Obama chooses his Vietnam

Peace on earth, good will toward men. Fine sentiments. But as citizens of a republic, can we really assume we’ll be held forever blameless for the actions of our government?

Barack Obama, who if he were not in office would be applying for a Community Development Block Grant to stage anti-war rallies in Chicago, just authorized sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. But it’s OK: He promises to pull them out in 18 months — soon enough to guarantee they can’t actually accomplish anything.

A few hundred of these young American men will be be sent home in coffins or with their legs blown off. A few thousand Afghans will get blowed up real good by our Predator drones and newer, follow-up flying robots, in a military enterprise that could only have been dreamed up by someone who’s spent too much time playing Dungeons and Dragons in his dormitory basement. Why?

We hear a lot of side-channel whining about how, were we to pull out now, the Taliban would resume power in Afghanistan, at which point these fundamentalist Islamic thugs won’t allow girls to go to school any more.

Here’s a news flash: Half the globe (and, currently, 95 percent of Afghanistan) is ruled by benighted thugs whose customs and behavior wouldn’t pass muster with the EEOC, the ADA, the EPA, the National Organization for Women, or PETA — though they might find a champion in the North American Man-Boy Love Association. We can’t afford to send troops to fix them all. Once the Democrats get done turning the U.S. dollar into rainbow confetti, we won’t be able to afford to send them a firm note.

Both by inclination and geography, the hill tribes of Afghanistan have proven singularly resistant to the blandishments of centralized state power. The British and Russians tried to impose our version of “civilization” on this mountainous realm, on and off, for nearly 200 years. No dice. Now Barack Obama, who so far as we know has never field-stripped a battle rifle, never commanded a Boy Scout troop on a 10-mile hike, is going to get the job done in a year and a half with 50,000 troops and some stern rhetoric?

What, precisely, would a strong, centralized welfare/police state offer the average Afghan?

Right now, the average 14-year-old Afghan male is trusted with a rifle and care of his family’s fields or flocks. What he does NOT face is an arbitrary and artificial extension of his “childhood” to keep him unmarried and out of the “labor force” till he’s at least 18, if not 22.

In America, the average 14-year-old male will return next week to his ongoing 12-year incarceration in the local mandatory government youth propaganda camp, subject to punishment by his union schoolmarms should he show any dangerous signs of testosterone poisoning. This is actually a pretty good training ground for the adult life he can anticipate, forking over half his earnings in permanent enslavement to a massively intrusive welfare/police state that would have appalled any American of 1909, let alone 1776.

Should the Afghans welcome the prospect of a powerful central state on the American model — and propped up by American mercenary “contractors,” shooting up rural wedding parties with demonically clever robot drones straight out of “The Terminator” — because it promises to bring them a domestic version of the American IRS, systematically looting half their annual earnings — and then grabbing half their remaining patrimony on the day they die?

Should they embrace our form of government because a simple herdsman, hoping to shift some sand and rocks a build a rudimentary retention basin to water his stock, could then look forward to waiting many months for various bureaucratic teams to be dispatched from the capital, charging him thousands of dollars for “inspections” and “permits” to certify that his “project” doesn’t endanger any delicate archaeological study area, nor the fragile riparian habitat of some heretofore unknown but certainly “endangered” domestic Afghan weed or bug?

Oh, sing hallelujah!

But finally and most important, the Afghans are not idiots. They know that — should the dreams of London, Moscow, and Washington ever come true, should there ever be a strong centralized nation-state with a powerful police apparatus headquartered in Kabul, the first thing that government’s “international partners” would prevail upon such a satrapy to do would be to curtail cultivation of opium and hashish, the only two profitable cash crops to have ever taken root in their stony soil (and two of God’s finest gifts to a long-suffering mankind, just for the record. Doesn’t Genesis instruct us that God gave us “every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat”?)

If you want to make the Afghans your friends, buy and distribute their crops; don’t burn them.

I’m not a pacifist. There are some adequate justifications for killing people. Should anyone try to come here and seize our stuff, we should declare war on them and kill them. If we have indeed caught a few dozen of the creeps responsible for the terror attacks culimating on Sept. 11, 2001, they should be lined up and shot, or else hanged, as we did with the plainclothes saboteurs Hitler sent here by submarine in 1942. The laws of war raise no objection.

We went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban had given shelter to al-Qaida. Our best intelligence now tells us the remnants of al-Qaida — a few hundred souls — shelter in northwest Pakistan. So why aren’t we going to war in Pakistan? (Or are we, and the American people just can’t be told that?)

The notion that we must install a stable modern centralized puppet regime in every land where Osama bin Laden might pop up — and do it with 50,000 men, when standard U.S. Army doctrine calls for a force at least five times that size — is a fruitless game of worldwide Whac-a-Mole that could bankrupt us even sooner than Obamacare.

The real reason we’re still in Afghanistan is that — even though it was Democratic presidents with Democratic congressional majorities who manipulated us into World War One, World War Two, and Vietnam — Republicans are today regarded as the party of modest military competence, while the post-1976 Democrats are viewed, with some cause, as Marxist surrender monkeys.

Barack Obama couldn’t very well expect to win a race against an actual combat veteran with the proven manly virtues of John McCain by campaigning on a platform of “turn tail and run, but offer to hold hands with our Muslim brothers, sing Cum-ba-ya, and pay them off with billions in bribes, supposedly to fight AIDS and global warming.” So he puffed up his chest and did his best impression of Winston Churchill, vowing to fight and win the “really important war” — Afghanistan.

It was a campaign talking point, for heaven’s sake, a domestic political triangulation. For this American boys must bleed to death on some cold foreign mountain?

If Barack Obama is looking for a military adventure to prove his martial bona fides, let him send the Marines to clean out the pirates on the shores of Somalia. Burn their boats and come home. The French will protest; the rest of the world will offer quiet thanks. Probably take about six weeks.

Meantime, peace on earth, good will toward men. And bring the boys home.

5 Comments to “Obama chooses his Vietnam”

  1. Phelps Says:


    A few thousand Afghans will get blowed up real good by our Predator drones and newer, follow-up flying robots, in a military enterprise that could only have been dreamed up by someone who’s spent too much time playing Dungeons and Dragons in his dormitory basement.

    Any goober who has played any significant amount of D&D is well aware that he can lose a fight, and knows the horror of a lvl 14 character being overrun by 100s of level 1 peasants. This is an enterprise that could only be dreamed up by someone who’s sole martial knowledge comes from watching Platoon and M*A*S*H*.. 18s months? I figure that is because he figures that M*A*S*H* really went downhill in the middle of season two.

  2. Steve Says:

    What would you suggest Obama do with the mess that George W. left him in Afghanistan? It’s hard to tell because on the one hand you remind us that hundreds of “young American men will be be sent home in coffins or with their legs blown off” but you later on deride Obama for his lack of understanding of military doctrine, noting that “standard U.S. Army doctrine calls for a force at least five times that size”.

    Rather than ad hominem rhetoric against Obama and heart-string playing with the “American boys” lines, I’d be much more impressed if you provided a viable solution to the Afghanistan mess. You did, after all, run as the vice-presidential candidate for the Libertarian party a few years back, so I assume you have a lot of good ideas on these matters.

    Goodwill to all men, as long as they’re not Somalian “pirates”, right?

  3. Ray Brooks Says:

    Steve, our best bet is to declare victory and bring them all home. It worked in Viet Nam, Korea, Panama, Kosovo, ad nausem. If we are attacked, we must defend ourselves. That defense must follow the Constitution. Since the last declared war was WWII, isn’t it time to stop being the aggressor and come home. In the process, maybe we should impeach all of the congress critters that swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and have failed to even read it.

  4. M. Taylor Says:

    We should declare war on Islamo-Fascism wherever it roosts working with regional governments when possible, offer support to democratic movements everywhere, but get out of the game of nation building. Kill the terrorists whenever and wherever we can, plain and simple.

  5. Dumb Farmer Says:

    While I agree with many things you have to say, Vin, this is one I do not. I don’t think you understand the brainwashed mindset of the radical Islamists. They want to enslave the entire world to their 14th century ways. If they ever succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, (ie: taking over Pakistan, for example) it will be a bigger disaster than WW II. IF these evil b***ards were content to run their own countries and leave the rest of the world alone, I would agree with you 100%, but they are not. However you are correct in one instance, 50,000 troops is like sticking your finger in the dike hole. Just see the mess Rumsfeld created in Iraq.
    What we really need to do is get this totally inane idea that you can fight a war and nobody gets hurt idea out of our heads, and get the job done. Said job is kill them before they can kill millions of us.


RSS 2.0" title="Subscribe to this posts comments via RSS 2.0">RSS subscribe

Warning: Unknown: open(/home/content/46/13966646/tmp/sess_54dqdu6fd12pe9o0fbj4gphrp4, O_RDWR) failed: No such file or directory (2) in Unknown on line 0

Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct () in Unknown on line 0