Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was talking about Afghanistan not Iraq.
I don't want a Machiavellian leader, but I do want a more Machiavellian state. The Prince, was written for the age of monarchy, thus the Prince and the state were one. Not so much the intrigue, but the strength. Lord knows our branches and agencies don't need more walls. BTW, I think that FDR's way of managing the players of his administration was the most Machiavellian of all.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Didn't see this til just now.
I'm not sure what the difference is between a Machiavellian leader and a Machiavellian State.
You might think so regarding FDR. But, to me, the things he did weren't Machiavellian at all because he did what he thought was right for his people. It wasn't about solidifying his power (though I'm sure it did that too). I think Bush is far more Machiavellian (well, Cheney really, since I'm pretty sure that the whole presidential power grab comes from his advice given he never got over Nixon being taken down) than FDR ever dreamed of being. Just my opinion of course.
The Afghan invasion and the inability to quickly find Bin Laden occurred in late 2001. The Battle of Tora Bora, where Bin Laden was thought to escape into Pakistan, was in December 2001. The Iraq war did not start until March 2003. Our failure in Afghanistan, and northwest Pakistan, to completely eradicate the Taliban and kill OBL had nothing to do with diversion of resources to Iraq. In hindsight, we did not use enough ground forces for the Afghan work, but you will recall at the time everyone said the CIA had done brilliant work ousting the Taliban without risking lots of US lives and using instead the forces of the Northern Alliance. Also, we had a clear memory of how insurgents had defeated 100,000 Soviet troops and we did not want to replicate that experience.MC? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll look. If we're talking about Afghanistan, I think we went in there appropriately and absolutely didn't use enough firepower to do the job... but that's because they diverted our resources to Iraq.
I've always said the Taliban should have been mashed in Iraq instead of us getting side-tracked by a war of choice.
The Afghan invasion and the inability to quickly find Bin Laden occurred in late 2001. The Battle of Tora Bora, where Bin Laden was thought to escape into Pakistan, was in December 2001. The Iraq war did not start until March 2003. Our failure in Afghanistan, and northwest Pakistan, to completely eradicate the Taliban and kill OBL had nothing to do with diversion of resources to Iraq. In hindsight, we did not use enough ground forces for the Afghan work, but you will recall at the time everyone said the CIA had done brilliant work ousting the Taliban without risking lots of US lives and using instead the forces of the Northern Alliance. Also, we had a clear memory of how insurgents had defeated 100,000 Soviet troops and we did not want to replicate that experience.
Three things...
1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
3. Read Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.
Ummmm,He was talking about Afghanistan not Iraq.
typical reply--anything that does not aline with your anti-Americanism you immediately discount and never deal with the thesis.read pnac ! Americas terrorist strategy handbook
Actually that's incorrect. They started diverting funds from Afghanistan and allocated them for Iraq well in advance of the actual invasion.
I never said they were done in Afghanistan. I always said they needed to finish the job there.
Ummmm,...but you will recall at the time everyone said the CIA had done brilliant work ousting the Taliban without risking lots of US lives and using instead the forces of the Northern Alliance. Also, we had a clear memory of how insurgents had defeated 100,000 Soviet troops and we did not want to replicate that experience.
Good Grief,preplanned preemptive wars against perceived possible future threats sold with misleading intelligence is anti-American...buddy
Good Grief,
So many misconceptions in one sentence:
1.) All wars are preplanned--have you not heard of Schlieffen Plan. The Department of Defense conducts war games all the time involving different scenarios and enemies. The results are written up in a book and shelved. The problem with the Iraq war is there are those who feel the policy of "Containment" was working and there is evidence to support such a view--but it is not conclusive. Be that as it may, the complete plan for war with Iraq was not followed--little thought was given to what happens after Saddam was removed. Furthermore, the army had not trained to deal with counter-insurgency since Vietnam. Nearly all the lessons from that period were forgotten. The only units that continued to train on counterinsurgency were the Special Forces and Marines: God Bless'em.
By preplanned I was referring to the fact the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was in the works before 911
2) Radical Islam is not a perceived threat--it is a threat. They have said so time and again: we are dar el harb and by our very existence we are a threat to dar el Islam. So a faithful radical Muslim has two choices--convert or kill us. UBL has said his number one desire is to convert us to Islam. That kind of religious fanaticism is not reasoned with. You kill him before he kills you or die. Again--visit Ground Zero.
there are radicals of all kinds in all country's that say all kinds of things including this one ,just in the statement you just made kill him before he kills you could be precived..no be a threat to Muslims and following your logic they should kill you before you kill them .ten of thousands of Muslims and south Americans died due to American black op regime changes
3) Intelligence is not misleading. It is either accurate or it is not. What the political masters do with the intelligence, or choose not to do, is what is misleading. Likewise, Preemptive war is not American or unAmerican. It is a military tactic like a flaking movement, frontal assault or a pincer movement. The juvenile idea that America cannot strike first is actually a circumlocution for "Americans must die before military action is taken." Then the question is how many Americans must die before military action is taken--a few dozen, a couple of hundred, several thousand, a few hundred thousand or several million?
This is true there was very accurate intelligence before 911 that could of easily thwarted the attack that was blatantly ignored ,as was the real Intel on wmds
preemptive war was unamericain but Apparently not anymore..how many Americans died due to the people or governments of Iraq or Afghanistan ?
Don't call me "buddy." I am not your buddy. You can address me as MasterChief or Master Chief, but not buddy. If you want a buddy get in touch with Elton John. He'll gladly be your buddy. He lives in Atlanta, across from Piedmont Park, and if he isn't home, just walk through the park and you'll find another.
And none of this has anything to do with the thesis of Walid Phares book.
....Incidentally, not one publication that I submitted my op-ed to printed it. Now I understand why. It was far too controversial a subject.
Alternatively...maybe they though your opinion was bullshit; maybe they thought it was poorly presented or maybe (just maybe) they don't like you personally.
That and four bucks gets you a latte at Starbucks.No. I send my op-eds and letters to the editor to several publications and syndicated companies (like the NY Times). Usually I get published locally.
That and four bucks gets you a latte at Starbucks.
