Pro-war Washington Post
The Washington Post which spent a good portion of the last decade standing against the war against terrorism has suddenly decided that they like the war in Afghanistan and they criticize the current administration’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan;
YOU CAN’T fault President Obama for inconsistency. After winning election in 2008, he reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq to zero. After helping to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, he made sure no U.S. forces would remain. He has steadfastly stayed aloof, except rhetorically, from the conflict in Syria. And on Tuesday he promised to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.
The Afghan decision would be understandable had Mr. Obama’s previous choices proved out. But what’s remarkable is that the results also have been consistent — consistently bad. Iraq has slid into something close to civil war, with al-Qaeda retaking territory that U.S. Marines once died to liberate. In Syria, al-Qaeda has carved out safe zones that senior U.S. officials warn will be used as staging grounds for attacks against Europe and the United States. Libya is falling apart, with Islamists, secularists, military and other factions battling for control.
The continue to criticize Obama for not building on the gains that the troops have made there, suddenly they’re worried about whether girls could go to school without US troops, they complain that Obama has abandoned them all. Well, ya know what, they should have had their “come to Jesus moment” back in 2009 when this administration just wanted to look like they were fighting a war.
The Washington Post should have urged their readers to ignore the stories about urinating on Taliban corpses – they should have come out and supported the troops instead of blowing up every little thing they did. They should have supported the troops fighting the war to a successful conclusion, to a victory. The Post should have criticized the administration when it was clear in 2009 that their only strategy in Afghanistan was withdrawal. They should have criticized the Obama Administration when they wouldn’t let the troops arm themselves and scores were killed as a result.
But now they want to leave more troops than the 9800 the Pentagon will leave this year, you know, I guess so more can get killed. But now they want to be war hawks. Where were you 13 years ago, Washington Post editorial board?
Category: Terror War
With the remaining 9,800 that will remain in place in an advisory role, what will the ROE be like for them? IMO, it would be ill-advised to turn their backs on the ANA forces they’re supposed to be training & advising.
Put the Washington Post editorial board on the roof and ask them which way the wind is blowing and they’ll all point in a different direction. Keep up the good work guys, after all it’s just lives at stake here. Not yours’ of course but other Americans.
Trying to establish some “Journalistic integrity” cred before they go full into the tank for Hillary?
Naw, I’m not that paranoid and the WaPo isn’t that smart.
This is the typical “sidewalk superintendant” attitude that all journalists seem to have these days. Seems like they think just having a journalism degree from a prestigious university and a couple of years working the “foreign policy” desk makes them “experts” in foreign affairs (also law, public policy, medicine, technology, etc etc.)
No matter what their [lack of] experience in the real world is, they always seem to know a “better way” than the people who, you know, have the actual responsibility to make things happen.
Great job WaPo. Kick the military in the junk since the 2003 invasion of Iraq (cause as newspaper reporters, you know better how to fight the wars), report every mis-step that occurs in a WAR ZONE based on a progressive political agenda, rake the former commander in chief over the coals, rake former military commanders over the coals, politicize the deaths of our troops, exhibit a defeatist attitude since 9/11, give aid and comfort to the enemy, promote and apologize for radical islamists. I could go on, but the point is clear. You have been shills for a progressive liberal agenda and against the military since 9/11 and NOW, SUDDENLY you feel we should be doing more to fight the war on terror. Well forgive me if I could give two big fat shits what the opinion of this fucking fish wrap is.
A dead fish would object to being wrapped in that used toilet tissue.
9800 troops in Afghanistan works out to 9000 troops providing force protection and security for 700 staff pogues ‘supervising’ the training & CT mission and 100 troops actually doing training and counter terrorism
No, unfortunately they are going to expend our Special Operations forces hunting for high value targets without proper back up and they are going to put trainers out with Afghan forces who are already feeling abandoned and not likely to give two shits what our troops are telling them. All in all, it sounds like a goat rope mission with a high probability of failure.
“The Washington Post should have urged their readers to ignore the stories about urinating on Taliban corpses – they should have come out and supported the troops instead of blowing up every little thing they did. They should have supported the troops fighting the war to a successful conclusion, to a victory. The Post should have criticized the administration when it was clear in 2009 that their only strategy in Afghanistan was withdrawal. They should have criticized the Obama Administration when they wouldn’t let the troops arm themselves and scores were killed as a result.”
Come on! Controversy sells papers (or however they make money nowadays). If this or another administration reversed course and did some of the things that the Post urges in this editorial they’d still seize on the first opportunity to criticize that arose. The media has power without responsibility-they can’t go bankrupt fast enough.
Can I just ask what WaPo’s editors and reporters are smoking now?
Why can’t they just go to a FOB? Go on patrol. Maybe they could go on patrol without UAV coverage. Then they could comprehend how calm and peaceful it is. Sleep overnight in the UAV team area. Then they could understand that bad guys with rockets know where those guys sleep.
You are right that Washington Post are unethical narrating flipflopper (same is true of the New York Times Editorial board) Mass media like to pretend that they are morally infalliable. They rarely apologize for mistakes. They just sweep them under the rug with more narration.
That said, The US simply does not have the ability to win some vague war on terror with conventional weapons. And if it threatened to use nukes, many nations would dump NPT and immediately acquire their own stockpile to defend themselves.
The primary way America can help stop the spread of Islamic extremism is through principled based international agreements that work to isolate states that mix religion and governance.
The problem at the moment though is the religious fundamentalist wing of the Republican party have sold out their own country to Christian and Jewish religious extremists that DO want to mix religion and state.
Many think “survival of the fittest” means whomever is more powerful. What it actually means — whomever successfully manages to have babies. Due to low birth rates of christians in America, and high birth rates of non-Christian, eventually the demographics of the US will make Christians a minority.
Unless they work to ensure barrier between religion and state is firm, American Christians will end up like the Roman pagans when the Christians took control of Roman imperial authority. The Romans made the mistake of not separating church and state. They bought into their megalomaniac mystic gibberish just like the Republic party is currently doing.
This is over generalizing (since not every Republican is like this and some are fine rational people) but the fact is a fair chunk of Republicans are unprincipled violent mystic kooks. They have twisted rational self-interest into ultra nationalist unethical sophistry. Not that this some how excuses Islamofascists (who are far worse) but as they say two wrongs don’t make a right.
A is A as Aristotle would say. Principles are principles. Either fight to separate the barbarism of religion and state or stop pretending to stand for reason.
“The problem at the moment though is the religious fundamentalist wing of the Republican party….”
“… but the fact is a fair chunk of Republicans are unprincipled violent mystic kooks.”
Whoa. The only religion that is causing a problem for the entire world is Islam. And as far as I know, the Republicans aren’t laden with them. I strongly advise you to use the gold foil and to avoid the weaker silver. Also, I know ‘whomever’ sounds more intelligent than does whoever but (take a note here) in both instances that you used whomever, you should have used whoever. If you would like to learn a little trick regarding the proper use of who/whom and whoever/whomever, I’ll be happy to share it with you. My guess is that you will resent the offer.
I’d agree Islamic extremists are far worse but heartily disagree that it’s the only religion causing problems. Christian and Jewish religious extremists have been in bed with one another in middle east foreign policy for decades. Ron Paul, whose a decent principled Christian, was spot on with his blow back comment. My parents were Christians but I’m not religious in the least as their is absolute zero evidence of some vague entity called “God”. To me, these are cults that continue generation after generation because we are indoctrinated by our families and peers as children. However, I do support freedom of thought and that includes protecting the rights for people to practice their beliefs even if sometimes flawed (as long as they don’t use the state funds to force those beliefs on others). No doubt I myself belief silly things. To err is human. No one is always right which is why freedom is important. America is supposed to stand for tolerance, pluralism and reason. Instead middle east foreign policy revolves around carte blanche backing of a mystic oriented Jewish state that’s so against pluralism it doesn’t even recognize a marriage between non-Jews and Jews. How is that “principles”? We can’t even criticize Israel for blatantly obvious state institutionalized racism because its framed as “anti-Semitic” in the press just like the Muslims claim “Islamophobia” when you criticize their oppressive states. Again stereotyping, some of the liberals are also clueless. They don’t even bother notice the Jewish lobby that wildly supports pluralism in American — then argue against it in Israel??? This doesn’t excuse the Islamofascists but it certainly isn’t principled. There are many amazing principled Jewish and Christians in america that speak out against Israeli policies but very few of them are in the Republican party. Frankly I see some Republicans as treasonous cowards They trip over themselves to agree to whatever demand Aipac makes of them. btw- I appreciate the typo correction. I know the difference between who and whom. I’m just not spell checking or rereading. This is not a dissertation. This is just a random website I… Read more »
When it comes to principles and politics, I prefer Groucho to Aristotle. The philosopher king didn’t exist in his time and doesn’t in ours. Anyhow, on to Groucho: “Those are my principles and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.”
For the record, I don’t support liberals because half of the things that come out of their mouth when it comes to philosophical principles is post modernist gibberish.
I consider myself a conservative. However my kind of conservative was Lincoln not the current crop of mystics. Their behaviour is an embarrassment to both the Republican party and America.
They want to teach creationism in Texas? They a against gay marriage? Their behaviour revolves around matching scripture to state policy rather than freedom and reason.
Well, bud, you’ve come to the right place. The military and Veteran material in this blog is actually a front. Truth be told, this site is a haven for anti-Zionists, anti-papists, and anti-coagulants, if you know what I mean. So, welcome aboard.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself antizionist. I find the term usually is used by antisemites. I’m definitely not against Jews in an ethno-cultural sense. I’ve even dated a Jewish girl. (she couldn’t care less about religious quackery either) The Jewish religion is as baloney as Christianity but this doesn’t actually mean that everyone from a Jewish cultural background is an imbecile. When one strips out the religious aspect, Jewish is a national identity just like German, British and others. Some of the finest minds in America came from Jewish families (although it’s notable to mention most of them non-practising) Every country has some cultural themes, a language, a name. I see no problem with the existence of an Israel that speaks Hebrew, has Israeli identity and focuses on history of Israel. However it should be pluralistic and shouldn’t mix in religion with matters of state. Full rights for all citizens not just Jews. That would be a true beacon of light in the middle east. Jews in Israel fear they will be demographically overrun but this is no excuse. If they are preaching plurality in every other state, they should be showing how to make it work in their own. Put some of that amazing jewish brainpower to show the rest of us slackers how to make it work. And despite my harsh words here, I also don’t consider myself antichristian. I love my mother who still goes every Sunday . I know many decent warm Christians. A person isn’t defined just by the things things they believe that are wrong. They are also the things they do right. I used to call myself an atheist but have moved away from it. It’s a bad word that suggests one is part of some cult conspiring to oppress religion. I am not an aleprichaunist. I have no beefs with Leprechauns per se. I pccasionally put my foot in my mouth but speaking in political generalities is difficult. We occasionally end up sounding like we believe in some absolute stereotype. It’s really just a matter of I prefer… Read more »
We live in an era of progress but we should never forget that civilizations come and go. Civilization can decline for literally thousands of years. Mankind can move backwards if we pursuit bad ideas.We have to carefully select which values help civilization thrive and avoid the ones that threaten it.
Look the architecture of the Supreme Court. The White house. The Fed. Look at they etymology of words democracy, mathematics, philosophy, heck even Republican. None of these words exist in scripture.
America is not based on “judeo-christian” values as the mystics in the Republican party keep claiming to push their religious mumbo jumbo. It is based primarily on Greco-Roman values.
Reagan was a good President but since Reagan which Republican has got a more direct connection to the great Leprechaun in the sky seems to the Republican party’s ridiculous platform. Grown men behaving like middle age mystics.
Sure their not nearly as bad as tabliban basketcases that think blowing themselves up will land them in paradise but what are we aiming for here? Democratic theocracies? To teach helpless children that the earth is 6000 years old and that any science the contradicts it is part of some socialist conspiracy?
Doesn’t a world based on reason and freedom seem more desirable? Isn’t it more fun to uncover the mysteries of the universe to be found in physics? To use that knowledge to improve and extend our lives? To build colonies on other planets to ensure the survival of our species?
There is a whole universe waiting for us to explore. Lets not waste our opportunity in lew of a return to middle age mysticism.
I certainly can’t argue with that. I spent about three months once looking for the words republican and democracy–as well as forms of those words–in the Bible and, well, you know the result. And when it comes to space colonization, I’m right there with you. In fact, just yesterday, we honored a fellow–a Brit–who spent 17 years doing protection and defense work on Mars. Unfortunately, the discussion devolved into the sex habits of Martians. Anyway, I think you get my drift.
Elon Musk says he’s like to put a man on Mars within 15 years but I can’t see how SpaceX or even Nasa can do it within that timeframe. IN my opinion, a moon colony first makes far more sense.
The size of a Mars ship would have to be enormous to carry supplies for several month trip, fuel to stop, and any return weight. Its certainly within theoretical grasp but there is nothing currently in the formal design stage.
Even a one-way trip (which is sensible given the costs of a two-way trip) is difficult. We don’t seem to knowledge to creating self-sustaining environments yet. (ISS is constantly being resupplied, a luxury they would not have on Mars)
Then of course we have to still need research if interspecies sex with Martians is even possible. I mean what’s the point of going it we aren’t going to get some?
“Doesn’t a world based on reason and freedom seem more desirable?”
Yup — sounds like Paradise. Let me know when you find one.
Human beings aren’t computers. We aren’t perfectly rational and never will be.
However, reason does exist. We should always strive to coherently define it. Even more important, implement it. A person lost in a desert doesn’t take a shower with their water reserves.
By the way, what you’re doing is called “proselytizing,” atheist. That sauce goes for the goose, same as the gander.
As per above, I wouldn’t call myself an atheist.
I’m just saying my views. That’s part of freedom isn’t it? Or do I have to close my mouth so I don’t offend anyone’s religious beliefs? — like they expect in Mecca.
If someone wants to ignore good advice and continue to pray to the Holy Noodle that they’ve never seen on heard that’s their choice. I’m not going to come to their homes on Saturday spreading the good news. I’m not like the communists that would forcibly shut down their religious institutions and certainly nothing like the Taliban who would kill someone of another religion.
When I was a kid, I wasn’t a believer but I wasn’t a non-believer either. It could have gone either ways. Fortunately by pure chance Iran across voices of reason. I would suggest somehow hostile to my views on religion consider Plato’s Allegory of the Cave before outright dismissing them. I’m not saying this to harm anyone. Only a sadist would enjoy hurting others.
For someone who appears to think himself intelligent and enlightened you aren’t very bright. It’s obvious you are rather young without much experience in the real world outside the halls of academia. See, there’s this thing called respect. Respect for other people and their viewpoints, especially those viewpoints you disagree with. You are the worst sort of hypocrite, talking out both sides of your mouth and making little sense. Your worldview is based off nothing more than a few smarmy “intellectuals” and your own lack of experience and narrow viewpoint. You claim everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong. You can’t seem to think, even for a moment, that perhaps you are the one who is wrong. You say you aren’t a liberal. I would agree with you. You are far from being a classical liberal. You made reference to Plato’s allegory of the cave. I’m sure it would surprise you to learn that it has also been used to brilliantly argue against your atheism (yes, we know you don’t call yourself an atheist, but that’s what you are). You claim you don’t wish to abolish religion, yet you would force it out of everyday life and especially government. I’m sure you are the type who proclaims that one’s religion should be left at door of the church, temple or other house of worship. No proselytizing allowed. Well, except for your own official proselytizing of course. No, you wouldn’t crash down a persons front door, refusing to allow them to worship as they please. You would relegate their worship to the church doors only, not allowing public discussion or debate on things religious. Your ‘secular’ viewpoint would be the one and only official one allowed. The difference between you and the fascists is only a matter of degree. Did it ever occur to you that Israel doesn’t recognize a non-Jewish marriage (Muslim) for reasons other than religious? Perhaps being surrounded by enemies intent on wiping them from the face of the earth has something to do with Israel’s “extremist” policies, and that includes a lack of your precious “pluralism”… Read more »
Starting off a reply with a personal insult then lecturing about “respect” is suggests you should take your own advice before preaching it to others. Furthermore you have repeatedly resorted to slander in one straw man after another. Your claim that I suggested “everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong” when in fact I clearly stated to err is human and that I myself must believe silly things as well. If you are going to argue at least show some integrity and don’t put words in people’s mouths because you don’t agree with them on some issue. “yes, we know you don’t call yourself an atheist, but that’s what you are” There you go again putting words in my mouth. I don’t believe in Unicorns does that make my aUnicornist too? How about all the other things I don’t believe exist? Am I “disrepectful” for not believing in Leprichauns too? You stated “claim you don’t wish to abolish religion, yet you would force it out of everyday life and especially government.” There you go lying again. I specifically said I support an individual’s right to their beliefs. As for your point about mixing religion amd government, I suggest you read the first Amendment which you seem to have not read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution “Well, except for your own official proselytizing” Expressing ones views on an internet forum is not “proselyzing”. If you don’t like criticism of your religion move to Afghanistan. The Taliban will happily agree with you. “not allowing public discussion or debate on things religious.” Ah. Yet another slanderous straw man. Of course someone should be free to debate their religion but like every other theory others should be able to criticize it. You state “Your ‘secular’ viewpoint would be the one and only official one allowed. The difference between you and the fascists” LMAO. Now I am a “fascist”. Resorting to Hitler Absurdium only further diminishes your own moral and intellectual credibility. ” is only a matter of degree. Did it ever occur to you that Israel doesn’t recognize a non-Jewish marriage (Muslim) for reasons other than religious?… Read more »
Move to Mecca if you can’t face open public criticism of religion. There the government will happily agree with you religion and state should be mixed. They will also help you forcibly silence people like me that criticize religion. Of course they will also silence you too because their religion conflicts with yours.
This is what makes America better because everyone is free to agree with or criticize one another without fear of being executed or imprisoned.
America left in the hands of people like you would quickly devolve into Islamic style theocracy but simply one of a different religion. People like you constantly try to violate the first Amendment and try to frame America as a religious state — something the US founding fathers firmly stood (despite being mostly Christians)
Considering the era they came from (back when Christianity was still very oppressive and woman were treated as second class citizens) the principles and intelligence the founding fathers showed was remarkable. If they had been born with the knowledge we have today my bet is they would have been disgusted by those that claim to speak for “god” when discussing their personal views.
Religion is a personal matter not a matter of state. The government’s chief jobs is to protect private property and its citizens not to preach some religion. It shouldn’t even preach atheism.
“It’s never been so divided along political, religious, and ethnic lines as it is today. It seems that everyone wants to be a hyphenated American victim.”
You have things exactly backwards. America of today is the most unified its been in its entire history. America was divided during the civil war. America was divided during segregation. Do not confuse heated political disagreements over policy (which is a normal part of democracy) with the reality Americans generally get along with one another in real life.
Inch by inch America has become an inclusive country that protects the rights of citizens even better than US forefathers did (who feel short on some issues like slavery and womans rights). I think the forefather would be proud of America today for upholding the spirit of the constitution.
America makes room for everyone. The only caveat is that every citizen no matter their race, religion, politics, or ethnic background also grant their fellow Americans the same equal rights.
I’m going to drop the snark for just a moment, and say one thing to you in all seriousness. Try this on for size.
Religion was early man’s attempt to explain his world. As he explored more and more, he developed the systems we now know as the sciences. At the very worst, all that means is that religion is antiquated — not WRONG, in the same way a spear is antiquated by a firearm.
Religion is not the basis for the ills in this world — our species is. It’s the way our brains are wired that makes us violent and dangerous. Religion in this instance is nothing more than a tool for the expression of that violence, wherever you find religious violence. Now, are there religions that are violent? Absolutely. Are all religions violent? No. Have all religions been used to justify violence? Of course. And so on. You see the point.
Argh. Was about to sign off but dragged back in. (I should be doing work but fortunately I am self-employed)
You make an excellent point that religion was a attempt to explain the world in simpler times. I completely agree. I also agree there are worse and better religions. Islam seems by far to be the worse of bunch. I’m not a subjectivist like the liberals that have buried their heads in the ground.
My thesis here isn’t that Jewish and Christian religions are just as a bad as Islam. It’s only that when it comes to foreign policy we should strive for principles not pragmatism.
X is not morally absolved of unfairly hurting Y because Z is even worse. The argument of the mystic wing of the Republican party is that Israeli government policies aren’t nearly as bad as the Islamic theocracies is certainly true. However it still isn’t a sustainable moral justification for that behaviour.
A principled approach would be America does not show preference for any state that does not provide full equal rights for all citizens. No favourites.
This unprincipled behaviour is by no means limited to Israel. Lets not forget 19 of the 9/11 bombers came from Saudi Arabia. SA is run by a “King”. It teaches one of the most extreme forms of Islam. It still executes people for apotasy. We treat SA like an “ally” because???
Being more critical of Israel isn’t going to fix the middle east. What it will do though prevent Israel from being an excuse to hide behind as mountains of Islamists committing atrocity after atrocity. As long as the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims are being protected within America, no one can point fingers in the direction of America.
A principled approach gets you to a principled destination. Supporting Islamic extremists to support the overthrow of Afghanistan was a terrible idea. Creating a democratic Germany after WW2 was a great one.
To 2-17AirCav: Well played. If you get my drift, and I think you do.
The MSM doesn’t connect the dots well at all, and that is why they flip-flop on different subjects — and particularly anything to do with the military. For some reason, the journalists have epiphanies over things (like our soldiers being the reason girls can now go to school in Afghanistan) that we understood from the get-go. It’s almost as though the different stories they write on, instead of having connecting themes, are all surrounded by impenetrable barriers, and stand alone on all fronts.