[Rhodes22-list] Afghanistan

[Bill Effros]

Dave,

Fight in Afghanistan?  Necessary?  Winnable?

They aren't fighting a civil war--you just have to decide if you want to 
back the drug lords or the religious fanatics.  Nobody has ever been 
able to win in Afghanistan.  Ask the Russians--or the Brits--or anyone 
else who has ever tried.

Larger population than Iraq.  We have nominal control of a single 
city--just like we have nominal control of Baghdad.

And just like Iraq, the original stated purpose of invading is much 
different than the stated purpose now.  (We said we had to invade 
because the government would not "hand over" Osama bin Laden.  When they 
said they couldn't, we said we would simply take him.  Our intelligence 
(oxymoron?) tells us he is still in the exact same place he was when we 
invaded.

We have armed and backed both the Taliban and the Drug Lords. 

They don't even have oil.

Be sure to ask Brad why the free enterprise system which can't even 
rebuild our own country, is going to do such a great job rebuilding 
other people's countries.

Bill Effros





DCLewis1 at aol.com wrote:
> Brad,
>  
> Two comments re your post:
>  
> - Bush is no conservative?  How many hundred posts have you made  defending 
> his actions and his record?  After years  I think  I’m hearing a new story 
> line.  Let me add to your disillusionment; jr’s  father was no fiscal 
> conservative, nor was Reagan - the fiscal record shows it  unambiguously.   And yes, our 
> children will be paying all their bills  for a long time.  And some of our 
> children won't be around to pay those  bills because of jr's adolescent militarism 
> (Note: this does not say you  shouldn't fight terrorists and terrorism, 
> rather it says you should pick  your fights carefully, and win them.  Fighting in 
> Afghanistan - necessary,  go for it.  Fighting in Iraq - unnecessary, poorly 
> thought through,  dumb.).
>  
> - Re the gulf coast rebuild being all about the private sector: Clearly the  
> private sector has an extremely important role to play, but just as clearly  
> infrastructure, landfill permitting, permitting of all sorts, flood control,  
> etc, etc, are legitimate govt functions (legitimate here doesn't mean the govt  
> CAN take on those tasks, rather it means the private sector WONT take them on 
>  because of liability issues so the govt has to take them on or they won't 
> get  done).  Rebuilding from a catastrophe will be very much easier with  
> competent and coordinated government assistance - for example rebuilding public  
> bridges, highways, and dikes will all be funded and supervised by the government  
> if only because no private entity wants the liability should a public bridge 
> or  flood control dike break.  So how about a focused, competent, and timely  
> effort?  How about a focal point and leader that reports to the President  and 
> speaks for the President?  How about some one person who can stand up  and 
> report how the rebuilding is coming along, what resources are required, what  
> capabilities have been restored and which will be restored next, encourage the  
> populace, etc.  I suspect Cheney could pull it off, he might actually  
> accomplish something useful if he took the task on. 
>  
> What boggles my mind is how little focus, attention, and visibility Bush et  
> al have given the gulf coast disaster.  Did he even mention it in his State  
> of The Union address?  Instead he drops in occasionally for a photo opp  while 
> flying to and from his dude ranch in Texas.  The citizenry,  particularly the 
> gulf coast citizenry, deserve better.
>  
> Dave
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>