pretty convinced that the Taliban and others are ready to move ahead with peace negotiations. I really don’t want to argue with these three because these guys have over 150 international diplomats from every major international player that agree as well. Note that even these guys have met with Iranians, Pakistanis and Russians and all sources confirm that negotiations are a must in the immediate future. Secondly, DIA spook Lt Col Tony Shaffer from Operation Dark Heart and Able Danger has made it clear in his writings and media appearances that we need to get on these negotiations ASAP. So, I will trust these guys over anyone else regarding the Taliban negotiation. Here is there full report if your curious to spend a sunday reading it. Basically, it calls for immediate negotiations. Petraeus may not want to, but thats ok because Petraeus doesn’t set policy, the elected body, the American people do, and strategic sense dictates policy all equally. Here is a copy of their report that calls for immediate negotiations. http://tcf.org/publications/2011/3/afghanistan-negotiating-peace Many components to this report are important to the process of understanding the political and pragmatic context of any plan to negotiate with the Taliban. The report ably summarizes the current stalemate of the war; the realistic perspective that even a grand bargain with the Taliban probably won’t on its own bring peace; and the necessity to begin this process now. In effect, the report… Read more »
I could go on for hours
And you still wouldn’t have said anything worthy of mention. I have better things to do with my time, like punch myself in the balls.
This bum is an embarrassment to my Corps. Believe it or not, we don’t allow too many superficial dumbasses in, nor do we keep them when we realize they are idiots.
I don’t know any of the people cited.
I do know there are some practical matters that are not addressed.
The Muslims we’re discussing are not children misbehaving within the norm of Judeo-Christian parenting. They are murderous and clever thugs who would make Tony Soprano into a soprano just for the thrill of it.
AQ, the Taliban, HiG, the Chechnyan Calophate, AQI, and so on are a confederation of groups with one or two goals in common, sharing resources and acting in concert. Who do you invite to the negotiating table? Who is the spokesman?
Which group gets which deal? Will you exclude Karzai and the warlords (they’ll invite themselves anyway)?
Frankly, our diplomats lack the instinct to play the game of chess in four dimensions, with each group that exists. We need a Talleyrand, and we got Porky Pig.
Next, what is the purpose of withdrawal? How are the national and global interests served? Our military is being completely made over as we consider these words, and no one can say for sure if the butcher will leave enough on the bone.
As an aside, you may not be aware that we have been negotiating with these jokers. Mullah Omar’s personal representative is none other than one each Medea Benjamin.
Jake ,have you read the Koran ? If yes, has the part where the Koran tells them . They can lie and break them when it to their advantage? The muslim is to convert the to Islam and sharia. They are at war with any non-muslim nation. Of course,the leaders told you what they through you wanted to hear, understand this? Education is the answer and that takes a long time. Only the rich go to schools and colleges. Just in closing SHUT YOUR MOUTH IS SHOWING, ALso you are a embassment to the Marine Corps in my eyes. Joe