We are losing in Afghanistan like we were losing in Iraq before the surge. Which is to say, we’re having some problems…things aren’t 100% perfect, and that’s being blown up into “The sky is falling! We’re losing.”

And I’d love to see your links.

Are we doing poorly in Afghanistan? Depends on where you get your information. From main stream propagandizers on Air Obama we are doing poorly. Interesting that I hear different things from marines on rotation and some correspondents (with actual military background and experience to help them filter what they see) things are much better. Military web sites seem to agree with the correspondents and actual troops so I am inclined to put more belief in these sources rather than the tainted media.

By the way for those interested I have some interesting links and personal contacts.

And even if the surge is a success…which he grants passingly, it doesn’t matter because the war was still a bad idea to begin with. Evan if he is right…so what? In the real world, everybody makes bad choices. It’s undoubtably true that getting pregnant at 16 is a bad choice, but by the time you’re pointing this out to a new mother…it’s now also irrelevant. The issue of if you should becomes moot once you do. And the question becomes not what should i have done…but what do i do now?

Mr. Eland shows his grasp of history by saying “If only we’d have paid the south for the slaves, all that unpleasantness could have been avoided.” That’s bunk. The south saw their authority as being eroded, and decided to leave the union. War could’ve been avoided if the South hadn’t fired on Fort Sumpter. But this act of needless agression fired up Northern tensions and made war pretty much unavoidable. But why let the facts get in the way of history…when Mr. Eland doesn’t even look at facts in the present.

It is always the case that political developments have many causes and it is likely the cause–in part–of the current decrease in violance has something to do with private negotations between factions in Iraq. Does Elland, however, really believe that greasing palms could have brought about the current decline in violence–without the surge? The surge and the greasing of palms go hand in hand and while Elland may sniff at unsundary aspects of Iraqi (and American!) politics, the creation of stability in Iraq is hardly a process that can be brought about wholly under US control. What is clear is that without the surge, other factors could hardly could have brought about the current decline in violence on their own.

Elland offers a strange argument against the surge being effective, asserting that 1) because the violence in IRaq isn’t returning as US troops are withdrawn, that 2) one may infer they weren’t responsible for the decline in violence in the first place. This argument rests on the assumption that force by definition cannot be effective. It is a belief of Elland’s, not an argument.

Obama has no plan for Iraq, other than his MOVE.ORG mantra that the war is an utter failure and that the troops should be immediately withdrawn. This was George McGovern’s position on Vietnam in 1972 and the stability brought about by the “surge” in US ground engagement in SOuth Vietnam in late 1968 and 1969 was wasted. Rapid American troop withdrawal from 1970-1972 destabilized South Vietnam and congress’ reckless cutting off S. Vietnam from support by US air power in 1973 was the final blow. The further collapse of Indochina need not be rehearsed here.

Somehow, I think his particular brand of logic would have been against these two actions too. Eland isn’t arguing that the surge wasn’t successful as much as he’s trying to assert that any military action, in virtually any circumstance, is unwarranted, period.

I guess I can understand and appreciate his conclusions. There’s absolutely nothing in Eland’s view of the world worth fighting to protect or preserve.

Let’s see here: aggressive offensives are a bad idea in war, and we should not try to take the fight to the enemy in Afghanistan in a similar manner?

In fact, we should get out Afghanistan and chase terrorists in Pakistan, because that’s where they all are.

I’m no military expert, but wouldn’t even Mr. Eland realize that the terrorists fled Afghanistan to take refuge in Pakistan because we sent troops into Afghanistan? Will not the terrorists return to Afghanistan once we leave Afghanistan and move our troops/effots to Pakistan?

Even the most inept police department sends somebody to cover the back door when they bash in the front. I certainly hope Mr. Eland doesn’t consider himself a military strategist.

The troop surge in Iraq has created a stumbling block for the anti-war gang. It was being sold that we could not win, which is to say we cannot be effective militarily, which of course would be an argument against fighting in the first place. The surge shows military effectiveness.

Let’s not forget we were supposed to go down in defeant in Afghanistan. The Soviets failed after years of fighting, and we would fail against the power of the Taliban and lose more soldiers than we did in the Vietnam War, it was said. We overran the Taliban in a bit over three months.

Betting against the capabilitiy of U.S. forces and losing time and again should mean the most vocal of the anti-war crowd ought to think more before engaging the jaw. No chance.

By the way, dropping the A-bomb on Japan had nothing to do with ending WWII. It was the decision of the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan three days before they surrendered.

See. I can re-write history too.