Comments on: Germans in Afghanistan

By: Sean O'Callaghan

Sean O'Callaghan — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:46:49 +0000

In answer to you last comment though… No reasonable person (conservative or otherwise) could be absolutely certain of anything. But, your use of “We” in – “WE could have definitely pressured them. WE could have put an enormous force in a deserted corner of Afghanistan…” sounds a little hollow. Your beloved UN sanctioned operations in Afghanistan and all we hear from you is how WE should have done it differently. Seems like WE are damned if we do and damned if we don’t! Note: WE is taken to be the US as they’re the only ones who are able to DO anything.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:35:45 +0000

“Conservatives really are masterful predictors of counterfactual history. Throw in a bunch of assertions about welfare, minorities, frivolous lawsuits, and repressive regulations, and you really have the whole steaming pile of cr*p that is popular conservative political idealogy. In my opinion, of course.” What crap. We don’t have to spin counterfactual webs. The UN had its chance for 12 years with Saddam. He remained firmly in power the whole time. France, Germany and Russia gave up in January 2002 when they suggested that the UN should remove sanctions and all relations to be normalized with Iraq. Peaceful international pressure did nothing in Kosovo except let thousands of civilians get slaughtered. Peaceful international pressure hasn’t helped much against Mugabe either, but that might be because the French prefer to invite him to their parties. That is actual history. No counterfactuals need. But feel free to continue ignoring it.

By: Sean O'Callaghan

Sean O'Callaghan — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:12:18 +0000

To my – “Milosivic would still be filling his mass graves if it weren’t for the ‘naive’ Americans.” I get – “Conservatives really are masterful predictors of counterfactual history. Throw in a bunch of assertions about welfare, minorities, frivolous lawsuits, and repressive regulations, and you really have the whole steaming pile of cr*p that is popular conservative political idealogy. In my opinion, of course.” You are entitled to your opinion, but given that you have not addressed the subject and have resorted to insults, I will give it as much consideration as your opinion that your wife is good looking and your children are smart!

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:13:37 +0000

I really should stop, but: if conservatives think anything short of a complete war in Afghanistan “just would not have worked” to solve the al queda problem… then they are either extremely extremely extremely sure of this prediction, or they ascribe very very very little value to the 1000-3000 innocent Afghans killed. Which is it?

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:04:31 +0000

…”if Schroeder had his way the Taliban would have been removed by non-military force, which is to say in reality not at all”… Milosivic would still be filling his mass graves if it weren’t for the ‘naive’ Americans Conservatives really are masterful predictors of counterfactual history. Throw in a bunch of assertions about welfare, minorities, frivolous lawsuits, and repressive regulations, and you really have the whole steaming pile of cr*p that is popular conservative political idealogy. In my opinion, of course. A point though: we lefties, in an effort to be reasonable and moderate (and to lend credibility to our Iraq war opposition) often concede the “necessity” of a war in Afghanistan. But was it so? The Taliban offered to turn over OBL. Whether they would have is not known. We could have definitely pressured them. We could have put an enormous force in a deserted corner of Afghanistan, told them we were coming for him and to destroy the al Queda facilities (if there were any) and at the first hint of resistence, go ahead and prosecute the war. The Taliban and Arab al Queda did not speak the same language (less than .01% of Afghans speak Arabic) were culturally distinct, did not share aims. The Taliban were 70% illiterate, most had never travelled far from their birthplace. I’d bet a tiny minority had ever been on an airplane. These were not the same as college-educated Saudi Arabians and Egyptians who knew how to fly airliners. Al Queda was morphed into the Taliban by our political masters (and then into Iraq). But it’s not clear it had to be so. Conservatives scoff at the idea of a well-armed police action, instead of war. But could the Taliban have been persuaded to allow the US to crush al Queda in exchange for cash and/or their limited survival? They were strangers to each other. This might have a worse outcome for the country (for women?) but it isn’t indisputable that the proper thing, the humane thing, was done. But like Tom Friedman’s newest version of the real rationale for the Iraq war, I think a hyperforceful police action wouldn’t have provided the necessary fireworks – for the demonstration effect on muslims and for the bloodthirsty bastards cheering the home team.

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:17:20 +0000

Séan a mhic, there are doubtless many more US troops in Germany than German troops in Afghanistan. I think you will find, though, that the missions are rather different. (I don’t think the GIs are guarding the mayor of Heidelberg, for example).

By: John Kozak

John Kozak — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:58:29 +0000

>Seems like a lot of detail oriented positioning to claim credit for defending the Mayor of Kabul. >Who’s in charge of the hinterlands in Afghanistan? I know this one too! It’s the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, isn’t it?

By: Sean O'Callaghan

Sean O'Callaghan — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:39:17 +0000

Hanson is no worse than the European politicians who openly equate Bush with Hitler. The Germans may well have the largest number of troops in Afghanistan but I’d bet the number is lower than the number of US troops in Germany (still). As for their ‘sophisticated’ way of dealing with thugs – Milosivic would still be filling his mass graves if it weren’t for the ‘naive’ Americans (again)!

By: Heartless

Heartless — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:03:27 +0000

Why the obsession with France & Germany? What about China, India or even Canada and Mexico? Because the ungrateful bastards have the third and fifth largest military budgets in the world, and are considering merging their defense establishments into the alliance of the Chocolate Makers, therefore becomming the second largest military in the world. (it would only make them a quarter the size of the US, but way to powerful to be taken head on)

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:20:37 +0000

Well, calling what he writes a joke is perhaps a little strong, but he has really only had two ideas of any value. The first was that in Greek warfare people fought to protect their land as a largely symbolic space, rather than as a genuinely productive area; the Greeks only had three major crops, being olives, vines, and wheat, and attacks on the crops could only seriously damage one of the three, being the wheat. Unfortunately, the ancient sources are quite open about the fact that this is exactly what enemies attacked, so his claim is hardly new. What’s more, it’s not as if the Greeks got a mere third of their calories from wheat and two thirds from wine and olive oil! Attacks on crops really threatened Greek states. Secondly, Hanson generated the most compelling picture of Greek battle ever in ‘The Western Way of War’. Unfortunately, in his determination to believe there was a ‘Greek way of war’, which inspired and indeed inspires our way of war, he mistook his map for the territory. It looks like Greek states fought in many different ways at different times in their history, with different martial philosophies and expectations. Contrary to the central belief of Hanson’s book, and everything he’s written since, when the Greeks spoke of battle, they hardly ever meant a clear pitched battle fought by heavily armed farmers who would not cease fighting until the result of the battle was no longer in doubt. There was no ‘Greek way of war’; ancient Greece was a school of war. Hanson put forward the latter thesis in 1989; since then he has merely rehashed these flawed arguments again and again, allowing no new ideas in, and refusing even to consider that his theories might not perfectly reflect the realities of ancient warfare. His views on modern warfare are grounded wholly in his misconceptions of Antiquity.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:34:12 +0000

Kenny has it exactly right, and I retract a portion of my earlier statement: our allies in the aggregate have about 1500 more troops in Afghanistan than we have in Kosovo and Bosnia. I don’t retract, and emphatically restate if I didn’t make it clear before, my belief that the German contribution is utterly inconsequential and could be replaced without much difficulty at all.

By: praktike

praktike — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:00:28 +0000

Come on, guys, where’s the love for Togo and Benin? But seriously, the Bush position of denigrating the capability of the allies on one day but trumpeting their involvement on the next may be expedient in the short run, but it has consequences. If you’re willing to bear those consequences and the risks associated with them, just admit it.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:26:39 +0000

Is Hanson regarded as a joke within his own area? Tell us more. I’ve wondered. I once read his (and that other guy’s) Who Killed Homer? and thought it was astonishingly silly. It keeps talking about ‘thinking like the Greeks’ as if they’d all thought the same thing, or even close to it.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:54:04 +0000

Why the obsession with France & Germany? What about China, India or even Canada and Mexico?

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:24:10 +0000

It seems odd that Hanson is regarded as a serious commentator on current affairs, when he’s regarded as something of a joke within his own specialised area… a man who keeps writing the same book, who his mistaken his own theory for evidence. As for Franco-German opposition on Afghanistan, let’s not forget that they offered full support to America but did so as part of NATO… only when Bush and Co scorned NATO did any reservations begin to be raised.