home

Obama Scraps Missile Defense System Based In Eastern Europe

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:42:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Last August I wrote about the insane Bush Administration decision to announce a missile defense shield in Poland WHILE the Caucasus crisis was at its height. If we can say nothing else about the Obama Administration, we can applaud its sanity on foreign affairs (knowing that most of you disagree with the President, and me, on his Afghanistan policy.) The Obama Administration is scrapping the missile defense system based in Poland:

The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday that it will scrap former President George W. Bush’s planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting shorter-range Iranian missiles, according to people familiar with the plans. President Obama decided not to deploy a sophisticated radar system in the Czech Republic or 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, as Mr. Bush had planned. Instead, the new system his administration is developing would deploy smaller SM-3 missiles at first aboard ships and later probably either in southern Europe or Turkey, according to those familiar with the plans.

Now, many of you will see the new plan as an unnecessary provocation of Iran. And perhaps it is. But surely no one can equate Russia and Iran at this point in history, can they? Well, I can't at least.

Speaking for me only

< Late Night Open Thread | FBI Executes Search Warrants on Terror Subject in Denver >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Scraps Missile Defense System Based In Eastern Europe | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm not the sharpest knife... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:50:08 AM EST
    but why do we need missile defense for missiles that can't reach our country?  Why are we still playing bodyguard for Israel and Europe free of charge post cold war?  

    Or if its about protecting our occupying forces in the region, bringing them home accomplishes that, and much more cost efficient.

    If slightly less stupid is worth of praise, by all means, but we can do better than this.

    Because it is expected that (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    inter-continental missiles will be developed by Iran.

    Parent
    Iran is where Iraq sent all their (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    WMDs when the satellites were all broken that day :)

    Parent
    So you are also against (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:25:07 AM EST
    defense.

    Okay, no surprise.

    Parent

    I don't tend to be for (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:49:11 AM EST
    defending myself against ghosts.  That's sort of schizo.  And Iran isn't the only country that could attain better missile capabilities OR NOT someday....in my freaky little lizard brain :)

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    Iran is not the only country that can obtain intercontinental missiles.

    But Poland is the exact location to install a defense shield for attacks from Iran.

    Look at a globe.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:10:14 AM EST
    You need those things to be free from foreign invasion.

    Parent
    Iran is working on nukes and (2.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    missiles. If we can shoot them down we don't need
    to go there. Obama's actions have removed protection from inter-continental missiles.

    We need it to protect ourselves from blackmail.

    Parent

    Why would we... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    need to go there...did I sleep through an attack by the Iranians or something?

    I don't get how we're at risk of being blackmailed...the Iranians threaten to shoot missiles at us, we say do it and we turn your country into swiss cheese....where is the blackmail?

    Parent

    whatever nuclear capacity (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:33:54 AM EST
    Iran has does not threaten us with missiles but trucks and suitcases.  the shield was always, IMO, a crazy republican idea conceived more for domestic politics than security.
     

    Parent
    I think you mean (none / 0) (#95)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    international politics.  It was a move specifically addressed to Putin.

    Parent
    You are dealing with a regime (2.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    who believe that death will turn them loose on 72 virgins.

    Mutually assured destruction - MAD - worked with the Soviets because they were rational and did not look forward to dying.

    It doesn't work against religious fanatics.

    Plus, why do what we can to avoid a conflict?


    Parent

    That is just stupid (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    The leaders of Iran are 100% about self preservation.  No different then the leaders here (or anywhere).  And like both sets of leaders they get crazy stupid people to propogate lies,  desceptions and actions that are against the person's interests.

    Parent
    You don't see the big picture. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:15:46 PM EST
    It was an attempt by W. to rattle Putin.  Successful in its attempt; detrimental to U.S. foreign policy.

    Parent
    that's "why NOT" (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:40:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Russian wooses? (none / 0) (#78)
    by ricosuave on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    Both Hitler and Napoleon found out that the Russians were not pushovers.  Perhaps you don't remember the decades before the 90's, but we were all taught that the Russkies were a ruthless enemy--Commies with no regard for decency or human life.  Before the 90's, they were the generic bad guys in all of the spy novels (e.g. The Fourth Protocol by Fredrick Forsyth).  If that is too high-brow, then go rent Red Dawn and Rocky IV, or just look up Ricin on Wikipedia.  They were actually considered irrational and dangerous by the exact same people who fear "religious fanatics" because they were "a-religious fanatics."

    Iran is just the current ruthless and dangerous enemy.  Don't pretend the concept is new.

    Parent

    Rocky IV... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    had a good ending though, peace and understanding through sport.  I credit Sly more than Reagan for the fall of communism.

    "If I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!"

    "Rock-y, Rock-y, Rock-y..."

    Parent

    then you will love this (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    Stallone is preparing his new war-movie "The Expendables".
    Story: A team of mercenaries head to South America on a mission to overthrow
    a dictator.
    Writer: Stallone
    Director: Stallone

    Cast:

    Sylvester Stallone
    Jason Statham
    Jet Li
    Dolph Lundgreen
    Randy Couture
    Mickey Rourke
    Steve Austin
    Terry Crews
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Eric Roberts
    Charisma Carpenter


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    No one I ever knew considered the Soviets irrational and if you are being taught that then your teacher is wrong.

    MAD's success was based on them being rational and not launching an attack that would also result in their destruction.

    That is not the case with radicals that are willing to die in their cause.

    Parent

    Equating Russia and Iran (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:52:45 AM EST
    Well, no one can honestly equate Russia and Iran. But I don't consider the right-wing in this country an honest movement. My only doubt is whether they actually believe their own propaganda.

    surely no one can equate Russia and Iran (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    May I introduce you to Frank Gaffney, Dick Cheney, Charles Krauthamer and our very own Jimakappj?

    Or was there a limitation to sane foreign policy observers and an automatic exclusion of Jimakappj I missed in your statement?

    Don't put words in my mouth (2.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:31:14 AM EST
    although you are good at that.

    My concern is not for now, but for four years from now, etc. There is no reason to assume that Iran cannot develop their own inter-continental missiles or even purchase same from Russia.


    Parent

    Is it wrong to hunt in baited fields.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:28:44 AM EST


    Parent
    Is that from Ulysses? (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 01:19:45 PM EST


    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    Its a nod to my Southern heritage and my older cousins who took me hunting with them wherein I learned I couldn't shoot a deer. Not that they hunted in baited fields..

    Parent
    Totally off topic (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    I have never read Ulysses.  Should I?  Will I be a lesser person never having read it?  Am I missing tons of profound?  I went to the bookstore after saying goodbye to spouse because the bookstore always cheers me for some reason.  Was looking at the classic volumes, usually buy several for my daughter at Christmas for her immediate consumption and home library some day. And I was having a great time until the kids called looking for me.  But that was when I realized that I had never read Ulysses.

    Parent
    How poignant. My brief one-yr. (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    stint in Norfolk cines flooding back.  Standing on the pier waving goodbye.  Standing on the pier waving hello.  Hoping first child would wait to be born after ship returned.

    Now back to Ulysses.  I listend to the CDs of James Joyce's book and really enjoyed the language.  Then I read some cliff notes to figure out the story.  Definitely worth listening to.  

    Parent

    Then I'll commit :) (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:19:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Joyce is a favorite author (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sher on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:47:52 PM EST
    but I would start with his more accessible work like Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man or Dubliners (short stories) before tackling Ulysses

    Parent
    So its totally offtopic... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    Probably. No. Maybe.

    Its a tough read. I first read it when I was 18 and I found it difficult reading. Joyce is  not my favorite author though I did enjoy Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

    On the whole I prefer Shakespeare, Faulkner, Hemmingway and Fitzgerald. I never got into Thomas Wolfe (and haven't tried lately).

    I also recommend the late Larry Brown.
     

    Parent

    I think Ulysses (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:07:10 PM EST
    is more like William Burrows.  I never made it all the way though but I keep trying.  its wonderful to read.  I mentioned in some other thread today how I used to work on riverboats.  they were chock full of characters.  people who simply couldnt make it in the regular world for many different reasons.  one of my favorites was this giant of a guy, like the size of Lou Ferrigno, with sholder length blond hair that used to walk around the boat reading Joyce out loud.

    thats what made me want to read it.

     

    Parent

    Which work (2.33 / 3) (#127)
    by sher on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    of Larry Brown's do you recommend?

    Parent
    I 've only read the first 5 (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:20:10 PM EST
    Facing the Music, Dirty Work, Big Bad Love, Joe, Fathers and Sons - liked all of them.

    Facing the Music and Big Bad Love are short stories and strike me as Raymand Carver influenced.

    Joe is very Faulkneresq. Dirty Work was the first one I read and it really stuck a chord with me.

    Parent

    Somebody really doesn't like Larry I guess (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:34:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Good. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:21:18 AM EST
    Although it is seem as somewhat of a betrayal by the Polish government, who were looking forward to the influx of US dollars and material.  

    In the long run, however, this will have the effect of improving the historically strained relation between Poland and Russia.  

    Hopefully, the Administration will do the right thing and relax the overly restrictive Visa requirements for Polish nationals wanting to come to the US.  

    Huih? (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    In the long run, however, this will have the effect of improving the historically strained relation between Poland and Russia.

    This is like throwing the rabbit in the pen with the python....

    Parent

    Scrapping the axis of evil (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    belief system and I'm good with that.  I remember Bush's first axis of evil speech.  It was precisely that moment when I knew we were all effed until we got rid of that quack and his entourage of global bullies.  Taking nations that you/we have a beef with and lumping them into the arch villain is for comic books.  I survived Ronald Reagan barely.  I'm not going back.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    I'm glad to see this.

    I certainly hope (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:35:02 AM EST
    that we have gotten some concession from Russia in exchange.

    I don't really buy the stated rationale, that we don't need to worry about Iran's long-range capability because they're not as far along in developing one as we expected.  (We're idiots if we blindly trust our intelligence on a matter like that.)  But I do accept that Poland isn't the most logical place to locate defenses against a hypothetical Iranian missile, unless we expect them to nuke Greenland.

    I don't think there ever was any logic... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    ...in placing them in Poland--other than an attempt for the Bush regime to reward the Poles for their support in Iraq while at the same time putting a burr under the Russian saddle.  

    Didn't Bush admins. announce the shields (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:10:34 AM EST
    during the Russia/Georgia/S. Ossetia dust up?  I thought showing Russia how powerful we are was the entire purpose of the U.S., although not the stated purpose.  

    Parent
    May have very well been part... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    ...of the reason, but not sole reason, IMO.  This was also the same time that news of the secret CIA rendition camps in Poland was leaking out and the very conservative, pro-Bush govenment was facing substantial political pressure at home.  

    Parent
    Wag the Dog. (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:19:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Way before that (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:02:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Answer: yes. Poland signed the (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    missile shield deal in Aug. 2008 per NYT.  This is when Russia/Georgia/S. Ossetia kerfluffle occurred.

    Parent
    It had been underway (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    for three years or so.

    Parent
    Look at a globe (2.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:50:03 AM EST


    Parent
    O Greenland, we stand on guard for thee! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:52:53 AM EST


    Parent
    You might want to check (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    the countries below Greenland..

    Parent
    You may also (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:11:53 PM EST
    research the North Atlantic Barrier, the DEW line and White Alice as well as The Great Circle route...

    Parent
    You might want to research (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    the shape of the earth, since a straight line from Iran to the U.S. does not go anywhere near Poland.

    Parent
    Perhaps Iran (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    when they finally get around to designing their long-range missile system, will be nice enough to design it to shoot missiles on the trajectory where we have built our defense systems.

    Parent
    If Iran launches at the US (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    they will shoot over the globe and Poland is the best spot we have... Russia would be better but somehow I think that is out of the question.

    Parent
    I have not been briefed (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    on the trajectory Iran intends to use for the long-range missiles it hasn't developed yet, nor do I think you have.

    Defense Secretary Gates says that the new plan will provide us with better security against Iran than the old one - but you know better, of course!

    Parent

    Uh, the trajectory (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:06:46 PM EST
    is dictated by the location of Iran and the US, just as the location of the USSR  and the US dictated trajectories. See North Atlantic Barrier, Dew Line, White Alice, missile sites in ND, WY, MT...

    Again, look at a globe, not a map and don't think of airlines flying passengers.

    And then this from the linked to article.

    The Bush missile defense architecture was better designed to counter potential intercontinental ballistic missiles by Iran. But officials said American intelligence agencies have concluded that Tehran's development of such long-range missileshas slowed, while its progress toward short- and medium-range missiles has accelerated.

    The facts are that short and medium range missiles are not a threat to the US. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are. Again look at the location of Poland and see the trajectory.

    Obama has damaged the defense of the country. I am just surprised it took him this long.

    Parent

    I don't know about flying Google Earth (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    but look at globe. Poland is the best we have. Russia would probably be better.

    Parent
    If my choice is the scientist that say (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    Poland and whatever you say...

    Scientist win.

    One More Time.

    Look at a globe. Pick the shortest route.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    The Obama Administration's (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    decision to abandon the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is in our national security interest, facilitating and resetting, as they term it, our strategic relationship with Russia, a key and critically important player in world affairs. Bush may have been able to look into Putin's soul, but he was incapable of seeing his brain, and used his typical, bullying and nickname- diminishing approach to foreign affairs.  I am hopeful that with the continued and intelligent guidance of Secretary Clinton, President Obama will move forward on all diplomatic fronts to assure economic and military coordination with Russia, including membership in NATO.

    Let me translate (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:56:20 PM EST
    All you folks can do what you want and we won't bother you.

    Parent
    A strong and reliable (none / 0) (#151)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:52:14 PM EST
    alliance with Russia is in our national interest and will contribute immensely to economic and political  stability in the world.  While it is, apparently, difficult for some to let go of their nostalgia for the cold war, it really is not productive.  

    Parent
    And why do you think Russia (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:25:53 PM EST
    wants that??

    Two to tango and all that...

    Parent

    You are right, two to tango (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:52:21 AM EST
    and there are mutual interests to do so.  The dancing shoes have been on for a while awaiting the music.

    Parent
    The problem is (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    that there is a country called Iran that we seem to disagree about. Not to forget Israel. And then  there are all those countries that use to be part of the USSR.

    But don't let things like facts stop your dreams.

    Parent

    You do not seem to (none / 0) (#163)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:09:48 AM EST
    see a solid Us/Russian alliance as having any propitious impact on the politics of Iran and other parts of the mid-east.  Your dreams, seem to be my nightmares, but go ahead and get double your money, double your pleasure--an Iran menace and a Russian menace so to cower in fear and increase our military budgets to the national breaking point.

    Parent
    I don't see us having a workable (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    trustworthy relationship with Russia.

    I have no dreams, just my view of the situation and my remembrance of Chamberlain and "peace in our time."

    Parent

    I think you are adhering to the (none / 0) (#165)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    wrong history lesson.

    Parent
    I lived most of that history (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 12:58:29 PM EST


    Parent
    You think? (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:35:51 PM EST
    Well, that's encouraging.

    Now be sure and practice hard.

    Parent

    Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 01:47:11 PM EST
    Please take some time off. You are suspended. I have repeatedly asked you to lay off the personal attacks and you don't. I don't have time or the interest in monitoring your comments. I'll reinstate you on Monday if you'd like and agree to stop the bashing.

    Parent
    From the link (2.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting shorter-range Iranian missiles,

    Laying aside the fact that we have just taught Russia that we can be pushed around......

    The purpose of the missile system was to intercept missiles from Iran aimed at the US. (Look at a globe.)

    Obama has just laid us open to nuclear blackmail and attack from Iran.

    Why am I not surprised?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:09:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Hehe indeed (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    Do you have a logical argument against my comment?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:36:04 AM EST
    There is no logic involved with your comment so it is impossible to apply logic to it.

    I stand by my comment - Heh.

    Parent

    Your evasion is understood. (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:42:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:54:00 AM EST


    Parent
    I did not know you were BTD (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:50:26 AM EST


    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:07:16 AM EST
    As probably the only person here who has worked on this system, I can say it doesn't work, and would never be tested realistically unless the bad guys launched nukes.

    Bullheaded defense of vaporware is hardly a substitute for strength.

    Parent

    A couple of techncal points (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    There have been a number of successful intercepts, some, like the Navy's which have been impressive. Allegations of rigged tests did surface in the late '80s and early '90s, and they were allegations of blatant cheating. Now, the cheating is a lot more sophisticated. Early allegations were that the USAF placed explosives in the target vehicle to fake the explosion of an intercept, and that a beacon was placed in a target RV. Now that systems can more reliably actually hit targets, a "bullet with a bullet," the problem has shifted to the real scenario in which we don't know what the enemy RV looks like to the missile seeker, and even if we had a solution to countermeasures (we don't apparently) like chaff and cheap fake RVs, we can't predict what they would like like either. If the enemy launches a long range nuke and a cloud of various fakes and chaff, we'd have to launch say three interceptors for each potential target to be certain that a nuke did not get through. You have to be 100% effective, since you can never, ever, allow successful nuclear attack to occur. So we'd have to launch dozens of interceptors for each rouge missile, 100% certainty that our system worked. The budget becomes impossible, in the face of futility from knowing that weapons systems never work a high percentage of the time until they have been exhaustively tested and improved. But we will never have the chance to simulate nuclear exchanges unless the bad guys are kind enough to give us stockpiles of accurate replicas of their hardware.

    As we knew before the incompetents in the GOP regained control of the DoD in 2000, nuclear missiles are not the real threat, conventional terrorism and loose nukes with no return address are. Those of us who paid attention to the topic know all of this well before the Bush administration dropped the ball 8 years ago this month.

    The phrase "tuned to the exact frequency," is incorrect. The issue is, exoatmospheric vehicles radiate light in the form of heat. Just how much, and what "color" it is is unknown until you see it. In the US's case, we are able to program test interceptors to look for exactly the right target, we knew what to look for, with nice reliable "I'm here" signatures. One report mentioned that junk from North Korea might actually defeat our system because it wobbled rather than stayed steady as our higher technology test dummies do. Our missile defense systems are highly complex multilayer hardware and software networks, and if a target has the wrong twinkle, we'll miss it.

    Parent

    The really disturbing thing is... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:58:09 PM EST
    you don't need a high tech solution. Decoys are far, far less complicated than missiles and nuclear bombs are.

    And a rogue power doesn't even need or necessarily want a missile. The use of a single nuclear missile against NATO would mean immediate retaliation and the total destruction of the country that launched.

    Parent

    WHAT Afghanistan policy? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:02:20 AM EST
    The Army counterinsurgency manual (which Petreus co-wrote) says the minimum ratio of soldiers per citizens necessary for "success" is 20 per 1000, that would mean we need at least 650,000+ soldiers there.  Ain't gonna happen, and for good reason.  A whole lotta parents better be encouraging their teens to sign up and fight as soon as they're old enough.  Are they?  Of course not, as sanity, for most, dictates.  

    As for the missle shield, good, I suppose, but we still seem far too addicted to repeating our failures, both of strategy and hubris, to have it make much of a difference.  

    We are simply destroying ourselves.  Slowly, surely, with an almost pathological zeal.

    That was the manual for Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:38:04 AM EST
    deemed the solutions for Iraq, not Afghanistan.  Not the same conflict, not the same primary problems AT THIS TIME.

    Parent
    MT, did you see yesterday's AP article (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:43:26 AM EST
    on the non-confidential portions of U.S. military goals in Afghanistan?  I linked to it last night.  

    Parent
    Link: (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    AP

    Parent
    uh-huh (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:15:56 AM EST
    sorry, but i actually think we would need close to a million troops on the ground in afghanistan to "stabilize" the place and truly start rebuilding it.  there is an endless supply of angry folks in the area who can, at any time, start to fight us there whenever they please.  we will never have those numbers.  ever.  just like if the situation were reversed and they had invaded us, they could never prevail because of numbers.  the numbers don't lie, it's only the people who manipulate them.  sorry, not feeling to optimistic today.  

    btw, hope i didn't offend you with the migraine advice last week.  most people reflexively think psychosomatic (mindbody) medicine means that they are imagining whatever they are suffering from.  it is precisely the opposite.  but overcoming people prejudices about the brain is very hard.  hope you're doing well.

    peace.

    Parent

    I'll write about Afghanistan tomorrow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:03:04 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:34:24 AM EST
    on Afghanistan

    I am????? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:44:56 AM EST
    I don't know what I am.  If this President decides we are doing this I'm fine with that.  If he decides to take advantage of other possible solutions to disable attacks on America instead I'm fine with that too.  This administration is not Cowboys R Us, and they are in the midst of making some huge decisions about where we are going with this.  If we do fight this, it is going to be fought completely differently than Iraq ever was and it will likely involve A LOT of preventative detention.

    Parent
    Preventive detention in Afghanistan? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    That would be holding POWs.

    Parent
    That would be holding people (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    we "suspected" of possibly being involved in the generation of war.

    Parent
    In a theater of war (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    that makes them POWs, with Geneva Convention rights to challenge their status designation.

    Parent
    You know that (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:13:21 AM EST
    And I can even come to buy that because people living and dying there aren't just an argued theory for me :)  And they don't have neighborhoods, they have war zones.  So many progressives though are already aiming for ending our Afghanistan military objectives....they will argue into the wee hours about it.  At least what they know about it or what they are willing to know about that is :)

    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    My position in no way represents the progressive view on this issue.

    I hope no one thinks I am acting as if I do.  

    Parent

    I guess that makes me an a$$hole (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    Because I come from the point of view that your view is the sane progressive view.  The other progressives are WRONG.  If they want to argue this is too expensive and we are too broke and broken to do this that's fine.  But any other write ups attempting to paint America as the evil aggressor seem very dishonest on many levels to me.  I am fine if the administration decides to not fight this fight too.  I am not fine with half measures though when lives are on the line, both American and Afghan.  Do it or don't do it, and dare I write "Shame on Digby for seeking to use the deaths of human beings solely for Progressive political gain" as it seems she would plan to do after losing healthcare reform :)

    Parent
    Mine is always the Centrist view (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    on everything. I represent the exact Center on every issue.

    Parent
    What is Progressive (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    about the view that Progressives seem to desire to begin espousing now?  I guess I don't understand what defines Progressives when it comes to National Security issues because I remember when they were all screaming and hollering that they weren't pacifists when Democrats were destroyed in the 2002 midterms.

    Parent
    Still mulling the meaning of this comment. (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 01:20:20 PM EST


    Parent
    it comes down to the fact (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:56:47 AM EST
    that I think the Taliban are evil dirt bag scum of the earth and the focus of evil in the modern world.
    they need to be, if nothing else, contained.

    that word is used a lot lately but I believe they are truly evil and if there ever was or will be a just use of US military power pushing them back would be it.


    Parent

    Taliban.. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:08:56 AM EST
    the focus of evil in the entire world?  

    I'm certainly no fan of how the Taliban rolls...but I think you give a bunch of two-bit tyrants living in a sh*thole far far too much credit.

    Not for nothing...they would say we are, and probably could provide more evidence than we could, if violence perpetrated worldwide is the standard. But such talk is foolish.

    Parent

    I love you man (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:24:10 AM EST
    But when I listen to the peaceful minded about the Taliban, the desriptions swing from two-bit tyrants to a mighty force spawned from loins of an indigenous population that has defeated every military force on the planet.

    Parent
    the majority of the Taliban... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:23:11 AM EST
    ...are just poor f*cks who want us gone.  My little brother has come to this conclusion after having served there many times, and the last ime strictly working alone with different villages.  He also realized that the centuries old beefs these villagers and tribes have are not going away anytime soon.  That many Taliban are evil scum is true, that most of them are simply illiterate villagers with what they see as a mission to get rid of foreign occupiers is also true.  they have a long history of EVERYONE invading them, and they have repelled them all.  chances are they will again.  unless you are prepared to send a million kids over there, and keep them there for decades, reality has to set in.  we cannot stay forever, but it is looking like that is out plan.  good luck with it.

    Parent
    The problem is the majority of (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    the Taliban aren't running the show, just as the Soviets in Moscow I was around in '68 wasn't running the show. Great people but in the end they just followed orders as the Taliban members do.

    Parent
    Well, not sure if those (none / 0) (#34)
    by dk on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    two descriptions are necessarily mutually exclusive.  Two-bit tyrants can be great at wreaking havoc in and controlling their own turf.  The question is whether they are a threat (or, rather, how much of threat are they) to those who aren't on their turf.

    Unless the issue, of course, is going into Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons (such as was the case in Bosnia).  That's a different issue, though.

    Parent

    So taking out an inhumane regime (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    because they spawn attacks on the United States isn't a "Noble Cause"?  And then getting two birds with one stone because our actions would also work to end wholesale human slaughter in the region....that isn't how we "should" do this?

    Parent
    Well, if by "us" you mean (none / 0) (#52)
    by dk on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:49:12 AM EST
    the U.S., the last attack they spawned on us was 8 years ago.  Is keeping troops there for the last 8 years and ratcheting up troop levels now the only, or even best, way to prevent any other attacks?  I have to say I'm dubious of that.  I'm open evidence to the contrary, but this administration certainly has not provided anything sufficient on that front.

    As for the killing two birds with one stone argument, it's not that I disagree in theory on killing two birds with one stone.  I just get concerned when the arguments get conflated.  I really think they are two separate issues that have to be analyzed separately.  Do we think that the sacrifice of American soldiers' lives and the great expense of having a large troop presence in Afghanistan are necessary to achieve the goal of protecting "us?"  And, issue number two, do we want to sacrifice American soldiers' lives and spend the money to save the people of Afghanistan from their own tyrants?

    Again, I'm not saying I can say with all that much confidence yet how I would answer either of those questions.  But, I also don't think this administration is doing enough to prove its position on either to the American people and, if they continue not to do so, or do not convince the American people, they should focus their efforts on getting the troops out of harms way and come up with alternatives.

    Parent

    First of all (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    The mission in Afghanistan was so severely undermanned and under resourced by the Bush administration...it is nothing short of a National SHAME on us.  We have sent troops in to remedy that.  Add to that that when we began to actually invest in the situation and our administration became a sane one again, NATO is investing with us there because they really deal with the constant threat that the Taliban seeks to empower and enrich.  I hate to say it again, but did anyone notice that even France sent some attack helicopters?  When the French show up to fight anybody anywhere these days.....come on man!  It's a small gift right now, sort of a toe in the water....but we aren't there alone and NATO couldn't stand even trying to work with the crazy effing Bushies.

    Parent
    Give the French a little credit (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ricosuave on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    I know it is fun and fashionable to pick on the French, but let's at least be honest about it.  They have not shirked their responsibilities to send in troops in the last several decades, including some notable cases where our country DID refrain from sending in troops.  Of course they can also be a good object lesson for us, given some of their bad actions.  But let's not make things up like the idea that they don't show up anywhere.

    And lets also not forget that they are the only major European power that we have not been to war with (even though we should have been when we picked the wrong side in 1812).

    Forgive me for the interjection, but after visiting Normandy a few years ago and seeing the fantastic degree of respect they pay our fallen soldiers I think they need a little shout out.  While I was there in 2003, US politicians were renaming fries and proposing to dig up the cemetery near Omaha beach.  At the same time, the locals were putting flowers on the graves of US soldiers in France to honor US soldiers falling in Iraq.  So cut them some slack.

    P.S. I will not stick up for cafe waiters in Paris, so say whatever you like about them.

    Parent

    I think it is a credit to France (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    that they would not sign onto Bush led disasters.  And I think the fact that since we have some sane leadership now they have decided to sign on even if it is just a toe in the water at this point is very indicative of the terrorism problem for all of us that the Taliban is.  I don't think that being conservative with the use of military led solutions is necessarily a bad thing.  And then when the French people decided they drink too much and started selling us their wine cheap...I love the French. They also prepare all of my favorite foods.

    Parent
    I've never had a problem... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    ...with the French--waiters or not.  Like most places on Earth, if one at least makes an attempt to speak the native language--even if it is just a few phrases--and have some understanding of the culture, you are not generally treated with distain.  

    That is usually saved for those ugly Americans who demand that everyone in the World speak their language and cater to their culture and customs.

    Parent

    Two-bit.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    in the sense they only have the capability to tyrannize those in their immediate vicinity...they can fight like the dickens, no argument there.  They've known war their whole lives and have homefield advantage.

    Parent
    Actually the issue is our standing down (2.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    from an inter-continental missile defense of Iranian missiles.

    Afghanistan's problem for us is that the Taliban has and will work with al-Qaeda and other terrorists to launch terrorist attacks against the US and others.

    That is why we are thee and that is why we were in Iraq. No other reason.

    Parent

    did I miss the part (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:50:03 AM EST
    where Iran actually HAD an inter-continental missile?
    or were expected to have one in the next decade or so?


    Parent
    No (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    and I am not concerned about today.

    But there is no reason to assume that Iran cannot develop inter-continental missiles and/or purchase same from Russia or some other country who would like to see us controlled.

    Depending on the enemy to not develop weapons is not a defensive plan I want any part of.

    Parent

    So the Taliban has had nothing to (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:44:58 AM EST
    do with Al Qaeda terrorist attacks?

    Parent
    Sure they have... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    so has our foreign policy post WWII...what exactly are you saying, occupy the place forever and bring the targets to them?  For what purpose do we sacrifice so much...a false sense of security?

    Parent
    Nothing is forever :) (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    I believe that we need specific goals, and once we reach those or decide that we must change those up and then reach them, we leave.

    Parent
    You watch... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    these occupations are forever...unless some checks start bouncing.

    Parent
    I hope for bouncing checks (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    I know we have a tendecy to be unable to find our way home.  But in some places our presence is often requested too.

    Parent
    Of course it is... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    free protection for existing wealth/power structures on the US taxpayers dime...a hard deal to pass up for dictatorship and democracy alike.


    Parent
    Yer my favorite die hard optimist :) (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:36:25 AM EST


    Parent
    sure they would say we are (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    and sadly Bush gave them a good argument.  that doesnt mean we should let them continue brutalizing people destroying priceless ancient art objects destabilizing the region and terrorizing the world from a safe base of operations.


    Parent
    Lots of governments/groups... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    brutalize their people and destablize/terrorize the world...call me cold but it ain't right to send Americans to fight and die over it.  If you wanna form an Abraham Lincoln brigade and hop a flight to Kabul to fight 'em be my guest, don't advocate for sending somebody elses kids to go do it...that's a piker move.

    Parent
    actually I am not advocating for it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:48:33 AM EST
    I think its going to happen and I am just giving you the reasons why, if any military action is ever justified - and you may think it is not - this is.
    IMO.

    Parent
    Fair enough.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    agree to disagree...I don't expect Afghans to die for our freedom or Americans to die for theirs...you die for your own if need be.

    Parent
    Dude, people have already done this (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    and they call themselves the Army, and the Marines, and the Navy, and the Air Force.......and wait for.....even NATO :)

    Parent
    It's all volunteer Kdog (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    and we've moved far beyond any hidden pacifists being in uniform now.  That began to come to an end after four years....once we passed the six year mark nobody is serving who doesn't mean to eventually go to war in Afghanistan or even Iraq for that matter.

    Parent
    Good point... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:02:13 AM EST
    anybody in there now signed up/re-enlisted to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point...in your opinion is that more out of belief in the mission (whatever that is, I sure as hell don't get it)or loyalty to their brothers and sisters in harms way?

    And can they start paying for it themselves?...it makes me sick to be party to it.

    Parent

    I wish you could opt not paying if you didn't (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    want to, I really do.  The soldiers in service now are people who do know that pacifists are very nice people who in bad situations often end up being slaughtered.  We were attacked.  The dynamics that made that possible are still in power.  I don't hear so much about not wanting to abandon each other anymore.  The people still in the fight are tougher now.  I see a lot of soldiers who figured out to remain functional with so many deployments and the constant strain of fighting.  Those are the marriages and families that survived too, those that could adapt.  And we will have to readapt when we aren't needed or can't be deploying families anymore because I think it is a completely different mindset you have to live within then.  I think we'll all have to learn to be calm again.  I can tell you that my husband serves because he believes in the Great Experiment first and foremost and this is where the Experiment has been led to when it comes to issues of self preservation.

    Parent
    For the record... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    I'm no pacifist...if any force storms the shores or borders I'll be there with bells on.  Luckily no force on earth exists who is crazy enough and those with a force capable enough aren't that crazy...at least at the moment.

    Parent
    Does AQ count? (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:56:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    if they storm the borders...the small band of mass murderers sent on 9/11 went down with the ship...no one to fight.

    Parent
    I think they are evil dirtbag scum too (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    Facts on the ground seem to indicate though that the people of Afghanistan have been so war torn and terrorized that they reserve allegiances for those with the biggest and the most guns.  We have to prove that we can force the Taliban out of power and protect the Afghanistan people until they empower a government respectful of human rights.  This is no small order.  And if they suspect for a minute that we are going to ditch them like we did the Kurds we are only wasting our time there.  They will never align with us because if we ditch them, all of those who did are dead men, women, and children.  This all in or all out and I'm still ashamed of "progressives" who are willing to sell out the American people on getting healthcare because they have the big win of selling out the Afghan people in their back pocket.  That's some big win brought about by the gentle progressives that TIME magazine will be happy to report back on to whole world in ten or twenty years if we ditch those people.

    Parent
    Payback (none / 0) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    I was never convinced that the proposed system was intended to contain Iran. Our mega military bases in Iraq are more than enough for that.

    I think the Bush Eastern Europe missle system was designed to antagonize Russia and rekindle the Cold War. When your political survival relies totally on fear, you can't have too many boogey men.

    These proposed sites also served as payback to Poland and the others for their support of the Iraq War.

    Seeing as how Bush (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    could not run for a third term and could not control who succeeded him why would he do what you opine?

    Parent
    Life goes on (none / 0) (#100)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    Bush was just one piece of the Republican Party. I'm still not convinced he ever was really in charge. The Republican's fear tactics were there before Bush and will be there long after he's gone.

    He just did his part to keep the ball rolling.

    Parent

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#102)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    Remember Cheney's rantings about the "New Europe" I don't think it's that much as a stretch to think a few of our allies were bought and paid for.

    Parent
    Paranoia becomes you. (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:18:53 PM EST


    Parent
    You continue to be unable to recognize (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    sarcasm and sarcastic humor.

    But I always appreciate the advertisement.

    Parent

    Oh come on (none / 0) (#107)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    We have to prove that we can force the Taliban out of power and protect the Afghanistan people until they empower a government respectful of human rights.  This is no small order.  And if they suspect for a minute that we are going to ditch them like we did the Kurds we are only wasting our time there.

    Like we already ditched them when we attempted this before, and gave rise to the first round of the Taliban? It isn't like we don't have a history of invading other countries for their own good, promoting freedom and democracy at gunpoint, and then bailing when things get bad.

    Not that I think we should stay, because the idea that we can bring peace and prosperity to a foreign country by deploying bullets and bombs is naive, to say the least, and insane to say the most.

    Chris Floyd, as usual, has the best analysis of all our misguided attempts to dominate other countries and the horror and misery that ensues. In this must-read installment he pulls heavily from the work of a Guardian reporter describing the aftermath of the recent NATO air strike, when the survivors couldn't identify the bodies of their loved ones because they were so horribly mangled:

    ...Jan Mohammad, an old man with a white beard and green eyes, said angrily: "I ran, I ran to find my son because nobody would give me a lift. I couldn't find him."

    He dropped his head on his palm that was resting on the table, and started banging his head against his white mottled hand. When he raised his head his eyes were red and tears were rolling down his cheek: "I couldn't find my son, so I took a piece of flesh with me home and I called it my son. I told my wife we had him, but I didn't let his children or anyone see. We buried the flesh as it if was my son."

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1839-tears-of-fire-mourning-in-th e-macabre-killing-fields-of-afghanistan.html

    I never understand posts like this (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    What are you advocating for?  And the last time we "abandoned" Afghanistan, we ended our affiliation when Russia left.  The goals had been achieved that our leadership was willing to pay for.  Members of the CIA and Charlie Wilson worried that Afghanistan would become ruled by thugs after that and argued for us to remain involved and the leadership chose not to nation build.  On one hand libs are always complaining that our imperialism desires to rule the world through nation building, and then the next day they are complaining when nobody nation builds and bad things happen.  What do you want here?  Because of past failings....and this is not solely our problem because the Afghan people are responsible for their actions and the lack of them more so than I am when it comes to this issue....but are you advocating that we should all just curl up in a fetal position and want to die or something?

    Parent
    This is the same intelligence (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:54:18 PM EST
    community that told us Iraq had WMD's.

    But I am glad to see that you understand that he is talking about our forces in  Europe....

    None of which will give us one iota of protection when Iran develops nukes and intercontinental missiles to deliver them.'

    And if we let them they will.

    Space Lasers (none / 0) (#160)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 05:26:57 AM EST
    http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/

    This is a cool Start, We need to forget ground based missile defense, and get into the future and deploy space based weapons. For all the Jokes and Bad SciFi analogies it really is posible to have space lasers. Also this is a funny video about military spending.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxJLUZWPEb8

    Obama Scraps Missile Defense System Based In Eastern Europe | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment