[VIDEO] ~ Michael Scheuer: (We Have To Kill Without Restraint IF We Stay!)

[Reason]

YouTube - We Have To Kill More Brown People (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUCdcETEjs)

[malkusm]

Yeah, one of my biggest issues after reading "Imperial Hubris" is that Scheuer takes the stand that we either need to leave entirely in order to take away the motivation for young Islamists to join the radical terrorist groups, or if we choose to stay, we need to be completely unrestrained in killing them to prove a point.

Scheuer prefers the former option, but I think he knows that until a non-interventionist administration takes the reigns, the latter is the most feasible. Not saying I agree with him, because I find it repulsive....but it does make more sense, if you believe there's a way to "win," than sending Americans on nation-building exercises.

[amy31416]

Scheuer is a proponent of all or nothing...I've known that for a while. His "scorched earth" policy is pretty reprehensible to hear, but I guess it'd make people at least discuss whatever it is we're doing over there.

I thought "Imperial Hubris" was terribly written--that was my biggest complaint about it.

[Deborah K]

YouTube - We Have To Kill More Brown People (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUCdcETEjs)

He never said "we have to kill more brown people". So knock off the racist B.S.!!
He's former CIA. He was the head of the Bin Laden unit. I think he knows a little bit more about Al Qaeda than you do. And if you think Al Qaeda isn't out to kill westerners, then you need to study up a bit more.

He's being blunt about it because he knows something's up and he's trying in his own way to alert Americans. Take heed.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I hate Sherman and anyone who advocates scorched earth is a sadistic son of a bitch.

[Reason]

I hate Sherman and anyone who advocates scorched earth is a sadistic son of a bitch.

This.

[Deborah K]

Anyone who has a web site named: non-intervention.com and numerous articles on Anti-war.com can't exactly be called an advocate of scorched earth policy. ffs.:rolleyes:

[Deborah K]

YouTube - Educating Rudy Press Conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA) 5:46

[amy31416]

Anyone who has a web site named: non-intervention.com and numerous articles on Anti-war.com can't exactly be called an advocate of scorched earth policy. ffs.:rolleyes:

To be fair...I can't classify what he said as anything other than advocating either pulling out entirely or "scorched Earth."

I generally like Scheuer, but I always take the time to wonder what I'd think if he were talking about American citizens, rather than Afghani. And those citizens that he's talking about wiping out would be the resistance to the occupation...I would not be pleased.

[Deborah K]

To be fair...I can't classify what he said as anything other than advocating either pulling out entirely or "scorched Earth."

I generally like Scheuer, but I always take the time to wonder what I'd think if he were talking about American citizens, rather than Afghani. And those citizens that he's talking about wiping out would be the resistance to the occupation...I would not be pleased.

Please read this:

http://non-intervention.com/about-2/


About
Why non-intervention.com?

For a long time, it struck me as quite egotistical — and probably
arrogant — to think that I had anything to say about contemporary
U.S. foreign policy and the perils of its relentless interventionism
that would merit a website of my own. And to tell the truth, I still
have doubts that (a) I have much to say that is insightful on the issue
and (b) that anyone will much care what I have to say.

Still, I have had a good number of responses — positive and negative
– to what I have written on foreign-policy issues since I resigned
from the CIA in November, 2004. Since that date, I have been
privileged to have had the opportunity to write for Antiwar.com and
LewRockwell.com. I want to offer my thanks and sincere appreciation
for the space they gave me, and to say very clearly that by starting
my own site, I am in no way criticizing those sites. Indeed, I should
be most pleased — not to say shocked — if this site has anywhere
near the substantive success or level of interest Antiwar.com and
LewRockwell.com have achieved.

That said, I finally decided to try a site of my own because I am not
fully committed to an unyielding anti-war position. I certainly do
believe that we are engaged in far too many wars; that most of them
are unnecessary; and that almost all of them are the consequence of
Washington’s rabid post-1945 interventionism. To the extent that
Washington — under both Democrats and Republicans — stops
intervening in overseas affairs that are of neither genuine concern to
the United States nor threats to U.S. interests, we will find
ourselves in far fewer wars. And I might add, in passing, that if
Americans begin to aggressively insist that all wars in which their
country becomes engaged must — per the Constitution — be formally
declared by the vote of Congress, we would likewise have far fewer wars.

But I do believe some wars are both necessary and unavoidable; indeed, I believe that human beings are hard-wired for war; that they are not perfectible; and that the only mercy in war is an enormous application of military power that wins victory for the United States in the shortest possible time. At present, the only war that falls into the necessary and unavoidable category, in my view, is our war against al-Qaeda and the growing Islamist forces it leads and inspires.

Motivated by Washington’s interventionist policies in the Muslim world, that foe declared war on America in August 1996. Sadly, we have yet to find a U.S. political leader in either party who will forthrightly accept the fact that we are at war with the Islamists; nor have we found one who will tell the American people that we are at war because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world — unqualified support for Israel, support for Arab tyrannies, invading Iraq, etc. — and not for who we are and how we live here in North America.

Today, Americans are rightly suspicious of calling our struggle with
the Islamists a war because they — again rightly — cannot believe
that people would wage a nearly 14-year war and gladly die in the
conflict because American women go to university, there are early
primaries in Iowa every four years, and many of us have a beer or two
after work. The consistent lies of our last four presidents, leading
generals, much of the media, and nearly all of the academy — “They
hate our freedoms, not what we do” — have misled and blinded
Americans to the very real threat the Islamists pose to domestic
security in the United States and some of our interests overseas.

My primary interest, then, in starting this website, is to discuss the
almost totally negative impact of Washington’s bipartisan lust to
intervene abroad, as well as to talk about how interventionism
undermines U.S. security, the nation’s economy, and our country’s
social cohesion. I also think it is appropriate to discuss here how
far we have strayed from the Founding Fathers’ vision of what America
and Americans should be at home and how the republic should conduct
itself in the wider world. This site will argue that the Founders’
recipe for safeguarding America in 1789 remains pertinent today: all
Americans must be vigilant of their liberty; politically active in its
defense; broadly educated to help assess politicians, policies, and
foreign entities that threaten that liberty; and armed to defeat
enemies, foreign or domestic, who threaten that liberty.

It will quickly become clear that I am not an original thinker on
these issues, but rather a person who was educated with, and is loyal
to, the ideas of those brilliant and far-seeing men who founded our
republic. I look forward to presenting my ideas and commentary on this
site, and, even more, I look forward to considering, discussing, and
learning from the responses of my fellow citizens.

[amy31416]

But I do believe some wars are both necessary and unavoidable; indeed, I believe that human beings are hard-wired for war; that they are not perfectible; and that the only mercy in war is an enormous application of military power that wins victory for the United States in the shortest possible time. At present, the only war that falls into the necessary and unavoidable category, in my view, is our war against al-Qaeda and the growing Islamist forces it leads and inspires.

Yeah...I've read this before--and this is where I diverge with Scheuer. It seems to conflict with his other statements on how we've provoked Arabs consistently over the last 50 years, and doesn't take into account that we're killing actual human beings here.

[Deborah K]

Michael is talking about the Salafi jihadist movement, which makes up Al Qaeda and has attracted rootless and/or committed internationalist militants. They fight for the jihad, seeking to re-create the Muslim ummah and shariat to build an Islamic community worldwide.

Naturally I'm going to defend him because he is a friend, but I think he's trying to get across to the public that the administration needs to do its job and root out the enemy, once and for all. Stop screwing around and just get it done.

[Deborah K]

Yeah...I've read this before--and this is where I diverge with Scheuer. It seems to conflict with his other statements on how we've provoked Arabs consistently over the last 50 years, and doesn't take into account that we're killing actual human beings here.

And so is Al Qaeda. Look, I don't agree with everything he says either. His frankness in the video disturbs me. But I know that he's trying to bring attention to the issue by pointing out that we aren't safe. And even if our government created this mess over the last 50 years, we can't sit idly by, and we can't twiddle our thumbs over there. We need to realize that they aren't interested in sitting down and having a talk about it.

[amy31416]

And so is Al Qaeda. Look, I don't agree with everything he says either. His frankness in the video disturbs me. But I know that he's trying to bring attention to the issue by pointing out that we aren't safe. And even if our government created this mess over the last 50 years, we can't sit idly by, and we can't twiddle our thumbs over there. We need to realize that they aren't interested in sitting down and having a talk about it.

Well, we'll have to disagree. I hold the (probably) more controversial opinion that they actually have a reason to kill the Americans that have invaded their lands, just as we Americans would justifiably kill anyone who invaded the US.

And I simply don't know if they'd be willing to sit down and have a talk about it and come to some resolution. These are human beings we're talking about, not rabid dogs. As far as I know, that option has never been on the table--we've always viewed them as nothing more than dogs, which just might be part of the problem.

It'd be much more difficult than just bombing the hell out of them, but doing the right thing is rarely the easier thing--and it's the only long-term solution.

[Deborah K]

Well, we'll have to disagree. I hold the (probably) more controversial opinion that they actually have a reason to kill the Americans that have invaded their lands, just as we Americans would justifiably kill anyone who invaded the US.

And I simply don't know if they'd be willing to sit down and have a talk about it and come to some resolution. These are human beings we're talking about, not rabid dogs. As far as I know, that option has never been on the table--we've always viewed them as nothing more than dogs, which just might be part of the problem.

It'd be much more difficult than just bombing the hell out of them, but doing the right thing is rarely the easier thing--and it's the only long-term solution.

To my knowledge Michael has never viewed Al Qaeda as rabid dogs. And I don't think he suggests killing innocent people but rather pin-pointing the leadership and "armies" of Al Qaeda.

And the reason why I presume they are not interested in talking is because of what they have done to innocent Americans over there, like Daniel Pearl, and all the others who have been be-headed for no reason.

[EndDaFed]

If you want to kill people overseas how about you fund it yourself and quit asking for government handouts to do it.

[Deborah K]

If you want to kill people overseas how about you fund it yourself and quit asking for government handouts to do it.

Who is asking for government hand-outs?

[Deborah K]

Why is the subtitle now changed to: "We Have To Kill Without Restraint IF We Stay"? He didn't say that, either.

[jmdrake]

To my knowledge Michael has never viewed Al Qaeda as rabid dogs. And I don't think he suggests killing innocent people but rather pin-pointing the leadership and "armies" of Al Qaeda.

And the reason why I presume they are not interested in talking is because of what they have done to innocent Americans over there, like Daniel Pearl, and all the others who have been be-headed for no reason.

The "generals who want to win the hearts and minds of Al Qaeda" don't exist. All of the "horrible restrictions" on U.S. troops that people have become so fond of criticizing are designed to protect innocents, plain and simple. If you see a suspected Al Qaeda go into a building where there are children do you A) wait for him to come out or B) blow up the building with a predator drone? If all you care about is killing as many suspected Al Qaeda as possible than choice B is the most "efficient". Of course choice B also undermines the very government we say we are trying to help. The Soviet Union was very efficient at killing Afghans. In the end they lost.

As for Daniel Pearl, he wasn't beheaded for no reason. The Taliban, from their perspective, had a very good reason to want to kill Daniel Pearl. He was investigating links between the Taliban and the Pakistani ISI (and the Pakistani ISI has links to the U.S. CIA). The question we should ask ourselves is why has our government ignored links between the ISI and the Taliban and Al Qaeda until now? OBL would have been dead in 2003 (if he wasn't dead already) if his escape had been cut off at Tora Bora. Part of the reason we didn't cut him off is that Bush wanted to divert the Rangers to Iraq. But another reason is that we stood down long enough to allow the Pakistanis to extract their troops that were fighting WITH the Talbian AGAINST the Northern Alliance. Also for the record, the Taliban is not Al Qaeda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165

Anyway, the hawks got their wish. Gen. McCrystal got canned so that Obama could have an excuse to change policy on the sly. We replaced as special forces general who would go out on patrol with his men and who was merely implementing the policy that the CIVILIANS told him to implement with a yes man paper pusher general. We'll see what happens. So far not much.

[Deborah K]

The "generals who want to win the hearts and minds of Al Qaeda" don't exist. All of the "horrible restrictions" on U.S. troops that people have become so fond of criticizing are designed to protect innocents, plain and simple. If you see a suspected Al Qaeda go into a building where there are children do you A) wait for him to come out or B) blow up the building with a predator drone? If all you care about is killing as many suspected Al Qaeda as possible than choice B is the most "efficient". Of course choice B also undermines the very government we say we are trying to help. The Soviet Union was very efficient at killing Afghans. In the end they lost.

As for Daniel Pearl, he wasn't beheaded for no reason. The Taliban, from their perspective, had a very good reason to want to kill Daniel Pearl. He was investigating links between the Taliban and the Pakistani ISI (and the Pakistani ISI has links to the U.S. CIA). The question we should ask ourselves is why has our government ignored links between the ISI and the Taliban and Al Qaeda until now? OBL would have been dead in 2003 (if he wasn't dead already) if his escape had been cut off at Tora Bora. Part of the reason we didn't cut him off is that Bush wanted to divert the Rangers to Iraq. But another reason is that we stood down long enough to allow the Pakistanis to extract their troops that were fighting WITH the Talbian AGAINST the Northern Alliance. Also for the record, the Taliban is not Al Qaeda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165

Anyway, the hawks got their wish. Gen. McCrystal got canned so that Obama could have an excuse to change policy on the sly. We replaced as special forces general who would go out on patrol with his men and who was merely implementing the policy that the CIVILIANS told him to implement with a yes man paper pusher general. We'll see what happens. So far not much.

According to Michael, a mission to kill bin laden was cancelled in 1998. Well before 9-11 took place. As to Pearl, he was not an operative of American forces. He was a journalist investigating the link between the shoe bomber and Al Qaeda. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it. What about Nick Berg? Eugene Armstrong? Jack Hensley?

[oyarde]

I hate Sherman and anyone who advocates scorched earth is a sadistic son of a bitch.

Scorched earth worked well for Sherman and brought about the success that was the goal .

[jmdrake]

According to Michael, a mission to kill bin laden was cancelled in 1998. Well before 9-11 took place. As to Pearl, he was not an operative of American forces. He was a journalist investigating the link between the shoe bomber and Al Qaeda. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it. What about Nick Berg? Eugene Armstrong? Jack Hensley?

Hello Debra. I tried to be careful so that you wouldn't misunderstand be, but I see I failed. This is what I was hoping you would see:

The Taliban, from their perspective, had a very good reason to want to kill Daniel Pearl.

The key words are from their perspective. Did Daniel Pearl deserve to die under our rules of war? No. Of course not. That wasn't my point. My point is that Daniel Pearl came to close to digging up a truth that the Taliban, the Pakistan ISI (and I suspect the CIA) didn't want to get out. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

Daniel Pearl was not primarily investigating the shoe bomber when he was kidnapped. That was just a cover. Here's more information about what Daniel Pearl was attempting to uncover.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/apr/05/pressandpublishing.pakistan

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_20141.html

And yes, I'm aware of missions prior to 9/11 to kill Bin Laden. And Bin Laden somehow got word of several of those missions before they happened and managed to escape. Some suspect he was informed by elements within the ISI.

As for Nick Berg? He was either an intelligence operative or very stupid. I'm not sure which. There is no logical reason for an American civilian not connected to the U.S. government or any other organization to by hiking around and extremely bloody war zone like Iraq. Sure he had a right to do that, but I can't think of any reason to do that other than sheer stupidity or being an operative for somebody. Also I'm certain that the Berg video was in some way staged. Oh Berg is dead alright, but the man that supposedly killed him only had one leg, yet was shown on video with two good legs. Also why on earth would you have on a mask and then tell the rest of the world who you are? Wearing a mask on a video where I say "I am John Drake" makes absolutely no sense.

[oyarde]

I hate Sherman and anyone who advocates scorched earth is a sadistic son of a bitch.

That was Nov. of 1864 . The war had been going on since 61 . If you are a commander and you see a chance to break the enemy and bring an end , you are going to take that .

[amy31416]

According to Michael, a mission to kill bin laden was cancelled in 1998. Well before 9-11 took place. As to Pearl, he was not an operative of American forces. He was a journalist investigating the link between the shoe bomber and Al Qaeda. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it. What about Nick Berg? Eugene Armstrong? Jack Hensley?

I don't want to defend what these guys did, but how safe would it be if we were invaded and occupied by China, and Chinese businessmen were setting up shop near a hotbed of American militias? Those guys were in Iraq to make money off the occupation.

Perhaps beheading wouldn't be their choice--but if they were soft targets, and the occupied people have no option other than guerrilla warfare, should this really be such a shock? I mean, we have US forces who've shot women/little girls numerous times, raped them, dug bullets out of their bodies, burned them and taken body parts as a "prize."

If the US had not invaded, it never would have happened. We sure as hell shouldn't be setting businesses up there, nor condemning them for acting barbarically. In one of those beheadings, the reason given by the jihadist was the treatment of prisoners at Bagram.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but we sure as hell have zero moral ground in this situation.

[Deborah K]

Hello Debra. I tried to be careful so that you wouldn't misunderstand be, but I see I failed. This is what I was hoping you would see:

The Taliban, from their perspective, had a very good reason to want to kill Daniel Pearl.

The key words are from their perspective. Did Daniel Pearl deserve to die under our rules of war? No. Of course not. That wasn't my point. My point is that Daniel Pearl came to close to digging up a truth that the Taliban, the Pakistan ISI (and I suspect the CIA) didn't want to get out. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

Daniel Pearl was not primarily investigating the shoe bomber when he was kidnapped. That was just a cover. Here's more information about what Daniel Pearl was attempting to uncover.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/apr/05/pressandpublishing.pakistan

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_20141.html



I understood your point clearly. I'm not sure why you think I didn't. I simply stated different reasons for him being there and never referred to their implied perspective. :confused: I will read your links and comment accordingly. Hopefully they provide the evidence that you claim Pearl was investigating links between Al Qaeda and the ISI. Which in any case makes me wonder, if the taliban and al qaeda are so different, then why would the taliban want to kill Pearl for investigating Al Qaeda?


And yes, I'm aware of missions prior to 9/11 to kill Bin Laden. And Bin Laden somehow got word of several of those missions before they happened and managed to escape. Some suspect he was informed by elements within the ISI.

You missed the most important point. Scheuer stated that the mission in 1998 was cancelled. They knew where he was and the Clinton administration cancelled the mission!


As for Nick Berg? He was either an intelligence operative or very stupid. I'm not sure which. There is no logical reason for an American civilian not connected to the U.S. government or any other organization to by hiking around and extremely bloody war zone like Iraq. Sure he had a right to do that, but I can't think of any reason to do that other than sheer stupidity or being an operative for somebody. Also I'm certain that the Berg video was in some way staged. Oh Berg is dead alright, but the man that supposedly killed him only had one leg, yet was shown on video with two good legs. Also why on earth would you have on a mask and then tell the rest of the world who you are? Wearing a mask on a video where I say "I am John Drake" makes absolutely no sense.

Your opinion of Berg notwithstanding, there is no evidence whatsoever that he worked as an operative. As to the one legged man, so I guess you think terrorists are against wearing a prosthesis? :confused: j/k As to his wearing a mask and stating who he is, maybe it was set-up, who knows?

[Deborah K]

I don't want to defend what these guys did, but how safe would it be if we were invaded and occupied by China, and Chinese businessmen were setting up shop near a hotbed of American militias? Those guys were in Iraq to make money off the occupation.

Perhaps beheading wouldn't be their choice--but if they were soft targets, and the occupied people have no option other than guerrilla warfare, should this really be such a shock? I mean, we have US forces who've shot women/little girls numerous times, raped them, dug bullets out of their bodies, burned them and taken body parts as a "prize."

If the US had not invaded, it never would have happened. We sure as hell shouldn't be setting businesses up there, nor condemning them for acting barbarically. In one of those beheadings, the reason given by the jihadist was the treatment of prisoners at Bagram.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but we sure as hell have zero moral ground in this situation.

There are really two issues at play here, imo. Warding off invasions and occupations into one's country is justifiable, no doubt, and I would never presume to argue against it. But, something else is at play here, and that is the fact that an extreme sect of islam has a different objective than the desire to ward of invasions/occupations.

[jmdrake]

I understood your point clearly. I'm not sure why you think I didn't. I simply stated different reasons for him being there and never referred to their implied perspective. :confused: I will read your links and comment accordingly. Hopefully they provide the evidence that you claim Pearl was investigating links between Al Qaeda and the ISI. Which in any case makes me wonder, if the taliban and al qaeda are so different, then why would the taliban want to kill Pearl for investigating Al Qaeda?


You said that Daniel Pearl was not a U.S. operative and asked me to show otherwise. But I never claimed Daniel Pearl was a U.S. operative. So I guess I'm confused as to why you asked me for evidence for something I never claimed.

Further I said that Daniel Pearl was investigating ties between the Taliban and the ISI, not Al Qaeda and the ISI. To avoid this becoming a "he said / she said" I'll quote myself.

As for Daniel Pearl, he wasn't beheaded for no reason. The Taliban, from their perspective, had a very good reason to want to kill Daniel Pearl. He was investigating links between the Taliban and the Pakistani ISI (and the Pakistani ISI has links to the U.S. CIA). The question we should ask ourselves is why has our government ignored links between the ISI and the Taliban and Al Qaeda until now?

Maybe you thought by the last sentence I was saying that Daniel Pearl was investigating a link between the ISI and Al Qaeda, but I never said that. There is other evidence linking the Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeda that has nothing to do with Daniel Pearl. Here's one example of such evidence. There is a lot more:

http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/politics/isi_problems.html

As far as why distinct entities might want the same journalist dead, I think that should be self explanatory. Distinct countries wanted Saddam Hussein dead for very different reasons. Anyway, the Taliban had a good reason to go after Pearl because he was investigating them. And by "good" I mean "understandable". It was a bad thing that they did.



You missed the most important point. Scheuer stated that the mission in 1998 was cancelled. They knew where he was and the Clinton administration cancelled the mission!


No, I didn't "miss" it. I just don't think it was really that important. Yes Clinton sucked. But I already know that. Do you know why the particular mission Michael was talking about got scrapped? I know one mission got scrapped because intelligence on the ground recognized members of the U.A.E. Royal family who were at Bin Laden's camp falconing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060412-us-obl.htm

That was in 1999 which, if you have your dates right, doesn't jive with your particular story. If you have knowledge of the reason for a cancellation of a 1998 strike I'd love to hear it. Otherwise it's just another story a time OBL got away. It could have been the risk of ticking off "allies" outweighed the reward for killing someone who at this point was "only" accused of the embassy bombings. We might have tried to strike OBL and he might have got away leaving dead Emirates in his wake and egg on our face. That's what started the whole "Blackhawk down" fiasco. We were trying to kill Aideed and instead we killed a bunch of his clan elders who were trying to talk him into surrendering. Oops!



Your opinion of Berg notwithstanding, there is no evidence whatsoever that he worked as an operative.


I said he was either an operative or stupid. You have no explanation whatsoever of why he would be doing what he was doing if he wasn't an operative or stupid.

Anyway, Berg also had an encounter with wannabe hijacker Zacharias Moussoui. Is that "absolute evidence"? No. But it is circumstantial evidence which is just as admissible in trial as eyewitness testimony. (I'm not suggesting Berg should have been "tried" for anything. Just pointing out that it is evidence. Many people mistakenly think that circumstantial evidence necessarily carries less weight than direct evidence.)



As to the one legged man, so I guess you think terrorists are against wearing a prosthesis? :confused: j/k As to his wearing a mask and stating who he is, maybe it was set-up, who knows?

And where did a terrorist hiding in the Iraqi desert get fitted with a prosthesis that was so perfect that he didn't even have a limp? As for the set up possibility, yes. That's exactly what I'm thinking. I can't think of any other reason to wear a mask and then state your name.

Anyway, back to the original subject. Do you think the Soviets just weren't "efficient enough" at killing the Islamists? They lost after all. How do we become more "efficient" at killing than the Soviets? Is Michael suggesting that modern U.S. technology + Soviet style brutality leads to victory in Afghanistan? Cause if so, I'm not buying it. Also what about the fact that by all accounts if Osama Bin Laden is still alive (BIG if), he's no longer in Afghanistan anyway? The latest report has he and his # 2 chillin' at the crib in some city in Pakistan. Does being more efficient mean expanding the war even further into Pakistan?

[ibaghdadi]

Scorched earth worked well for Sherman and brought about the success that was the goal .

I can tell you that Scheuer's alternative policy of "total war" against Al-Qaeda and its allies would bring nothing but disaster for the US.

The vast majority of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims are outside the fight at this moment and their loyalties are still in the balance. They have leanings or tendencies but haven't committed to a side or another. Should this turn into a total war, you can bet the US won't be fighting "just Al-Qaeda" any more.

However, I personally believe that Scheuer employs this argument not in order to advocate it but in order to divert attention to the very fact that policy must be discussed. Someone as smart as he is won't be so dumb as to think that intensifying drone attacks on Afghani and Pakistani villagers would actually defeat Al-Qaeda.

On a side note: Wanna know how to summarily defeat Al-Qaeda? Do the unthinkable - give them a piece of land to rule; allow them a state sooner rather than later. This alone would probably set back Islamism 50 years.

[Dripping Rain]

i see his point. but wouldnt killing without restraint radicalize the enemy more than killing with restraint. either way i think this is a f*ed up world view

[oyarde]

I can tell you that Scheuer's alternative policy of "total war" against Al-Qaeda and its allies would bring nothing but disaster for the US.

The vast majority of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims are outside the fight at this moment and their loyalties are still in the balance. They have leanings or tendencies but haven't committed to a side or another. Should this turn into a total war, you can bet the US won't be fighting "just Al-Qaeda" any more.

However, I personally believe that Scheuer employs this argument not in order to advocate it but in order to divert attention to the very fact that policy must be discussed. Someone as smart as he is won't be so dumb as to think that intensifying drone attacks on Afghani and Pakistani villagers would actually defeat Al-Qaeda.

On a side note: Wanna know how to summarily defeat Al-Qaeda? Do the unthinkable - give them a piece of land to rule; allow them a state sooner rather than later. This alone would probably set back Islamism 50 years.

You are correct , but the battles on our own soil against one another nearly 150 years ago are not even relevant . Who wants to donate a pc. of land for them ? Should it be the Saud ?

[ibaghdadi]

Yes Clinton sucked. But I already know that. Do you know why the particular mission Michael was talking about got scrapped?
I agree with you on this. The contention that Clinton "missed the chance" is ridiculous because, pre-2001, Bin Laden was definitely not that important a kill; not important enough to kill half the Emarati ruling house.


I said he was either an operative or stupid. You have no explanation whatsoever of why he would be doing what he was doing if he wasn't an operative or stupid.
The killing of Berg was pure blowback for Abughraib and Gitmo. Al-Qaeda in Iraq released a lengthy and detailed rationale, and Al-Zarqawi himself gave a lengthy speech indicating why they're killing him and how it's all in revenge. They even dressed him up in orange jumpers similar to those worn by Gitmo prisoners.


Is Michael suggesting that modern U.S. technology + Soviet style brutality leads to victory in Afghanistan?
I sincerely doubt that Michael is actually advocating this position; he's too smart for that. Rather, I think he's using an outlandish and admittedly ugly idea to promote/provoke a discussion on policy.

[KCIndy]

You are correct , but the battles on our own soil against one another nearly 150 years ago are not even relevant . Who wants to donate a pc. of land for them ? Should it be the Saud ?


Let's give 'em North Korea! :D We could take care of two problems at the same time!

(kidding! I'm just kidding!! Hold your fire!)

[oyarde]

Let's give 'em North Korea! :D We could take care of two problems at the same time!

(kidding! I'm just kidding!! Hold your fire!)

I would be intrigued to see what model someone may have if they had a slice of the pie somewhere. What would they do ?

[oyarde]

You should be happy I do not live In Sacramento , I may have tried to deal it to them. :D

[jmdrake]

I agree with you on this. The contention that Clinton "missed the chance" is ridiculous because, pre-2001, Bin Laden was definitely not that important a kill; not important enough to kill half the Emarati ruling house.


True. Which is why I'd like to know what was the reason for scrapping the mission in 1998, assuming that Deborah has her date correct. The story I posted was from 1999. It's possible that there was another "missed opportunity" with a different reason for the miss.



The killing of Berg was pure blowback for Abughraib and Gitmo. Al-Qaeda in Iraq released a lengthy and detailed rationale, and Al-Zarqawi himself gave a lengthy speech indicating why they're killing him and how it's all in revenge. They even dressed him up in orange jumpers similar to those worn by Gitmo prisoners.


How do you know it was Al-Zarqawi? Because some guy wearing a ski mask said it was Al-Zarqawi? If you don't mind the whole world knowing who you are, why wear the mask? I don't for a minute believe that it was Al-Zarqawi. So far nobody has ever provided a shred of actual evidence to prove that it was. Not a voice print recording, not some "demand letter" where they could do handwriting analysis, nothing. I could put on a ski mask and make a video claiming to be someone I wasn't too. Why would anyone believe that?



I sincerely doubt that Michael is actually advocating this position; he's too smart for that. Rather, I think he's using an outlandish and admittedly ugly idea to promote/provoke a discussion on policy.

At this point I'm agnostic about Michael Schuer. Let's assume that you are right and the whole point is to provoke a policy discussion. To what end? And is it possible that he's smart, but that he's crafted an argument for an audience that isn't smart enough to be manipulated the way he was to manipulate the m?

Yes he gimmick (assuming it is a gimmick) gets him on Fox News. And then what? I hear talk radio hosts use the "If we're going to fight this war we need to really fight it" line all the time. Usually the callers have a "Yeah! Let's kill em all!" response rather than a "Gee. Maybe this really wasn't such a good idea" reaction. And now that we are on the eve of a "republican wave", how many in the GOP are going to think "Now we have majority in the House we can really give the troops what they need to fight this war right!"

I don't know. Maybe I'm totally off base. But I think a more direct approach from a couple of other conservatives with the initials "MS" might be better. Michael Steel took the position that you can't win a land war in Afghanistan so we should just pull out. Michael Savage took the "We won the war already, so we should declare victory and just pull out.

[cindy25]

Goldwater advocated a similar policy for Vietnam, hence the famous daisy commercial

[ibaghdadi]

I hear talk radio hosts use the "If we're going to fight this war we need to really fight it" line all the time.
The difference is that Scheuer knows (and tells everyone) that the "really fight" scenario is unfeasible militarily, politically, and especially economically; moreover, he continuously says that it's useless (serves no American strategic objectives in the first place; instead serving Israel's).

The way I see it, here's someone who says: "They're fighting us because we've been doing pretty horrible things to them for several decades. The more horrible things we do, the more of them will be drawn into the fight and the more ugly this will turn for us. Now we have a choice of either doing those horrible things like we really mean it, or to get back to our senses. If we decide to keep doing those horrible things, we need to decide whether it's worth our blood and money."

I really think that, framed like that, the second option is not really an option, but rather a ruse amplifying the need for the first option.

Well, at least I hope so.

[ibaghdadi]

I would be intrigued to see what model someone may have if they had a slice of the pie somewhere. What would they do ?
I think you're starting to get it. Al-Qaeda doesn't have a model in the first place. It's a purely military organization that doesn't even have a political arm or model. Should they "win" some territory, they'd be in quite a bind, for two reasons.

The first is that their very strength is in their being amorphous and formless. They can strike at their enemies and then disappear into nothing and nowhere, waiting for the heat wave to pass so they can reappear. Having a street address will rob them of this very important (perhaps most important) strength. In fact, having a street address would mean the end of them (a tactical nuke would end it all, then).
The second is that they have no real model to try. Al-Qaeda has no political theorists, models, or strategists. They've already alienated competing Islamists who do have such models, theories, and strategies. They'll probably do such a poor job managing a state that they'll completely lose credibility.

Believe it or not, their problem is that they're winning faster than they've expected. They had built their organization expecting a fight that lasts several decades, hoping that during this time a political model would evolve.

This is a rabbit hole; consider for example that:

Should Al-Qaeda or its sympathizers have a territory at all, perpetrating a 9-11 style attack against America would become impossible because it would mean the immediate bombing/nuking/invasion by the US of their "territory" in retaliation.
Besides, this "territory" will probably have more covert agents, CIA operatives, and Arab intelligence assets than "real" people; it would have every spy satellite in the world focused on every square inch. Al-Qaeda won't be able to sneeze without being watched or recorded.
Al-Qaeda considers its mission to be purely military and had planned to disband once it achieves victory; when they thought their victory in Iraq was imminent, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" disbanded and reorganized as part of a larger organization called "Islamic State of Iraq" (influenced by Al-Qaeda but not led by them)
"New" states are always conservative in foreign policy; even communism was (under Stalin); Rothbard spoke about this at length in "For a New Liberty"
Al-Qaeda may "reject victory" and refuse to administer a territory, choosing to move on to the next fight instead; in fact Jihadist sympathizers were very worried about what would happen should the US declare defeat in Iraq, pull out, and leave Al-Qaeda with a third of the country to handle.

[amy31416]

The difference is that Scheuer knows (and tells everyone) that the "really fight" scenario is unfeasible militarily, politically, and especially economically; moreover, he continuously says that it's useless (serves no American strategic objectives in the first place; instead serving Israel's).

The way I see it, here's someone who says: "They're fighting us because we've been doing pretty horrible things to them for several decades. The more horrible things we do, the more of them will be drawn into the fight and the more ugly this will turn for us. Now we have a choice of either doing those horrible things like we really mean it, or to get back to our senses. If we decide to keep doing those horrible things, we need to decide whether it's worth our blood and money."

I really think that, framed like that, the second option is not really an option, but rather a ruse amplifying the need for the first option.

Well, at least I hope so.

If he'd articulated it how you do, then I wouldn't find his rhetoric so alarming or easily misused by neocons who want to do just that (keep doing horrible things like we really mean it.)

If I give Scheuer the benefit of the doubt, and I often do, I can see it that way--but how will his words be used as-is? What will they inspire?

[jmdrake]

The difference is that Scheuer knows (and tells everyone) that the "really fight" scenario is unfeasible militarily, politically, and especially economically; moreover, he continuously says that it's useless (serves no American strategic objectives in the first place; instead serving Israel's).

The way I see it, here's someone who says: "They're fighting us because we've been doing pretty horrible things to them for several decades. The more horrible things we do, the more of them will be drawn into the fight and the more ugly this will turn for us. Now we have a choice of either doing those horrible things like we really mean it, or to get back to our senses. If we decide to keep doing those horrible things, we need to decide whether it's worth our blood and money."

I really think that, framed like that, the second option is not really an option, but rather a ruse amplifying the need for the first option.

Well, at least I hope so.

Yeah. Sure. I can see that. But I don't think his audience is necessarily smart enough to get it. Forgive me for not having a lot of faith in the sophistication of the average Fox viewer.

[ClayTrainor]

Yeah. Sure. I can see that. But I don't think his audience is necessarily smart enough to get it. Forgive me for not having a lot of faith in the sophistication of the average Fox viewer.

aww c'mon. Glenn Beck is edumacating all of them... :p

[jmdrake]

The idea is a political non starter for obvious reasons. (Nobody willing to give up territory. Reflective emotional reaction against it. Desire to bring OBL to justice etc). But even if it wasn't, conventional wisdom is that the reason 9/11 could happen in the first place is because AQ had territory in could operate freely from through their symbiotic relationship with the Taliban. We bombed the camps several times and certainly there were spy sattelites trained on the area, but that didn't make a difference.

But here's the fatal flaw. What makes you think AQ would restrict itself it its "territory" if it were ever granted territory? AQ could and should have been cut off and killed in 2003 if the U.S. government had wanted to. Now that AQ has metasticized I don't see it taking your bait. Sure some AQ would go to this new "sovereign territory", but some would keep doing what their are doing.


I think you're starting to get it. Al-Qaeda doesn't have a model in the first place. It's a purely military organization that doesn't even have a political arm or model. Should they "win" some territory, they'd be in quite a bind, for two reasons.

The first is that their very strength is in their being amorphous and formless. They can strike at their enemies and then disappear into nothing and nowhere, waiting for the heat wave to pass so they can reappear. Having a street address will rob them of this very important (perhaps most important) strength. In fact, having a street address would mean the end of them (a tactical nuke would end it all, then).
The second is that they have no real model to try. Al-Qaeda has no political theorists, models, or strategists. They've already alienated competing Islamists who do have such models, theories, and strategies. They'll probably do such a poor job managing a state that they'll completely lose credibility.

Believe it or not, their problem is that they're winning faster than they've expected. They had built their organization expecting a fight that lasts several decades, hoping that during this time a political model would evolve.

This is a rabbit hole; consider for example that:

Should Al-Qaeda or its sympathizers have a territory at all, perpetrating a 9-11 style attack against America would become impossible because it would mean the immediate bombing/nuking/invasion by the US of their "territory" in retaliation.
Besides, this "territory" will probably have more covert agents, CIA operatives, and Arab intelligence assets than "real" people; it would have every spy satellite in the world focused on every square inch. Al-Qaeda won't be able to sneeze without being watched or recorded.
Al-Qaeda considers its mission to be purely military and had planned to disband once it achieves victory; when they thought their victory in Iraq was imminent, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" disbanded and reorganized as part of a larger organization called "Islamic State of Iraq" (influenced by Al-Qaeda but not led by them)
"New" states are always conservative in foreign policy; even communism was (under Stalin); Rothbard spoke about this at length in "For a New Liberty"
Al-Qaeda may "reject victory" and refuse to administer a territory, choosing to move on to the next fight instead; in fact Jihadist sympathizers were very worried about what would happen should the US declare defeat in Iraq, pull out, and leave Al-Qaeda with a third of the country to handle.

[nobody's_hero]

If you go to war, you go to war to win. Although we are not engaged in a lawful war, declared by congress, or even perhaps a moral war, I think if we didn't have our policy of "restraint" (relative term, and I don't think we're all that restrained at times) rather than letting the generals do what they were sent to do, we might have seen this war end in 3 or 4 years.

WW2 was much more unrestrained, much larger, and over much quicker than this "war" we're currently engaged in.

That' doesn't affect my view that we should get out of this war ASAP, I'm just suggesting Mr. Scheuer might have a point in there somewhere.

[jmdrake]

If you go to war, you go to war to win. Although we are not engaged in a lawful war, declared by congress, or even perhaps a moral war, I think if we didn't have our policy of "restraint" (relative term, and I don't think we're all that restrained at times) rather than letting the generals do what they were sent to do, we might have seen this war end in 3 or 4 years.

WW2 was much more unrestrained, much larger, and over much quicker than this "war" we're currently engaged in.

That' doesn't affect my view that we should get out of this war ASAP, I'm just suggesting Mr. Scheuer might have a point in there somewhere.

I keep coming back to my "These guys weren't restrained and it didn't help them either" point:

http://www.aircav.com/dodphoto/dod00/mi24-006rs.jpg

I don't know why people just don't get it.

As for "winning the war", you can't win a war if you don't define a purpose and actually stick to it. If our purpose was decapitating Al Qaeda, we "lost" the war in 2003 when the Al Qaeda leadership was allowed to escape from Tora Bora. If our purpose was overthrowing the Taliban, that war was "won" in 2003 quite easily. And that's the key difference between this war and World War 2. In that case the war ended once the governments at the helm were over through. This is an insurgent war and that's a totally different animal. Insurgencies are by there very nature take a long time. Because the insurgents can always "fade back" into the population and them come back when you least expect it. It's not about controlling territory. It's about controlling loyalty.

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-01-23-insurgency-mao-gns_x.htm

[LibertyVox]

If you go to war, you go to war to win. Although we are not engaged in a lawful war, declared by congress, or even perhaps a moral war, I think if we didn't have our policy of "restraint" (relative term, and I don't think we're all that restrained at times) rather than letting the generals do what they were sent to do, we might have seen this war end in 3 or 4 years.

WW2 was much more unrestrained, much larger, and over much quicker than this "war" we're currently engaged in.

That' doesn't affect my view that we should get out of this war ASAP, I'm just suggesting Mr. Scheuer might have a point in there somewhere.

Spoken like a true Objectivist death cultist.

[nobody's_hero]

Spoken like a true Objectivist death cultist.

Not even remotely. We should stay out of wars waged for purposes other than conserving our liberty.

But going to war and trying to put a friendly "we want to rebuild your nation while we bomb it and give you the gift of democracy"-face on it, makes less sense than ending the war as swiftly as possible.

Ugly, yes. But that's what it boils down to.


"Restrained" war:

Day 1:

We roll through a village one day flattening everything with tanks and blowing up mosques, schools, and bridges.

Day 2:

We return the next day with humanitarian food/medical supplies and construction workers ready to rebuild the mosque, school, or bridge.

Day 3:

We return to the same village the next day with jet fighters to blow up the bridge, school, or mosque now reported as being used as an enemy supply route or weapons cache.

Day 4:

We return the next day with humanitarian food/medical supplies and construction workers ready to rebuild the mosque, school, or bridge.

Day 5:

We return the next day with intellegence officers and translators buying information on the last known location of the enemy.

Day 6:

We roll through town the next day with tanks flattening everything in their path and blowing up the alleged hideouts of enemies based upon the infomation given by the intelligence contact the previous day.

Day 7:

Election day! The people of the village take a break from collecting salvageable building materials from the pile of rubble they once called home and go enjoy their newly established democracy.

Day 8 (or 1):

Repeat.

Unrestrained war:

Day 1:

We roll through a village one day flattening everything with tanks and blowing up mosques, schools, and bridges.

Day 2:

Come home.

One is a way to prolong a war, and one is a way to quit a war.

Still, avoiding the unnecessary war in the first place would have been the best option of the three.

[nobody's_hero]

I only reason I point it out in such a way, is to provide some insight on how to knock misguided conservatives off the war bandwagon.

If you want them to change their opinion on the current conflict, you have to portray it as the truthful absurdity that it is.

Remind them that if our elected officials were serious about winning this conflict, then we'd have won it by now.

My guess is that you could probably get 30% of them to just give in and say it's time to bring the troops home, if you could really drive home this point. It isn't much, but it's 30% more republicans than we have in the 'anti-war' movement now.

I've tried this on former Bush republicans and it actually works, but the success rate is less than half. That much I know. It also hinges on your ability to get between them and the neocon leaders they may still put faith in.

[LibertyVox]

Not even remotely. We should stay out of wars waged for purposes other than conserving our liberty.

But going to war and trying to put a friendly "we want to rebuild your nation while we bomb it and give you the gift of democracy"-face on it, makes less sense than ending the war as swiftly as possible.

Ugly, yes. But that's what it boils down to.



One is a way to prolong a war, and one is a way to quit a war.

Still, avoiding the unnecessary war in the first place would have been the best option of the three.

Yeah, and for the past 100 years (and arguably a few times before that) we have participated in, and have waged wars (in addition to several instances of regime toppling and many cases of outright destructive interferences) which had absolutely nothing to do with conserving liberty at home.

The problem was your non-sequitor statement in which you said that the wars were unjust and undeclared etc. yet you would have preferred scorched earth to deal with the problem anyways (engendering a very well thought out reply from jmdrake) . One statement does not follow the other unless principles mean nothing and human life is valueless subjected to expedient whims.

And as far as how war should be waged even when we really do have to defend our liberty, I still disagree with your proposed methodology of scorched earth. That is immoral, unprincipled, collective punishment and is both unjust and barbaric. The war should be waged against the aggressor and not the unarmed innocents. Atrocities should be repulsive to any one with a conscience. And this goes for the freedom fighters too, even if their fire power is peanuts compared to the evil they face. That's what I believe in. And I believe what ROn Paul would say as well. However, one's modus operandi in war is a tertiary or a secondary issue at best.

Anyways, what makes you think that we have not been barbaric, savage and atrocious in the wars we have already waged or are currently waging? In Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan?
Our boys have free chit. The only check on them is the minuscule media coverage (image still matters and has always mattered even in the most cruel and barbaric regimes, hence the seminal importance and art of PROPAGANDA), global outcry (read: keeping up appearances and decorum), whistle blowers/soldiers with conscience, whatever semblance of civility which is left among the citizenry domestically, plus the fact that we are a republic with a good constitution and were founded on moral principles. That goodness still lingers about albeit only by a thread in the national elite psyche.
Still We kill freely, only we are better at masking it in machiavellian rhetoric than say the Soviets and PRC have been (which makes us more dangerous not less).

So don't you fel that we have no been barbaric enough or our pussy ass military's--- which serves evil-- hands are tied. Oh no. Not in the hands of these fascists (our politicos).

And be careful what you wish for. If Total War is what you advocate to defend one's patria and liberty than by every and all means and every last principle of our founding we have already given the Iraqis, the Vietnamese, the Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghans to come utterly destroy and devastate this country, occupy it, dismantle it as they see fit because we have been an existential threat to them in ways we have NEVER ever been subjected to apart from the early primitive technology days of our seceding colonies and republic.

And I actually have no doubt, that if the Iraqis DID come here and occupy this country, which we have given them the right to do, they will be much more humane and honest with us than what we have done to them and continue to do so, and will continue doing in the forseeable future.

[oyarde]

I think you're starting to get it. Al-Qaeda doesn't have a model in the first place. It's a purely military organization that doesn't even have a political arm or model. Should they "win" some territory, they'd be in quite a bind, for two reasons.

The first is that their very strength is in their being amorphous and formless. They can strike at their enemies and then disappear into nothing and nowhere, waiting for the heat wave to pass so they can reappear. Having a street address will rob them of this very important (perhaps most important) strength. In fact, having a street address would mean the end of them (a tactical nuke would end it all, then).
The second is that they have no real model to try. Al-Qaeda has no political theorists, models, or strategists. They've already alienated competing Islamists who do have such models, theories, and strategies. They'll probably do such a poor job managing a state that they'll completely lose credibility.

Believe it or not, their problem is that they're winning faster than they've expected. They had built their organization expecting a fight that lasts several decades, hoping that during this time a political model would evolve.

This is a rabbit hole; consider for example that:

Should Al-Qaeda or its sympathizers have a territory at all, perpetrating a 9-11 style attack against America would become impossible because it would mean the immediate bombing/nuking/invasion by the US of their "territory" in retaliation.
Besides, this "territory" will probably have more covert agents, CIA operatives, and Arab intelligence assets than "real" people; it would have every spy satellite in the world focused on every square inch. Al-Qaeda won't be able to sneeze without being watched or recorded.
Al-Qaeda considers its mission to be purely military and had planned to disband once it achieves victory; when they thought their victory in Iraq was imminent, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" disbanded and reorganized as part of a larger organization called "Islamic State of Iraq" (influenced by Al-Qaeda but not led by them)
"New" states are always conservative in foreign policy; even communism was (under Stalin); Rothbard spoke about this at length in "For a New Liberty"
Al-Qaeda may "reject victory" and refuse to administer a territory, choosing to move on to the next fight instead; in fact Jihadist sympathizers were very worried about what would happen should the US declare defeat in Iraq, pull out, and leave Al-Qaeda with a third of the country to handle.


Yep .

[LibertyVox]

Yeah, and for the past 100 years (and arguably a few times before that) we have participated in, and have waged wars (in addition to several instances of regime toppling and many cases of outright destructive interferences) which had absolutely nothing to do with conserving liberty at home.

The problem was your non-sequitor statement in which you said that the wars were unjust and undeclared etc. yet you would have preferred scorched earth to deal with the problem anyways (engendering a very well thought out reply from jmdrake) . One statement does not follow the other unless principles mean nothing and human life is valueless subjected to expedient whims.

And as far as how war should be waged even when we really do have to defend our liberty, I still disagree with your proposed methodology of scorched earth. That is immoral, unprincipled, collective punishment and is both unjust and barbaric. The war should be waged against the aggressor and not the unarmed innocents. Atrocities should be repulsive to any one with a conscience. And this goes for the freedom fighters too, even if their fire power is peanuts compared to the evil they face. That's what I believe in. And I believe what ROn Paul would say as well. However, one's modus operandi in war is a tertiary or a secondary issue at best.

Anyways, what makes you think that we have not been barbaric, savage and atrocious in the wars we have already waged or are currently waging? In Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan?
Our boys have free chit. The only check on them is the minuscule media coverage (image still matters and has always mattered even in the most cruel and barbaric regimes, hence the seminal importance and art of PROPAGANDA), global outcry (read: keeping up appearances and decorum), whistle blowers/soldiers with conscience, whatever semblance of civility which is left among the citizenry domestically, plus the fact that we are a republic with a good constitution and were founded on moral principles. That goodness still lingers about albeit only by a thread in the national elite psyche.
Still We kill freely, only we are better at masking it in machiavellian rhetoric than say the Soviets and PRC have been (which makes us more dangerous not less).

So don't you fel that we have no been barbaric enough or our pussy ass military's--- which serves evil-- hands are tied. Oh no. Not in the hands of these fascists (our politicos).

And be careful what you wish for. If Total War is what you advocate to defend one's patria and liberty than by every and all means and every last principle of our founding we have already given the Iraqis, the Vietnamese, the Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghans to come utterly destroy and devastate this country, occupy it, dismantle it as they see fit because we have been an existential threat to them in ways we have NEVER ever been subjected to apart from the early primitive technology days of our seceding colonies and republic.

And I actually have no doubt, that if the Iraqis DID come here and occupy this country, which we have given them the right to do, they will be much more humane and honest with us than what we have done to them and continue to do so, and will continue doing in the forseeable future.

Lucky for us the ones we choose to brutalize and terrorize happen to be very weak, poor or more or less isolated...many times ruled by an autocrat (btw, here's another sad part: the people whom we brutalize and terrorize have much more justification in killing any thing that moves in tis country because our elected politicos do supposedly represent the vox populi.) are too weak to do much about the evil curse that lurks over them (that'd be us and our military).

So who picks on the weaklings? Cowards. Because that's what bullies are.

[nobody's_hero]

In the context of how to end an unjust war, it is better for it to be done swiftly rather than dragging it out over a period of 10 years with no end in sight.

That's the only angle that Scheuer and myself are coming from.

That's the only angle that you could present it to folks who still support this conflict which might have any chance of winning over more (but not all) conservatives to the anti-war side.

I should hope that if the Iraqis were to ever invade the U.S. with an overwhelming force that we theoretically could not defend against, I'd rather that it be done and over with as swiftly as possible—IF the other option were lingering on indefinitely as a pointless and continuous cycle of Iraqi invaders giving out candy bars with one hand and slapping me with another.

But the best option would be for the Iraqi's to not start the invasion to begin with.

That's about as simple as I can break down Scheuer's argument.

(disclaimer, you can read through my posts and see that I was a conservative who arrived at the 'just bring them home' position when I realized how rediculous this conflict is and how undedicated we are being towards finding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This war is less about 'justice' than it is a 'field-day for the special interests'—many of whom don't want to see a swift end to this war, either through 'scorched-earth', or 'simply bringing the troops home' as Ron Paul advocates)

[LibertyVox]

In the context of how to end an unjust war, it is better for it to be done swiftly rather than dragging it out over a period of 10 years with no end in sight.

That's the only angle that Scheuer and myself are coming from.

That's the only angle that you could present it to folks who still support this conflict which might have any chance of winning over more (but not all) conservatives to the anti-war side.

I should hope that if the Iraqis were to ever invade the U.S. with an overwhelming force that we theoretically could not defend against, I'd rather that it be done and over with as swiftly as possible—IF the other option were lingering on indefinitely as a continuous cycle of Iraqi invaders giving out candy bars with one hand and slapping me with another.

But the best option would be for the Iraqi's to not start the invasion to begin with.

That's about as simple as I can break down Scheuer's argument.

You know what I think of Scheur? Have you read his "Through Our Enemies Eyes"? the guy seems smitten with Osama comparing et al to our founding fathers in a very Ragnar Danneskjold sorta way.

What I believe he really means when he says bomb every thing in sight(one might as well thEn use nukes no? why the fuck not) is a very caustic , sarcastic and coded way of saying to us "HEY WAKE THE FUCK UP. YOU'RE EVIL. START ACTING LIKE IT. WHY PRETEND TO BE SOMETHING ELSE? YOU KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE EVERYDAY. WHY NOT BE MERCIFUL AND KILL THEM ALL. MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN. TRIBE AFTER TRIBE. IT'S YOUR FUCKING BELIEF SYSTEM".

And no I do not believe that Iraqis who if they attack and occupy This country---which they have the right to do so-- should use scorched earth here, because it does not make sense. I have not killed any Iraqi, nor do I support the Evil that this country and its military now represents to them, and if they kill any of my relatives, I would probably lose my mind and if I did, I'd not only kill them, i'll try to kill their innocent wives and kids etc..
Unless ofcourse they do the inhumane barbaric savage biblical thing and go all Sodom on our ass with thermohydronooks.

But I doubt, that'll happen. If Israel and Soviet Union etc didn't use them (for their own sakes)--and I submit that I would like to believe that we are better than those imperial regimes even if we are the only ones to have used them in the past 2wice (well technically Israel is not imperial it is just a a cruel thief)-- I don't think others will if they can overcome us through conventional means.

But yeah, if I'm a soldier serving evil deployed in Iraq and am caught, then I'll defnitely hope for a quick execution...a bullet to the head or an axe to the neck.

[nobody's_hero]

What I believe he really means when he says bomb every thing in sight(one might as well thEn use nukes no? why the fuck not) is a very caustic , sarcastic and coded way of saying to us "HEY WAKE THE FUCK UP. YOU'RE EVIL. START ACTING LIKE IT. WHY PRETEND TO BE SOMETHING ELSE? YOU KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE EVERYDAY. WHY NOT BE MERCIFUL AND KILL THEM ALL. MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN. TRIBE AFTER TRIBE. IT'S YOUR FUCKING BELIEF SYSTEM".

Now, I hadn't considered that. You may be on to something.

Frankly I agree with you on the moral issue (or lack thereof) in regards to this conflict.

I hope that Ron Paul's "We just marched in, we can just march out" suggestion wins out over the "scorched-earth" suggestion. But if nothing else, I hope this conflict doesn't drag on for another 20 years. (of course, we'll be beyond bankrupt before that, I suppose).

[LibertyVox]

now, i hadn't

i hope that ron paul's "we just marched in, we can just march out" suggestion wins out over the "scorched-earth" suggestion. But if nothing else, i hope this war doesn't drag on for another 20 years. (of course, we'll be bankrupt before that).

+1776

[nobody's_hero]

+1776

+ Ron Paul 2012

[Deborah K]

That was in 1999 which, if you have your dates right, doesn't jive with your particular story. If you have knowledge of the reason for a cancellation of a 1998 strike I'd love to hear it. Otherwise it's just another story a time OBL got away. It could have been the risk of ticking off "allies" outweighed the reward for killing someone who at this point was "only" accused of the embassy bombings.


In the 9-11 commission report there is testimony about a scrapped attempt to kill OBL in 1998 because of the possibility of shrapnel hitting a nearby mosque and the possible killing of some 200 people. And the reason they wanted him dead wasn't just because he was accused of embassy bombings, he was already planning an attack on the U.S. and the CIA knew about it.


I forwarded your questons on to Michael and asked him to clear up the many concerns people have about his interview. He has written an article about it here:
http://non-intervention.com/ to which you are more than welcome to respond to directly.

In an email to me, he responded to your other questions below:


Is Michael suggesting that modern U.S. technology + Soviet style brutality leads to victory in Afghanistan?

No, what I am trying to suggest that is as long as we have a government focused on occupying foreign countries and trying to build societies in our image we are going to be involved in wars. This reality makes enemies and enemies have to be killed. Stopping intervention -- getting out of Afghanistan -- will stop the killing. If we choose to stay, we will have to kill what will be a growing number of enemies who have no intention of fighting us just overseas, but will be coming to CONUS to attack.



Also what about the fact that by all accounts if Osama Bin Laden is still alive (BIG if), he's no longer in Afghanistan anyway?

Though I would never say never, there is no reason to believe bin Laden has left South Asia. He must be killed, as he is at the helm of any AQ attack on CONUS. If he has left, we will go wherever he is to fight another endless and losing war. If we want to make bin Laden, and those he leads and inspires, a much lesser threat, we must stop intervening in the Muslim world.


The "generals who want to win the hearts and minds of Al Qaeda" don't exist. All of the "horrible restrictions" on U.S. troops that people have become so fond of criticizing are designed to protect innocents, plain and simple. If you see a suspected Al Qaeda go into a building where there are children do you A) wait for him to come out or B) blow up the building with a predator drone? If all you care about is killing as many suspected Al Qaeda as possible than choice B is the most "efficient". Of course choice B also undermines the very government we say we are trying to help. The Soviet Union was very efficient at killing Afghans. In the end they lost. Does being more efficient mean expanding the war even further into Pakistan?

The Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan because they wanted to stay and occupy Afghanistan. The correct procedure is what is called a "punitive expedition" meant to destroy the enemy, his supporters, and their infrastructure as quickly as possible and then immediately come home. This with the full knowledge that you may have to repeat the process if the enemy still thinks the game is worth the candle.

I have no patience with the idea of protecting civilians in this sort of guerrilla war, especially at the risk of losing U.S. military personnel. We have made enormous strides in getting Afghan kids to school, improving health care, and making potable water and electricity more widely available, and yet the insurgency continues to grow and spread in the country. This reality results from the fact that most Afghans hate us as secular, infidel occupiers; they will take our material aid and improvements and then help the Taleban to kill our soldiers and Marines, while they search fecklessly for hearts and minds and try to protect the "innocent" who are mostly not innocent.

If we keep occupying Afghanistan, we will go into Pakistan as surely as night follows day. Before that happens, Washington must be forced to kill as many of our enemies as possible in Afghanistan, in the shortest possible time, and then immediately leave.

The only mercy in war is whatever approach brings definitive victory -- that is, protects America -- and ends fighting most quickly.

[Deborah K]

You know what I think of Scheur? Have you read his "Through Our Enemies Eyes"? the guy seems smitten with Osama comparing et al to our founding fathers in a very Ragnar Danneskjold sorta way.


He's the former head of the Bin Laden unit of the CIA. He has respect for the enemy. So does Ron Paul. Why do you think Dr. Paul recommends Mike's books?

[oyarde]

He's the former head of the Bin Laden unit of the CIA. He has respect for the enemy. So does Ron Paul. Why do you think Dr. Paul recommends Mike's books?

You must always repect your enemy .