Ralph Peters has another great article on Obama's new agenda for America - 'it's better to be last than not at all'. Or 'You must sacrifice everything to prove I'm wrong'.
Why would anyone believe it is possible to change a persons mind, through love and honest dialogue, that has it's foundations, built on centuries of indoctrination, killing ones opponent is the only way to advance your own standing in the neighborhood.
I guess you will have to ask the president elect and his rabid followers - maybe after the sobbing and fainting has subsided, just maybe some common sense will enter the fray. If not we all will suffer the results. Oh, yeah, if all does fail - the song in the back of the liberal play book will have to be used and it always works, 'that damn George Bush'.
Keep the faith.
THE TALKING TRAP: AFGHAN FOLLIES
By RALPH PETERS/November 13, 2008/ --
NEGOTIATIONS are the heroin of the chattering classes, blinding them to every reality except the next fix they can inject into our foreign policy.
The pushers - our delighted enemies - pile up strategic profits.
Certainly, there are situations in which negotiations make sense, such as structuring trade terms or defining alliance contributions. But the notion that, if only we can sit down with our enemies, we'll inevitably persuade them to love us is a deadly self-delusion.
There's a looming danger that President-elect Obama's naive and profoundly anti-military cadres will misinterpret Gen. David Petraeus' tactic of opening communications with Taliban elements and seek to make talks the /centerpiece/ of the new administration's Afghan policy. If so, we might as well pack up and leave now. No American soldier should die just so diplomats can rack up frequent-flyer miles.
Negotiations during a conflict only work to our advantage when we're in a position of strength that threatens the enemy's existence or when bloodied opponents have wearied of the fight. Both conditions applied in Iraq.They /don't/ apply in Afghanistan.
In Iraq, al Qaeda had worn out its welcome. The Sunni Arabs /wanted/ our help. In Afghanistan, Taliban-style Islamist fanaticism has a deep constituency. While most Afghans don't want the Taliban back, a fierce minority does. And, unlike Iraq's Sunni Arabs, the Taliban think they can win.
The equation is simple: We kill them, or we lose. Fighting fanatics is a zero-sum game. And let's stop saying, "We can't kill our way out of this problem." Faced with faith-drunk killers, there's no other way out. History doesn't reveal a single exception.
It's fine to deal with any disenchanted Taliban supporters who approach us - foes we can peel away are always welcome - but begging the hardcore Taliban for talks will only stiffen their convictions. They interpret any readiness to talk as a sign that we're losing.
Our military and political leaders are in danger of investing too much in a model that may not transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan. Iraq's Sunni Arabs weren't religious madmen (with a few exceptions). They were bitter about their loss of power, but weren't anxious to blow themselves to bits for Allah.
The Taliban and al Qaeda mean what they profess, and they profess that it's better to die fighting infidels than to give them an inch. Tribesmen may have various reasons for their local support of the Taliban, but the primary rallying mechanism is a sturdy combination of faith and ethnicity.
Washington doesn't want to hear it. Nobody in DC really believes that other human beings are willing to die for their faith. Religious passion is as foreign to Washington as integrity in the budget process. As this column noted after 9/11, we're fighting enemies who regard death as a promotion. Washington /still/ wants to excuse suicide bombing as a sociological phenomenon.
If Taliban elements agree to talk, most will view the talks as a chance to weaken our resolve - and to buy time. This is the con for which we /always/ fall. The Iranians, Saddam Hussein, the Palestinians, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russians all have played "Paralyze the Gringos" with endless talks.
We always wake up alone, with the sheets stained and torn.
If we /can/ cut deals with wavering tribes, great. If we /can /talk (and bribe) some Taliban fighters into laying down their arms, terrific. But I'm going on record to declare that we won't win a duel of words with the Taliban leadership.
Why does Washington put so much faith in endless chatter? For multiple reasons:*
First, few government officials have any sense of the world's brutal reality. They live in a lovely bubble (lined with mirrors).*
Second, most legislators and many high-level federal officials are lawyers. Lawyers get rich by talking. Every success they've had in life has come from some form of bargaining. They can't believe it won't work on suicide bombers.*
Third, Washington has the highest proportion of surviving welfare institutions in the nation. They're called think tanks. They, too, profit from chatter - briefings, panels, seminars, white papers - not deeds.*
Fourth, we're experiencing the long-term effects of ending the draft. It's been great for our military, but disastrous for our country. Our rising generation of leaders lives in a comfy theoretical world in which the military's a distasteful legacy of less-enlightened times.*
Fifth, our leaders are afraid. Whenever they /do/ glimpse the world's horrid realities, they're terrified. So they lie to themselves, pretending that a good heart-to-heart talk will solve any problem (if these guys could talk to the AIDS virus, they'd be in heaven).
And when another round of negotiations fails? The junkie's instant amnesia kicks in. We're already looking forward to another fix.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment