Archive for Taliban

The Irrationality of Moderation

Posted by: Jason | July 26th, 2008 · 4:19 AM

If politics is indeed the art of compromise, than we wouldn’t admire names such as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan. Comparing the latter two of these American presidents, whose names will forever dominate our historical view of twentieth century politics, we would certainly find discrepancies in philosophy, leadership style, and in the challenges they each faced during their presidencies.

But of course, we would also find many commonalities between these men. As much as Roosevelt’s New Deal was considered radical, as was Reagan’s insistence on boldly calling the Soviet Union an evil empire, or the suspension of habeas corpus under the Lincoln administration controversial, these men shared in their ability to refuse compromise of their core principals.

As children, we’re taught to excel in all areas of life, whether it be sports or academics. At the workplace, we value the well being of our associates, but know that our own accomplishments are paramount to the survival of our families. In our own personal lives, to compromise in our faithfulness to our wives or time spent with our children is shunned upon.

Concerning the smaller things in life, like deciding which restaurant to eat at or which movie to see, compromise is certainly appropriate. But who would argue the virtue in tolerating things like one of our children failing in school, a verbally abusive manager at work, or relating to politics, a law that we consider devoid of justice or morality.

Political moderation is arguably the most harmful of these examples, because as politics defines the government that controls us, the lives of entire nations are affected. In recent American politics, there is no greater example of this than in our current government. And if there is one lesson to be learned from the Bush Administration, it is that moderation produces failure.

More >>>

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

No Excuses for Iran: Responding to Joshua Foust (Part I)

Posted by: Ion | September 29th, 2007 · 2:21 PM

(photo: Department of Defense)

I noticed two days ago that Joshua Foust wasn’t very pleased with my criticism of his apologia for Iranian actions in Afghanistan. Good. The bad sort of apologist would have considered my remarks highly complimentary, those of merely mislaid judgment would have been gravely offended, as he is.

Unfortunately, despite a justified offense, he doesn’t appear to have relinquished his views and thus our work is not yet done. To recap, Joshua has argued that Iran serves no strategic purposes in aiding the Taliban and that evidence to the contrary found in Afghanistan (Iranian military explosives, etc) is manufactured, or misattributed by NATO to Iran to stimulate “war fever.” This is utterly false and foolhardy as I shall demonstrate herein.

But before I begin dealing with this, I should apologize to Joshua for just now getting round to responding. After reading his lengthy defense on Wednesday, it was clear it would require an equally lengthy response by me and as you can see, it did. That of course had “deal with it over the weekend” written all over it. So here we are. It’ll be a long post, but hopefully a fun one. If nothing else, Joshua’s attempted defense of himself is certainly entertaining.

Now, it begins:

Lee at postpolitical is under the impression that I am Iranian, or that I carry water for that regime, or in some way defend them. I don’t really understand why he would think that, but I also don’t like him spreading patent falsehoods about my beliefs and intentions, so let’s set the record straight, shall we?
(The Conjecturer)

As stated, I’m under impression that Joshua excused Iranian actions. Or I should say Iranian inactions, as he would have it. Not only did he submit that the Iranians were not aiding the Taliban despite evidence to the contrary, he argued that they could not aid them. To accomplish this, he volunteered for them in their absence, a little rationale which serves to completely exculpate them from not just blame, but any possible blame. Said he:

I mean, the Iranians have NO reason to try to destabilize a friendly government in Kabul to benefit a terrorist group they almost went to war with.
(A Secondhand Conjecture)

This is enormously worse than merely saying the evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions and we should err on the side of trusting Iranian intentions (a passive defense), or that failing that, the Iranians had plenty of good reasons for having those weapons in Afghanistan (an active defense). As you can see, Joshua goes far beyond either of these two tacks and counterfactually argues that evidence not only doesn’t exist, but cannot exist, as there is “NO reason,” no motive, for it ever existing to begin with.

I should say that I’m not of the mind that this comprehensive of an apology was his intention, as I shall make clear below. But let’s face it, if you wanted to sit down and deliberately devise a rationale which would totally absolve Iran of any current or future culpability in Afghanistan, no matter what evidence has been or will be uncovered, you would soon end up with something approximating Joshua’s argument.

More >>>

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

The Miscalculations of the Myopic

Posted by: Ion | September 22nd, 2007 · 9:31 PM

(photo: USMC)

Since we’re plinking the Iranian apologists today, the latest from Joshua Foust at ASHC:

NATO keeps insisting it’s finding Iranian arms and saying it’s government policy, I keep wondering why they don’t think it’s the drug lords along the open border. I mean, the Iranians have NO reason to try to destabilize a friendly government in Kabul to benefit a terrorist group they almost went to war with. Right? Would they miscalculate that badly—like Americans?
(A Secondhand Conjecture)

Even a blind Persian pacificst might be persuaded to agree that the army of their worst enemy, sitting atop the primary northeastern invasion routes to the Persian plateau, is unwelcome. There are certain obvious incentives for preoccupying and eventually evicting that presence.

As to whether Iranian supply of Taliban insurgents represents a miscalculation, I’m not sure if that’s supposed to be funny, given that he’s alluding quite obviously to Iraq. In that country, Iran has been supplying the Taliban’s southern equivalents for years now and has suffered no meaningful consequences for their effort from anyone (and quite a few successes). Is Afghanistan so suddenly sacrosanct? Of course not. They’re shipping weapons to the place as we speak and Joshua & Co. are already on hand to excuse and dismiss them, as they did previously in Iraq.

Worse, it’s a shell game without a hidden coin. If the quality and quantity of captured materials ever manages to meet Josh’s threshold for blame of Iran (his criteria for blaming US forces is significantly less stringent we should note in passing), does he expect us to believe he’d become an advocate of retaliatory action, when he’s precluded that previously over the Iranian supply of the Iraqi insurgency, for identical purposes?

As for that last part about past Iranian hostility to the Taliban, evidently Joshua wants an inflexible world. The Taliban’s primary ally in that period was the Pakistani state, now the overtly sworn enemy of it. Perhaps not for Joshua, but you’ll notice things do change with strategic circumstances. The catalyst for the Pakistani change of heart, is the same motor animating Iranian sympathy in reverse: The American army on their borders.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Getting Away with Murder, Iranian Style

Posted by: Ion | · 5:26 PM

(photo: Headquarters Marine Corps)

It was once said that regional stability in the Middle East was impossible as long as Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq. For me, given events, this was manifestly true. Faced with the situation we acted and acted decisively. Yet as nettlesome as Iraq under the Baath was, since its fall, Iran has proven to be a far more adept culprit in this area than Saddam ever dreamed of.

Fostering and fomenting serious shooting wars in at least three countries (Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen), flooding the region’s guerrillas with arms and materiel and using its geography to threaten and distort regional security in something that resembles a permanent prelude to war, Iran quite plainly makes our argument against Iraq look petty. Saddam’s prodigious efforts to infiltrate, manipulate and destabilize his neighbors were not in the Iranians league.

Yet for some reason –presumably out of fear of our domestic political situation– we’ve decided to meet their aggression against and subversion of regional security with equanimity, tolerance and at most, vague threats coupled to mild expressions of displeasure. The moment anyone in our military or government voices a thin hint of a will to arrest Iran’s efforts, attach meaningful consequences to their actions and confront the possibility of changing the political situation within that country, these men are immediately silenced, their strong words mitigated, their advice ignored.

More >>>

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Damning the Taliban

Posted by: Ion | June 25th, 2007 · 10:30 PM

(image: HotAir)

HotAir has a little follow-up on the tale of the boy the Taliban unsuccessfully tried to transform into a living anti-personnel grenade. The horror of the experience brought the community out in opposition to the loathsome Islamist organization.

As [the head of the village] told Juma’s story, 20 Afghan elders repeatedly clicked their tongues in sadness and disapproval. When the boy and his brother were brought in, several of the turban-wearing men welled up, wiping their eyes with handkerchiefs…

Haji Niaz Mohammad, one of the elders at the gathering, said he hoped “God makes the Afghan government strong” so it can defeat the Taliban.

“They are the enemy of Muslims and the enemy of the children,” he said, shaking his fists in anger.
(HotAir via AP)

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Iran and Weakness

Posted by: Jason | June 6th, 2007 · 10:46 PM

What am I missing with regard to the Iran situation? They are the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world, who are developing nuclear capabilities (supposedly one of the reasons for war with Iraq), making blatantly obvious statements about the destruction of one of our allies in Israel, providing assistance, weapons, and training to anti-American forces in Iraq, and aiding the Taliban as Afghanistan is heating up again.

This is a travesty! Where is the leadership in the Bush Administration? Before every threatening nation from Russia to North Korea smell blood in the water, could we please act on this with retaliation?

From ABC:

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran’s proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

“It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that’s doing it,” said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Gunships Over Afghanistan

Posted by: Ion | April 28th, 2007 · 10:35 PM

(photo: DoD)

Thrilling Afghanistan Front war stories from the Daily Telegraph today:

Caught in the middle of the Helmand river, the fleeing Taliban were paddling their boat back to shore for dear life.

Smoke from the ambush they had just sprung on American special forces still hung in the air, but their attention was fixed on the two helicopter gunships that had appeared above them as their leader, the tallest man in the group, struggled to pull what appeared to be a burqa over his head.

An Apache gunship, US aircrews show Taliban no mercy
Strike force: An Apache gunship on patrol in Afghanistan

As the boat reached the shore, Captain Larry Staley tilted the nose of the lead Apache gunship downwards into a dive. One of the men turned to face the helicopter and sank to his knees. Capt Staley’s gunner pressed the trigger and the man disappeared in a cloud of smoke and dust.

By the time the gunships had finished, 21 minutes later, military officials say 14 Taliban were confirmed dead, including one of their key commanders in Helmand.
(Telegraph)

Full Story>>>

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Taliban Morphing Into Al Qaeda

Posted by: Ion | March 8th, 2007 · 6:18 PM

M Rama Rao reports for the Asian Tribune that the Taliban has become tactically so analogous to Al Qaeda, that they are functionally indistinguishable entities. Most notable is the Taliban’s increasing use of internet video to spread its grim advertising. When the Taliban was in power, electronic devices were uniformly prohibited:

Firstly, the Taliban, which is based in the tribal belt of Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), is executing ‘collaborators’. Warning notes are pinned to the victims saying “American spies will face the same fate”.

Secondly, the Taliban have embarked on a media blitz to communicate with friends and enemies alike. They have been recording videos of the executions and posting them on the Internet.

If these two developments are considered together along with other trends in Taliban working, a very interesting story begins to