Harry's Place

Here’s Hitchens take on the subject of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/

“The Americans and the Afghan army control the highway, and five metres on each side. The rest is our territory,” as one Taliban commander tells the Guardian.

and of course, he speaks the truth. Why would he lie?

Only that’s part of the problem. The Taliban constantly exaggerate their power and the Times, BBC, and Guardian print it as if it’s the truth. If the Americans did the same, they would – rightly – be asked for proof. But apparently if you’re dirty, speak a foreign language, and carry an AK47, you are too simple-minded to lie.

While there are serious problems with the Afghanistan mission (and the problems are mostly in Pakistan), the Taliban can’t take the country back.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what Petraeus has planned for the area.

More Opiates for the mass, because the rubes love Hitchens.
He is a contemptuous opportunistic quack, but he speaks with a melodious voice and has such lovely accent….Hammer of secularism, grand priest of falsification & disingenuous extraordinaire!. Yes indeed, Hitchens is the one we have to listen, he is someone with consistency.

“This will be no war — there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention…. The president will give an order. The attack will be rapid, accurate and dazzling…. It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on.”

(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate– cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

For an agit prop provocateur like Hitchens,The world really does look different when you look at through the bottom of a whiskey bottle.
Bring Hitchens before the court of public opinion, much less the law, he would just take the fifth . . . and drink it.

The purpose of being there is to prevent it becoming a haven for Islamic terrorists to train and launch attacks against the West. A stable democracy is a ‘nice-to-have’ not a ‘must-have’.

“Increasingly it looks like the only settlement in Afghanistan must be a military and political one.”

There is no outright, long term military solution-Afghanistan is too big, backward, corrupt and divided (sorry diverse). Once the US & British forces are gone, Karzai and his Sharia-subordinate “democracy” are finished. The Afghan Army is unlikely to be able to replace foreign forces (unlike Iraq which had a half-professional army before the war). If Karzai is lucky (i.e not killed), he will live out his life in exile like the last king.

From a selfish Western perspective, the only issue is how to stop the country being used as a base for attacks on the West in the future. Assuming that it does not convert to a liberal democracy in the next few years, this will, I suspect, involve regular military interventions not to defeat (impossible IMO) but to hinder, like cutting down weeds that will inevitably grow back. Depressing but that seems to me the likely outcome.

Or we do a deal with the Taliban, the “political solution”. Is this feasible? Do we pay them, buy the opium crop at an ever higher price each year under threat of a warm welcome for AQ if we stop? Morally, is it right to sacrifice an entire population to nasty, medieval religious fascists to possibly save our skins? I have no answer to that but the thought of it is sickening.

For a British-run site, I find it odd that the terms “Lord Curzon” and “Perfidious Albion” do not readily come to mind. To MY mind, what is needed is rather more “Perfidious Albion” and less “spreading of democracy.” The CIA should pour money into the tribal areas in the form of bribes (in the time honored fashion in that part of the world) pitting tribe against tribe so as to foment as much internecine warfare as possible–then cutting deals with the exhausted winners. This is the understood and accepted way of doing things in that part of the world. Under no circumstances should attempts be made to impose outside values or to “make the areas safe for democracy.” The goal is INDIRECT control. As one British diplomat said in the 30s in reply to the question of how it was that England managed to “run” Egypt so successfully:
“Oh, we really don’t ‘run’ anything, but we DO control those who do.”

More gimlet-eyed, cold-blooded, subversive Perfidious Albion and less Wilsonian direct interventionist do-goodism.

Maybe you should pay attention to what the people really want

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783608.stm

Thousands of Iraqis have demanded the release of a local TV reporter who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush at a Baghdad news conference.

Crowds gathered in Baghdad’s Sadr City district, calling for “hero” Muntadar al-Zaidi to be freed from custody.

—–

“This is a farewell kiss, you dog,” he yelled in Arabic as he threw his shoes. “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”

Can Karzai really do anything about corruption though? His government relies on warlords – if he boots any out of his coalition they’ll just join the Taliban or do some er, opposition work freelance like they did before.

Are people being too hard on Pakistan? It’s often said that the main victims of islamist terrorists are muslims, but it’s also true that the majority of terrorism victims in Pakistan are from the armed forces or people associated with them. Some parts of the Pakistani state do seem to be more on “our side” than others.

“Can Karzai really do anything about corruption though? His government relies on warlords – if he boots any out of his coalition they’ll just join the Taliban or do some er, opposition work freelance like they did before.”
Sadly true.

Also Karzai’s regime is quite repellent – the death penalty for apostacy is on the statute book.

“Thousands of Iraqis have demanded the release of a local TV reporter who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush at a Baghdad news conference.”

I am sure we all want that, Flanker, and I am sure it will happen. Remind me, what happened to protesters who threw their shoes at Saddam? Maybe some of them would like to comment on the story? Thank heavens Iraq is country where you don’t get executed for this sort of thing, eh?

Also Karzai’s regime is quite repellent – the death penalty for apostacy is on the statute book.

Yes, that will be got rid of as soon if the Taliban get back power.

While I’m far from a realist in international affairs, I think a modicum of realism is entirely sensible with regard to Karzai government’s capabilities. The majority of Afghans don’t want the Taliban back.

There may not be an immediate military and political solution to Afghanistan, but then we don’t need one. We didn’t have an immediate military and political solution to the Cold War either. The Taliban cannot take the country by force we continue to have the will to prevail.

http://www.eluniversal.com/2008/12/15/zapatazo.jpg

Good pic

Just interested to know what source states that Mullah Omar is living in Quetta? I spent a bit of time there 3 years back – I’ve never been to a friendlier city, would be interesting to know that the head honcho was there all along.

It will be the case that some type of deal along the lines of the Sunni awakening in Iraq will have to be done. But we shall see how the troop surge pans out first.

Are people being too hard on Pakistan?

Short answer: no.

The problem is simple: it’s Pakistan. Pakistan is a failed entity

Which means, in Rumsfieldian terms, killing the Taliban and their ilk, and keeping killing the Taliban and their ilk until there are none left. If this means dealing with once and for all, and utterly dismembering Pakistan, so be it.

On balance, the conflict in Afghanistan can never be “won” in any agreed form and it is likely the different tribes will never sort out who should rule even if NATO and everyone else departed.

But frankly the cost of trying to help a country which secretly itches to resort to all the worst excesses of their so-called religion simply isn’t worth it. No point in us sacrificing military personnel for an ideal that the locals don’t share. Sadly the women of Afghanistan will suffer terribly when the old ways return and any semblance of social equality and progress will pretty much grind to a halt. However perhaps we just have to say sorry, we can’t help. However please do call us when you are ready to put down your AK47s and want to move out of the dark ages.

The alternative is to stay and build some sort of mountain top fortress to launch sorties and try to curb Al Qaeda, but as they are a loose-knit collection of bandits and jihadists they are unlikely to stay out in the open long enough.

Well, I’d prefer the opinion of someone who isn’t a genocidal maniac.

One way to deal with Pakistan is to let its government know that unless it takes our demands seriously, we will start dealing with the various national resistance groups.

The problem is simple: it’s Pakistan. Pakistan is a failed entity

The place would be a complete joke were it not for the fact the country is a clearing house for just about every islamist whack-job on the planet.

Pakistan had a tiny, tiny westernised elite that developed in a window of opportunity provided by british colonialism. However, that human capital is pretty much exhausted and the country is on the verge of disintegration, and is therefore prey to millions of rabid islamists.

A frightening prospect seeings it has nukes.

Here’s an example of typical Pakistani behavior, “Pakistan: No British Access to Mumbai Suspects.” In other words, produce words which sound like everyone is on the same side, but absolutely no follow through.

To say that Pakistan is a failed state is a generous statement; Pakistan acts very consistently; it protects all Islamists. Look at AQ Khan, who should have been executed a long time ago but instead lives like the national hero he is. I’m sure the same fate awaits all the Mumbai terrorists.

Why stay in Afghanistan despite the costs and the poor pay-off to date? Because a NATO withdrawal would only see the Taliban back in power and more girls getting acid thrown in their faces for not being veiled and the ISI operating as overtly as they did prior to 2001.

Terry Glavin’s opinion: http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=206

So Morgoth’s response to the brutality of the Taliban is to kill, and then kill some more.

John P

Today、 “Pakistan is a failed entity…..”, yesterday it was Iran!, the day before、　England Sharia laws…You must keep your shrink busy. So many phobias, too little time!.　Every day brings a brand new fear.
If you ever intend to live the safety of your mother’s living room, there is a place you may venture:

http://www.disneylandparis.co.uk/index.xhtml?c

You’ll feel home, that’s a promise.

No one and no force on earth has ever moved Afghanistan past the point it reached 1000 years ago. It is now and forever will be the 11th Century there. No point in wishing it was something else.

And what is wrong with recognizing that the world holds many dangers, most, but not all, in one way or another, relating to Islam, Muslims, Islamic countries, etc? There are other dangers, China and Russia, for instance, but Islam is a danger all by itself.

I followed Gordon’s link to the Guardian piece. If that’s all there is there, I’d hardly call it a “special report on Afghanistan”. There’s no analysis of anything at all. It’s a well-written interview with a Taliban district commander, telling us what fine upstanding young men he and his comrades are, what beautiful moustaches they all have, and what a worthy cause they are heroically engaged in, killing as many kaffirs as they can.

Being a kaffir myself, however, the Guardian can hardly expect me to share their correspondent’s enthusiasm.

What we do a political deal with jihadists who harbour some of the key ideologues of total Jihad against the west?

I can think of nothing more repulsive, the greatest contempt for those soldiers who have lost their lives for what would become empty rhetoric.

Simultaneously such a move is strategically pathetic lacking the slightest grasp of the Farley predictable results.

Of course it all seems quite un-winnable if the objective is now to continue to pour in billions to Karzai’s government in the mistaken belief that if the governance was as pristine a model of incorruptibility as Switzerland, all would be well among the warlords who would settle down to making cheese and yodelling over mountain passes instead of launching missiles.

Italy is corrupt and the UK is more corrupt than any time since the Mid Victorian period.

Indonesia and Thailand are corrupt.

Governability requires a degree of stability and institutional order built on predictable rules of reward and reciprocity.

A friend of mine always reminded me when I worked in Indonesia, that as long as the rules of corruption were redistributive, according to the rule to each a portion and ‘never embezzle above your station’ then a degree of corruption simply provided a stake of self interest that could ensure the success of development projects.

But Afghanistan is an ancient system of warring warlords, and despotic aggrandisement without restraint, where loyalties are fragile and clan based, but endlessly shifting in patterns of fission and fusion where you marry your enemies so cousins and enemies are often the same.

Since when has the objective been selfless social and economic development over crushing the operating base from which Al-Qaeda launched its psychotic jihad.

Afghanistan is not Iraq and never was. To engage in chronic low level warfare is simply the culturally traditional career path for male tribesman.

I have to say for once I agree with virgil xenophon spread the bribes around (because Karzai won’t) there is no easier way to separate the ideologues from the opportunists than to offer them a very good price for granny butchered and delivered.

Afghanistan has never been difficult to invade and defeat. Look at the topography it takes a few days to invade and take Kabul. Then the tribesmen retreat to the Mountains.

It is holding the country that is impossible, as every player in the great game has learned the hard way.

To say we must do a deal with the Taliban, as the Taliban, is as wrongheaded, effectively impossible, and as certain to lead to a very severe case of rabid hand biting as to say we must negotiate with Al-Qaeda or Hamas.

But actually the Taliban are easier to defeat militarily and strategically, because it is a loose coalition of ideologues and opportunist tribal war leaders and shifting patterns of tribal alliances.

In that part ’twas ever thus’.

So if our aim is to smash the Taliban and to prevent it’s regrouping to the point that it can once again become a state sponsor of global Jihad, then doing a deal with them is insane, it will not be honoured and the only consequence would be a consolidation of the influence of ideologues.

To negotiate for us is sensible for them it is our shameful defeat and their victory.

The strategy, if it weren’t constantly undermined by FCO Arabist pro- Saudi pro MB diplomat types should be to disaggregate the Taliban in Afghanistan by means hard and military and soft and faction creating.

The Taliban do not have the capacity to take the country and to hold it with an endlessly splintering set of tribal alliances as long as some warlord’s interests are best served by not supporting such a regime.

Of course the Taliban are re-supplied both in terms of resources including tribal fighters and Jihadi recruits (who seem to be little more than cannon fodder having no traditional combat skills) from Pakistan, but any line of supply in a combat zone is extremely vulnerable to targeted disruption.

I personally would not trust a word that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles the ambassador to Afghanistan desperate to get back to his falcons in Saudi Arabia says about the need for installing an acceptable dictator.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4860080.ece.

He is a diplomat, who presumably rarely leaves Kabul and not a military man however if our aims in Afghanistan are now solely presented as some kind of altruistic support for good governance, rather than military and strategic in the war against global Jihad, then yes it could all look very hopeless in Afghanistan.

The idea that an acceptable dictator would somehow be more in our interests than a more democratic regime is frankly bizarre as well as loathsome.

No dictator is acceptable to, I would argue, our nations interests which is largely why I do not believe that the FCO can be trusted in our need to combat violent Jihadism and its ideological wellspring of Islamism, they are an anti-democratic culture by inclination and training.

The bizarreness of this view though is that no dictator would be acceptable to the Afghans and their country of decentralised warring tribal polities.

There have been lots of them in Afghan history, none of them last. In fact central government despite a few erratic attempts here and there has never moved far outside Kabul, so there is nothing new there.

In fact no central government at all is arguably more the norm for Afghanistan and more in the interests of the West.

I think a combination of the stick of a targeted military deployment expressing our implacable hostility to Jihadi along with an even handed support of traditional enemies and the traditional balance of ethnic and tribal power, the status quo ante, in the form of a loose tribal confederation, would pay far greater dividends than this current confused mess of faithless diplomacy.

It wouldn’t be that hard to make Pakistan the enemy of the Pashtun again for instance.

The traditional male warrior culture of Afghanistan also has a points based honour system for the worth of kills.

True the highest value kill is of a Western infidel and the lowest value (but still a good thing) would be to kill an ‘enemy’ from the same tribe (say the Pashtun) an ethnic Tajik or Uzbek would be worth more.

Curiously a very foreign Jihadi (clueless non Pashto or Dari speaking outsider) kill would have some cultural value.

The naive robot Jihadi ideologue might think he is joining the ranks of the Ummah but for a feuding warring Afghan they are all Muslims anyway, the reasons for feud and raid and payback counter-raid are more cultural than religious or ideological.

I am all for preserving traditional customs if at all possible and I think that there are certain aspects of Afghani traditional culture that should be encouraged not suppressed.

Q. As above
A. It’s all part of was supposed to be George and Don’s infamous Shock & Awe policy. You might remember that the biggest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped was dropped on Osama Bin Laden’s cave. Only trouble was, Osama wasn’t there. He was in Pakistan (or whatever the place’s real name is).
In the final analysis ‘We’ are in Afghanistan for the same reason the Romans were in Britain. Anything else is poppadum.

In the final analysis ‘We’ are in Afghanistan for the same reason the Romans were in Britain.

The Celts flew airliners into the Colosseum?

While mettaculture may be onto something with using bribery as a way of pacifying Afghanistan (and maybe even in Pakistan), the problem is: will they stay bribed? Do we want to stay that involved permanently with Afghanistan, bribing, checking out to see if the bribed stay bribed, and so forth. Perhaps none of these tribal leaders see their self-interest as extending past their tribal boundaries. The Taliban seem to be the only group which offered a vision that was more than tribal, at least as viewed from a great distance. What do we offer besides money?

mesquito, re your comment “the Celts flew airliners into the Colosseum”:
Blimey mesquito, it was much more serious than that. Albion was the Afghanistan equivalent for the Romans. We even had terrorists leaders like Queen Boadecia.
You don’t think we were quietly sitting around with our thumbs up our rectums do you?

God, you people are such defeatists. When the going gets tough, the lefty liberals get weak in the knees. What were you saying about Iraq a couple of years ago. That the war was lost?

No one has mentioned the Afghan National Army. They are 70,000 and held in high regard by the NATO troops who work with them. The long term solution is to train and equip an Afghan Defence Force of sufficient size to crush the Taliban and take the war into the tribal areas of Pakistan if necessary. Extra troops from the US will hold things steady in the interim.

mettaculture has given us his usual typically excellent “tour d’horizon” of the situation; one with which I totally agree. I would only add that one of the unspoken premises upon which much of current western political thought seems to operate is that unless a nation’s foreign policy actually betters the lives of those non-nationals living in the foreign nations that are the object of national policy, as well as that nations own citizens, then somehow that policy is to be eschewed as immoral and political leaders espousing such policies castigated as horrid racists and uncaring brutes careless about the lives of “people of color” and other “former colonials.” Unfortunately, in foreign policy disputes, it often really is a zero-sum game, and others must “lose” if “we” are to win. In my view far too many of today’s current leaders in the West agonize over decisions that, if taken, would leave a great many people less well off in order to insure the safety and well being of those leaders’ fellow citizens. To my mind this mindset reveals a failure of leadership such that said leaders are in my mind recreant in their duties and responsibilities to the only people that should matter–their fellow citizens who elected them and put their trust in them to better their lives. There are few (except for soldiers, diplomats and spies) registered American/British voters in these areas–so no American President or British PM should care one whit what travails American/British policy creates for the locals, as long as it furthers the American and British cause.

Another view on Afghanistan from a (presumably) Right Wing US blog :

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20081215.aspx

Also some tourist views (yes really) on Afganistan from the Lonely Planet travellers blog :

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=467137&start=720&tstart=0

I really don’t know how easy it is to get a proper view on the situation – all I know is the BBC and the Guardian are generally not to be trusted on the matter as they are defeatist in the extreme IMHO.

George Patton,
Sir, (comes to attention and salutes)
With respect, sir, ..ahem…I thought the question was ‘why?’

‘What do we offer besides money?’

Well if that (to buy guns and status and power) is all that tribal leaders want (and there seems to be little evidence that they are deeply religious men) and that is what the Jihadis offered which strengthened the hand of the Taliban as there were no other major sources, then that quite a lot really.

Afghanistan has been for reasons of its peripheral nature as a natiobn state an opportunistic home for Jihadis to persue their war aims.

It is misplaced altruism that puts what we can offer people who will support and be our enemies, above the rest of the worlds right not to be attacked by brutal acts of ‘assymetric warfare’ targetting innocent people going about their lives.

The source of violent Jihadism is not Afghanistan, its endemic fission-fusion tribal warfare long predates and will long outlive this contemporary manifestation of terror.

So the strategy of playing fractious warring people off against our enemies will not have to last for ever.

The essential message though surely is that the west will not tolerate a state that gives haven to a terroist franchise, and such a policy will be met with an overwhelming response.

This is not about general diplomacy or third world development it is about wiping out the bases whixh even the most decentralised terrorist franchise must have in order to make their murderous designs operationally effective.

Not many countries are predisposed to allow Jihadis to set up shop.

There must be none.

MoreMedia Nonsense,
Al Jazeera is pretty good for that part of the world. Tonight’s news showed the convictions for the Egyptian hunger protests for example. Not to mention the pair of sflying hoes (in slow motion). I think it will catch on. Take over from tomatoes and eggs. Better let that guy go. George ain’t pressing charges. He says, “It’s what folks do in democracies.”

sflying hoes? pah, good quality leather shoes!

Blimey, bard on the run@7:36, what a “Bodacious” comment! Quite worthy of the good Queen Boadecia herself (the thumbs up rectums bit, I mean–sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Yes, mettaculture, pain is an international language that everyone understands and every individual, tribe, and nation has limits. But does the West have the psychic energy these days to gird it’s loins to apply the necessary amount?

George Patton, with all due respect, sir, Quetta is in Baluchistan, it says here, not in the FATA or Federally Administered Tribal Areas (where “Administered” is to be understood in a Pickwickian sense).

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12267391

Though it might make no material difference in case of combat.

The problem of terrorists getting drug money should be solved by legalizing the drugs and their production and putting them entirely under the protection of the legitimate government.

Face reality, we can not take the money out of drugs, so our only choice is to make that money out of the reach of our enemies.

Suspect Mettaculture is right about playing the various Afghani tribes off against each other. Tribal loyality is the most important factor in Afghanistan, the central govt has usually had limited control. Afghanistan has been the most peaceful when the central govt. let the regional warlords run matters with limited interference from Kabul.

About Pakistan: It is becoming clear that it is terrorist central. See “All Roads lead to Pakistan” at http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/12/15/world/worldwatch/entry4668474.shtml

The US, Britain, Canada and a few other members of the coalition of the willing went to Afghanistan to hit Al-Qaeda

I think you’ll find that the ‘coalition of the willing’ term related to Iraq. Afghanistan, was a NATO operation following the invocation of Article 5 whereby an attack on one member is deemed an attack on all. Australia and New Zealand have also contributed forces to this NATO op.

“Only that’s part of the problem. The Taliban constantly exaggerate their power and the Times, BBC, and Guardian print it as if it’s the truth. If the Americans did the same, they would – rightly – be asked for proof. But apparently if you’re dirty, speak a foreign language, and carry an AK47, you are too simple-minded to lie.” – not in my real name.

This is perceptive. The will to win was never there from the beginning and the history of events between Great Britain, Russia (USSR) and Afghanistan has been warmed over again and again in thousands of articles, few which have actually had a convincing understanding of the motives behind the historical events they outlined. Also, there has been a complete misunderstanding of whom is being fought.

It is widely believed that the Taleban were driven out of power (correct) by the Coalition (wrong). The Taleban were kicked out by Afghans supported by the west.

The Coalition has ‘lost the war of hearts and minds’. Afghanistan was a society which had absorbed diverse cultural influences for centuries and celebrated them up and until the Taleban came to power. (In the 1960s Kabul was the venue –staggeringly, when one thinks of the image the country has today – for an international exposition on modernist architecture and design).

Afghanistan’s open society has been wrecked by the Russian invasion, (Marxism, Soviet style) and the devious double game played by the Pakistani Intelligence Service.

Thousands of educated Afghan women and men have fled the country and many will not return for fear of assassination.

Some of the ‘Taleban’ are the discontented tribals who could be talked round. They have been ostracised by insensitive Coalition actions and or a distrust of Kabul. The Taleban faction which should be of real concern resides in Pakistan, has political and logistical support there and this must be eliminated. One cannot have dialogue with those whose basic positon is that we must convert or drop dead. The ’sick man’ of South Asia is the epicentre and fulcrum of the problem.

Twenty five years ago the name Kabul, if it meant anything, was a stop on the hippy trail, or a reference to a Victorian music hall dramatic monologue. It has taken two failing political entities to change that. The Coalition must prepare for the long run or give in. Giving in will not as, Guardian readers and the BBC believe, restore peace and harmony but simply confirm what the jihadists have always claimed: Its love of indolence will paralyse and then destroy the west.

The essential message though surely is that the west will not tolerate a state that gives haven to a terroist franchise, and such a policy will be met with an overwhelming response.

That sounds good except: who receives that message and what does it mean to them; and what can they do about it? I think there are two types of states: One in which the government controls the whole of the national territory; it is the responsible agent. If an attack is launched, say, from that territory, the government can be held responsible. The other type of state is one in which the government (assuming there is only one) does not control all of the claimed territory. This would include states like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Philippines, Gaza, and so forth. In states like these, the government, if it exists at all, either can hide behind the false fact that independent actors take action it cannot control, or they in fact cannot control these actors. It is probably often unclear the degree of control the government exercises, as in Pakistan. In Afghanistan it is clear that the government exercises nearly no control over much of the country. This means that there really is no one to whom a warning message can be given. Power, such as it is, seems pretty much local (the only possible trans-local power centers being the Taliban and the central Govt; maybe there’s others, not being an Afghanistan expert, I wouldn’t know). What do we do in this situation? Do we immerse ourselves in intertribal conflicts and issues? Basically, it seems like, in Afghanistan and also in Somalia, there is no there there.

So why are we in Afghanistan? We all know why we went there in the first place. The US, Britain, Canada and a few other members of the coalition of the willing went to Afghanistan to hit Al-Qaeda and find Osama Bin Laden following 9/11.

Ha ha ha!

Yeah, right. This is the biggest load of crap I’ve read in a while. As some people have already pointed out, it was never a matter of a “coalition of the willing”. It is also a glaring hole in the argument that the reason for going there was to get rid of Osama bin Laden given the fact that the guy is still alive and that George W. Bush has even said he doesn’t care about the fact he is still alive. So… what is the point of the war in Afghanistan?

I have asked this before and was told I am simply ignorant. But no one really has a good explanation.

Here’s Hitchens take on the subject of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Why do you idiots give Hitchens the time of day? Hitchens is someone who longs for a war between secular and orthodox Jews in Israel and says he will rejoice at seeing their blood spilt in the streets and running down the gutters. The guy is a fucking loon.