Monday, May 2, 2011

Andrei What Psycho Milt said yesterday......

9/11 was nearly a decade ago, Andrei. The war against Afghanistan launched in response to it was a failure - the perpetrators escaped, ie we lost.

Turns out to have been incorrect.

Today we are hearing that the main perpetrator has been killed and that his "body will be disposed of". That is there will be no grave, no memorial to serve as a shrine.

13 comment(s):

Lucia Maria said...

This fight has been on again off again for centuries. If we leave them alone, do they leave us alone? Not that we can leave them alone, given the interconnectedness of the world economy.

Ackers said...

WTF has the 'world economy' got to do with Osama's death?

Congratulatons Lucia, 1st cynical post I've found where someone clearly doesn't really give a fuck.

Lucia Maria said...


The world economy has nothing to do with Obama's death, but has everything to do with interaction with the Islamic world. And, I suppose the fact that they covet what we have, given we've been taken over piece by piece in various surges as well. Even if we weren't involved with them, they'd still be surging over.

Psycho Milt said...

Turns out to have been incorrect.

In what sense? 10 years later, US intelligence locates the guy in Pakistan and they take the opportunity to kill him. Doesn't alter the fact that the war against Afghanistan in 2001 failed to capture or kill him and the 9 years of occupying the place since then has achieved nothing beyond combat experience gained at the expense of a continuous supply of dead bodies and invalids.

Andrei said...

I guess, it was incorrect in that Osama bin Laden has been held accountable for what he did.

In the scheme of things it took nearly six years to hold Adolf Hitler accountable and cost a lot more lives and money than Afghanistan has to do so.

And operation Market Garden in WW2 cost more lives in ten days than this war has in ten years.

A different perspective held then I guess.

Psycho Milt said...

That the Americans would one day find out where he was and kill him was pretty much a given. But having failed to catch him in their war, spending years playing kill-and-be-killed there to no good purpose didn't contribute anything noticeable to that outcome.

Anonymous said...

You lost milt. We won.

All I heard was wahaaa wha whaaaa whaaa don't kill the terrorsit he just missunderstood.

Tell these people:

Psycho Milt said...

All I heard was wahaaa wha whaaaa...

Of course that's all you heard, it's your SOP. Andrei, on the other hand, doesn't block his ears and wail when someone's making a point he disagrees with, which is why I'm commenting here.

Matthew said...

PM, first you say "The war against Afghanistan launched in response to it was a failure - the perpetrators escaped, ie we lost." then you say "That the Americans would one day find out where he was and kill him was pretty much a given."

If it's pretty much a given that the Americans will find him and kill him then how is that congruent with we lost(passage of time is hardly relevant)? At least if you'd said "he escaped...up until now" then you've got room to move.

What is relevant in the debate is whether the whole enterprise into Afghanistan is/was worthwhile. I can see honestly held difference over that, but your comments as they stand above don't agree with the other.

Psycho Milt said...

I don't believe so.

The war launched against Afghanistan in late 2001 was intended to destroy Al Qaeda and kill Bin Laden. It failed to do that. That the US has occupied Afghanistan ever since doesn't alter that basic fact.

Obviously the Americans wouldn't just accept failure and give up at that point. Instead, they accepted what should have been clear from the start - a task like that is handled by spies and special forces doing covert operations, not large-scale regular warfare.

As an analogy, if you try cracking walnuts with a sledgehammer you don't really get any edible walnuts out of it. If you then change your approach and try cracking walnuts with a nutcracker, you get to eat walnuts. Does that mean cracking walnuts with a sledgehammer was a success? No. Does declaring it a failure while accepting that you now have walnuts to eat show inconsistency? No.

Matthew said...

PM, no. I get your analogy in that it isn't inconsistent to say "Does declaring it a failure while accepting that you now have walnuts to eat show inconsistency".

However in the previous paragraphs you refer to the war launched in Afghanistan which failed in its objectives. That war involved special forces [in the beginning] as did the military action in Pakistan that killed bin Laden. Special Forces killing an enemy of the United States is as much part of the war as the large scale warfare you refer to is a part of the war. To not call it [special forces ops] part of the war is incorrect.

Unfortunately your analogy fails as nutcrackers are not a sledgehammer while special forces' ops are part of a war.

Psycho Milt said...

If you think the last 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan have been a continuance of the war against Bin Laden, there's really no basis for discussion.

Matthew said...

Occupation of Afghanistan actually includes(ed) ongoing operations against the Taliban and al Qa-ida. If you think that occupation excludes war operations then your statement does not contain all of the facts.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.