Is Taliban or American Ally the Monster? (NY Times believes it's us)

[JBG]

The five-column headline, with a picture, reads: America’s Monster - How the U.S. Backed Kidnapping, Torture and Murder in Afghanistan (link) (excerpts):

(excerpt four paragraphs of article covering portion of P1, and all of 8-11)
Dozens assembled in the mud square to listen as Abdul Raziq, one of America’s most important partners in the war against the Taliban, stood before the crowd, gesturing at two prisoners he had brought along to make his point.
The prisoners knelt with their hands bound as Raziq spoke to his men. A pair of his officers raised their rifles and opened fire, sending the prisoners into spasms on the reddening earth. In the silence that followed, Raziq addressed the crowd, three witnesses said.
“You will learn to respect me and reject the Taliban,” Raziq said after the killings, which took place in the winter of 2010, according to the witnesses and relatives of both men. “Because I will come back and do this again and again, and no one is going to stop me.”
For years, American military leaders lionized Raziq as a model partner in Afghanistan, their “if only” ally in the battle against the Taliban: If only everyone fought like Raziq, we might actually win this war, American commanders often said.

The article sounds horrifying. The question is, though, is there any other way to win a war in savage parts of the world? The young people are not exactly going to war with Shakespeare on their lips, as the British troops did in the Falkands in 1982 (link), "Asked at a news conference about the Argentine account, a ministry spokesman, Ian McDonald, said, ''I refer you to 'Hamlet,' Act 3, Scene 4, lines 53 and 54.''" Different wars, different approaches.

We tried a dainty approach in Vietnam, with notable lack of success. if WW II was going to end and not just end in another quasi-Armistice like WW I, Dresden and Hiroshima were necessary. War is hell. There is no doubt about that. The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave. For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater. The U.S., at that point, was not pursuing a policy of surrender. That would wait until August 2021. Has that worked out well?

The New York Times demonizes its own country, without discussing the less-than-gentle approach of the Taliban. Now, "demonstrators" are urging Israel to surrender. But, but, the funeral for the Jews will be so beautiful, and Israel will have "world opinion" on its side." Sorry, that doesn't wash.

 

[jwoodie]

Fall back and regroup.

 

[JBG]

Fall back and regroup.

Not following.

 

[The Duke]

Afghanistan is The Taliban's country. Unless they mess with us, we shouldn't mess with them.

If they do mess with us, we should fuck them up.

 

[OKTexas]

The five-column headline, with a picture, reads: America’s Monster - How the U.S. Backed Kidnapping, Torture and Murder in Afghanistan (link) (excerpts):

The article sounds horrifying. The question is, though, is there any other way to win a war in savage parts of the world? The young people are not exactly going to war with Shakespeare on their lips, as the British troops did in the Falkands in 1982 (link), "Asked at a news conference about the Argentine account, a ministry spokesman, Ian McDonald, said, ''I refer you to 'Hamlet,' Act 3, Scene 4, lines 53 and 54.''" Different wars, different approaches.

We tried a dainty approach in Vietnam, with notable lack of success. if WW II was going to end and not just end in another quasi-Armistice like WW I, Dresden and Hiroshima were necessary. War is hell. There is no doubt about that. The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave. For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater. The U.S., at that point, was not pursuing a policy of surrender. That would wait until August 2021. Has that worked out well?

The New York Times demonizes its own country, without discussing the less-than-gentle approach of the Taliban. Now, "demonstrators" are urging Israel to surrender. But, but, the funeral for the Jews will be so beautiful, and Israel will have "world opinion" on its side." Sorry, that doesn't wash.

The NY slimes has a long history of aligning themselves with Americas enemies. But hey, the radicals and commies seem to love the slimes. But I don't think that's enough to keep them in business a lot longer.

.

 

[sparky]

on 9/12 we allowed our 'allies' safe passage out of America in an air traffic lockdown

our history with any of the 'Muslim brotherhood' since is every bit as convoluted, contrived and coerced as it is with the M.E. zionists

That we've redefined 'ally' to fit our foreign affair goals should not escape even the most aloof

~S~

 

[jwoodie]

Not following.

I had to read down to your last sentence to figure out your point. Not many will.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes... LibProgDem -centric media routinely demonizes its own countries rather than risk alienating minority populations.

Case-in-point... the way that American MSM is giving oxygen to Hamas and IslamoNazism and betraying our friend Israel.