Katrina Vanden Heuvel: You Cannot Wage a Conventional War Against a Set of Ideas or Tactics
Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the lone liberal voice during the panel discussion on This Week pointed out the obvious about our war on terror and what we're doing in Afghanistan.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... let me put the counter… and let me put it, the question, to you this way. If they see us leave Afghanistan, wouldn't the Pakistanis say, "We're next. They're going to abandon us again"?
VANDEN HEUVEL: No, I think it's much more complicated, and our occupation of Afghanistan is going to deepen divisions in Pakistan and destabilize an already fragile civilian government.
I mean, we are already engaged in a secret war in Pakistan. The Nation's cover story this week, based on multiple sources, shows that Blackwater is working with the Joint Special Operations Command, planning targeting assassinations and drone campaigns. This is fundamentally destabilizing. We need another policy.
The larger overlay of all of this, in my view, is our overreaction to the terrible, horrible tragedy of 9/11 has led us to wage war against terrorism. You cannot wage a conventional war, which we are doing in Afghanistan, against an odious, horrifying set of ideas or tactics. And until we end that, we are, as an American people, going to have a de facto policy of permanent warfare. Do we want that in our country?
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... bring in a Pew poll that shows perhaps we don't right now.
VANDEN HEUVEL: We don't.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It was fascinating this week. The Pew Center did a look at the sense of isolationist sentiment in the country. Should we be minding our own business? Forty-nine percent say that -- that -- that we should minding our own business more. That's the highest it's been in -- in years, the highest in 40 years.
And -- and, Peggy, that gets to your point, not only are we a weary nation, a nation turning inward.
NOONAN: That's a post-9/11 poll, do you know what I mean? That was not the mood after September 2001.
A number of things to say. One is that I worry about the vacuum that might created and suck in more trouble if American troops just abruptly left. It -- it seems to me...
HAASS: And we should not...
NOONAN: ... that is a destabilizing move. And if Obama is just buying time, in effect, as those -- as Russ Feingold said, no, it's going to take time, then I think that'll probably seem reasonable to people.
HAASS: We should not just leave. And there's a choice between doing as much as we're now doing and leaving. You know, sometimes there is a gray in-between area. The middle course is not always wrong. And rather than simply surging more troops, which is not clear to me is going to work, we can take a lot of the rest of the strategy, which is, by the way, where we're going to end up, which is more emphasis on training, not just in Kabul, but around the country, greater emphasis to win over some of the Taliban, some counterterrorism and so forth. We're going to end up with a strategy that's probably more commensurate with our interests.
We have to avoid these situations where we do everything, which is more than situations warrant, or we simply abandon a country like Afghanistan.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But at the end of the day, Afghanistan, Pakistan, this region will require political and diplomatic solutions. I interviewed Gorbachev in September. Secretary Gates, in my view, took the wrong lessons from the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev says very clearly -- and he has had insight into this -- political, diplomatic, regional work needs to be done.
No one is talking about abandoning. But the idea of pouring money and troops in, the U.S. footprint growing larger is -- we are going to be an occupying force. Barack Obama spoke eloquently about we are not an occupying force. We are perceived as such.
When I first heard about Jr's war someone online pointed out that you cant wage war on a verb, and this is true. War on terror sounds like we are trying to eradicate this one particular tactic, wont happen, thats like waging a war on flanking movements.
When angry, count four, when very angry, swear.
-Mark Twain-
that declaring war on a concept like terror is like declaring war on grumpiness...
It makes about as much sense a war on grumpiness, none that is.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
... until you realize we have been waging a war on drugs for the past 4 decades with no end in sight nor any provision to slow it down.
Orwell had it right...
And it makes no sense at all.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Given the profit margins of some contractors/agencies/individuals involved in the "war on drugs." It is clear that the objective of the war is not to end drugs, as that would mean the end of their profit margins, but to keep the war indefinitely. In fact, chances are there is a bigger incentive for drug cartels to end their drug trade... than for anti-drug agencies to be successful in squashing said trade.
Have you realized how none of these parties so "concerned" about them evil drugs are willing to help fighting them for free?
over so much money to other countries to meddle in their business to fight this "war" too. And of course the money that goes to those countries benefit very few, and usually those who don't need it to begin with...
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
It's just the Monroe Doctrine going global!
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
> When I first heard about Jr's war someone online pointed out that you cant wage war on a verb, and this is true.
It seems to me that the Shrub was always doing battle with entire English language, not just the verbs---and our ears and national reputation were collateral damage in that fight.
she's right. the media is wrong.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
She's just as guilty of the same kind of nonsensical slogan-slinging as the crowd at Fox. The argument that you can't declare war against an ideology ignores the obvious fact that you CAN declare war against members of Al Queda.
I mean, think about it -- if you said we couldn't declare war on 1940's facism, or imperialism, you'd essentially being saying we couldn't declare war against Germany or Japan. And before someone argues, "But wait!!! Those were countries! They were an identifiable enemy!," you're simply choosing to look the other way. We know who the bad guys are -- they're members of Al Queda. The problem is not that they cannot be identified, but that our cozy relationship with governments of certain oil-producing interests compromises our ability to deal with the head of the snake.
Frankly, I'm not interested in a long, unnecessary engagement in Afganistan either. But jingoisms aren't a solution to an intractable problem.
you know she's right on the facts and there's no way she compares with fuxNoise. that is an insult.
---------------
Inside the contractor’s studio
Dec. 3: Rachel Maddow is joined by Jeremy Scahill whose cover story in The Nation magazine is about U.S. contractors working in Afghanistan, and Blackwater founder Erik Prince's roots in the CIA.
Some stuff you can't make up!
"I know she's right on the facts?" What does that mean? Let's look at the "facts" she asserts and determine whether she's "right."
1."Our occupation of Afghanistan is going to deepen divisions in Pakistan and destabilize an already fragile civilian government."
This is a conclusion. The counter is that if uncontrolled Taliban influence extends into Pakistan we could be looking at a nuclear Taliban.
2. "I mean, we are already engaged in a secret war in Pakistan. The Nation's cover story this week, based on multiple sources, shows that Blackwater is working with the Joint Special Operations Command, planning targeting assassinations and drone campaigns. This is fundamentally destabilizing. We need another policy."
Another rank conclusion. If she means dropping bombs on people we don't like using drones, then she's correct, but so what?
3. "The larger overlay of all of this, in my view, is our overreaction to the terrible, horrible tragedy of 9/11 has led us to wage war against terrorism. You cannot wage a conventional war, which we are doing in Afghanistan, against an odious, horrifying set of ideas or tactics. And until we end that, we are, as an American people, going to have a de facto policy of permanent warfare. Do we want that in our country?"
This is an overstated conclusion, which she acknowledges as her "view," not facts.
4. "But at the end of the day, Afghanistan, Pakistan, this region will require political and diplomatic solutions."
No duh. I think that's part of the process already.
5. "I interviewed Gorbachev in September. Secretary Gates, in my view, took the wrong lessons from the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union."
Again, her VIEW. Not fact.
6. "Gorbachev says very clearly -- and he has had insight into this -- political, diplomatic, regional work needs to be done."
Again, no duh.
7. "No one is talking about abandoning."
Absolutely false. Lots of people on the left are talking about leaving.
8. "But the idea of pouring money and troops in, the U.S. footprint growing larger is -- we are going to be an occupying force."
This is a fact, but no duh. It's a bad set of options.
9. "Barack Obama spoke eloquently about we are not an occupying force. We are perceived as such."
Geez.
I don't consider Ms. Vanden Heuvel to be an exceptionally deep or subtle thinker. She strings together talking points when she gets flustered, and expects it to pass for argument. It's no wonder George Will routinely demolishes her. And I don't think much of Will.
Do you believe we could wage a successful war against 'unconventional warfare'? Or how about a war against hatred?
Obviously we can wage war against particular people who engage in 'unconventional warfare' as well as those who 'hate'. But it is laughable to suggest that we could wage a successful war (a war with an END) against 'unconventional warfare' or 'hatred'.
If you want to be understood stay away from words like "terrorist" and or "war"
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
still a soft-brained soft-right apologist.
"How does one win a war against a concept?"
Gee, where does one get a job as a pundit? I sure could use the extra money and the reduced hours and minimal intellectual activity at this point....
they were ignored by msm.
Some stuff you can't make up!
It would be very easy to win a war against a concept like terror. It just involves killing every last man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. See, that wasn't so hard was it?
No such thing as conventional war. It's like talking about the guys standing in lines and firing at each other during the revolutionary war.
As if we could fight a conventional war against drugs or poverty.
There is nothing conventional about our military actions in Iraq or Afghanistan unless it is called a conventional occupation as we are not fighting an enemy army or enemy state.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
The war in Pakistan is perfect.
No American soldier casualties. Soon the predator videos will be released, just like the smart bomb videos in Desert Storm.
Americans will make popcorn and watch stuff explode! Great fun!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
"How does one win a war against a concept?"
Kinda like the liberal blogs waging a war on "ass holiness" against FOX News.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
....BE any more annoying? Conservatives...
Feh.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
and will prove you that yes, indeed, she can be even more annoying.
Simple answer to your question, if there is a way, she'll find it.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
The horror...
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
...I tried to watch This Week(shit) yesterday. I held the remote and muted everyone but Vanden Heuvel...only way I could stomach George's awful show.
....BE any more annoying? Conservatives...
Yeah...she could be sober!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
... except the mallet is 100,000 troopers plus machinery and support. Your arms can get tired pretty quick while the mole stays fresh.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
If you can't wage war on an idea or set of values, you can never have victory, and if you never have victory, you never have an end of warfare and, more importantly, the state of war. So long as the state of war exists, you can use it as an excuse to turn an erstwhile free nation into a police state whose citizens have been turned into subjects. And that, in my opinion - and aside from an excuse to go on a global rampage stealing the natural resources of other nations, was the principal and over-arching reason for creating the war on terror in the first place. It's about the demolition of America as a liberal democracy that exists in freedom and liberty with respect for human rights.And, it gave the arms merchants and war profiteers a chance to make a killing as the demolition proceeded.
It's simply about money, Paul.
Open ended war committments means that the military industrial complex is always fed.
It's only about money. Killing brown people is collateral damage. Stealing natural resources, a simple, albeit pleasant, byproduct of the warfare.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
That's what the fascist police state is all about, too. Money, money, money. Makes me want to puke.
that about sums it up. And given all that's happened since they begin their phony war it sure seems accurate.
To the corporations which make a profit from waging war, there is absolutely no incentive to end war (or to win it for that matter).
To the insurance companies which make a profit from people's sickness, there is absolutely no incentive to cure people.
Are we getting the memo yet? We keep on putting the Foxen in charge of the hen house, and we act all surprised when they start eating the chickens.
...getting through to you, Mr Beale?"
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
Stephanopoulos equates anything other than neocon-style invasions/occupations as "isolationism".
... the original "hope and change" guy!
With "reformers" like these a**wipes who needs reactionary defenders of the establishment?
Long ago he seemed so much more believable.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Oh please. He was just a Clinton Admin lackey.
Another beltway insider with mediocre (at best) talents that parlayed his access into a sweet gig.
I love when Beltwayers call Hollywood types...whores. Laughable.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
what's not to love?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Stephanopoulous is a shallow and corrupt tool. A useful idiot, in neocon parlance.
some very good comments here; pointing out the truth of war being a racket.
until we end that, we are, as an American people, going to have a de facto policy of permanent warfare. Do we want that in our country?
We might not want a permanent state of war... but Xe does.
own bootstraps (how does that actually work though?) free market types, who depend exclusively on public contracts (read: government handouts) as their sole source of revenue for their fantastic private enterprises which offer no value added whatsoever!
Isn't capitalism grand?
As far as I can tell - "self made" means your daddy was rich and left you a pile of money.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
coming up with their "compassionate conservatism" and "personal responsibility" memes.
I recommend copious amounts of Clorox to wash your hands in case you touched it by accident...
Whoop's I did touch it (ew) and thank you - I will disinfect as recommended.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Obviously, the reason Republicans are so dead-set against the estate tax is because nothing says "self-made man" like "inheriting tens of millions of dollars".
U.S. Out of N. America!
Cue the Kabuki....
What we really need is a war on hate.
I hate haters and war is the only answer.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
This woman is absolutely correct. We learned this concept when we went through counter insurgency training at the Naval Amphibious Base at Coronado, California in the mid '70s. Our instructors were SEALs for the most part. They said that "you can kill every fuckin'one of them. But if you don't offer a viable alternative, you don't win, either. If the competing idea survives, you don't win." More frightening was when they said "If you face an enemy who wants to kill you, that's bad. If you face an enemy who wants to kill himself and take you with him. Well, you've really got yourself a problem." That always struck me as a particularly terrifying concept.
i wonder sometimes if some analyses are not missing something, wealth is already so concentrated in this country that the oligarchs could effectively do without most of the people of this country.
just withdraw to the ranch, cut the private security force in on the goods, and shut the whole thing down, tell the public we are going to the Rockies and blowing the bridges.
kind of like the john galt thing, without the rand illusion.
what i question is the profit motive, when you own practically everything, do you really need to make profit?
is the whole point social control, nothing more?
perhaps someone more erudite than me would have an opinion?
And a kind of tin-horn, hold-'em bravado that says you haven't "won" until you have ALL the chips...
. . . everyone else must lose!"
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the US attack on Iraq?
it was all over the papers all over the world...
but otherwise, no, not so much...
Apparently it's okay if it's only for three or four FU (Friedman Units) at a time...indefinitely...with periodic assurances from the leaders that it's only going to be a little while longer, and a I am sure we can hold Saig---er, Kabul....
Love her, and she can't be shaken.
appearently war can be waged for any freakin reason. The people in that region know why the U.S. is really there. Any attempt at building a pipeline through that region should be disrupted because multinational corporations are attempting to steal the natural resources of the region and maintain a monopoly on the worlds energy resources. Unless the U.S. wants to pay fairly for the ability to use that regions natural resources, then the U.S. needs to be an honest broker.
She is on the money but it was much more than " an over reaction " ,it was a conspiracy , 9-11 was the long awaited excuse the Neocons needed , just read the Project for the New American Century manifesto , note the signers , it's right there in black and white .
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" . Well the lunatics got their wish didn't they ? I just wonder how much of "a surprise attack" 9-11 was .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Comments are closed on this entry