193 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
shallowfocus's avatar

This is all obviously one guy's fault. And the identity of that one guy depends on your party affiliation.

Expand full comment
Kr0nWayne's avatar

This is everyone's fault. G.W. Bush & the neocon crowd got us into this pointless invasion, then we voted them back into office for a 2nd term. We voted Obama in, who doubled down on this nonsense, then we gave him a 2nd term. Trump tried to ramp this crap down a bit, so we ran him out of office post haste & installed the current Catastrophe in Chief. Now we have the inevitable denouement, which was guaranteed from the start. Our leaders are responsible for this. I'm responsible for this. You're responsible for this. Etc, etc, ad nauseum

Expand full comment
Rather Curmudgeonly's avatar

You can blame W all you like -- where was Congress all of that time (and during the subsequent two administrations)?

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

And I agreed with Charlie Rangel on this, we should have had a draft. Would have stopped this adventurism cold, which was his point.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Congress was supporting the effort because war is always popular until the casualties start hitting home. With a draft in Vietnam, it hit everyone, with this war, it was focused on certain communities - blacks, Southern whites - who do not have much representation in the media.

This is another thing that has been true since time immemorial. Most countries use their most declasse individuals to fight their wars. The dregs of English society who populated Wellington's army at Waterloo was well-recorded. Ditto the Russian forces in the Napoleonic wars, the Roman armies at the end of the Republic and afterward, etc. Earlier Roman armies like the one Scipio Africanus led were composed of Roman farmers with wealthier cavalry, but that changed over time.

Expand full comment
Kathleen McCook's avatar

The Russians were serfs I wouldn't call them dregs,

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

From the Tsar's point of view?

Expand full comment
Kathleen McCook's avatar

They didn't have a choice.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I am not so sure that US soldiers have a choice either, in many cases. I know quite a few PTI cases where enlisting was the alternative to jail.

Expand full comment
Kathleen McCook's avatar

No, neither my father nor my husband were in peril of jail when they served in WW2 or VN. They were both working class union blue collar workers (electrician and carpenter), but I would not call them dregs or "most declasse." That may be a college-educated person's point of view, but it is not true.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@Kathleen McCook

WWII had no problem getting volunteers from all walks of life following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

But HBI has a solid point regarding Vietnam, and other wars. All countries, in terms of their "grunts",

(non-officer combat troops) employ those they find most "expendable" to society in general. During Vietnam, Blacks in America still represented, as they do now, about 12% of the population. Imagine their surprise then, to find drafted Platoons in Vietnam running as much as 50 and even 60% black, with the balance being made up of poor, and usually under-educated whites. Facts of war.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I was the first person to go to college in my family. My father (Vietnam), stepfather (Korea), grandfathers (WWII), stepfather's father (WWI) all served and worked with their hands more or less.

Now, let's get the where I came from out of the way. Northeast, near NYC. The shitty attitudes of everyone I knew, family or no, about my decision to go to Iraq would not be believed. So, if you are laboring under the false notion that these people don't think people who serve are pieces of shit, let me correct that notion.

The most succinct one was a guy who died of cancer a couple years later. He said to me "You're too good to go over there." The rest did it in ways that weren't quite as bald-faced.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

As a counterpoint one of the soldiers I met was an E-4 that drove around a $100k car. His family was wealthy from oil in Oklahoma. The parents forced every one of their sons to serve to turn them into decent people. He was a 25S (satellite specialist) I deployed to Iraq with. Great person, and good at his job. But such people are too few. The PTI people are much, much more common.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

Yes, and child of wealthy parents Oliver Stone would *never have ended up in Vietnam, had he not *pressed for it. He wanted to see the *real experience. "Mission Accomplished" ! ;-D

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

And because they couldn't afford the financial gauntlet for bogus weed offenses.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

That was certainly true at the time I graduated High School in 1966. It was not that we did not have a *choice about enlisting. We could either opt for 4 years in one of our branches of the military, or TEN years in the closest Federal Penitentiary. For me, at that time, that would have meant Ft. Leavenworth.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I'm glad you chose the Navy.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

Thanks, man. Oh, me TOO ! And at the time, very early '67, I went to the Navy Recruiter who informed me that there was a "Six month waiting list to get *ON The Six Month waiting list to get into the Navy !"

He was not joking ! My Grandfather was Second in Command to Admiral Nimitz in WWII. He was in charge of the Seventh Fleet submarines. (And me in ASW ? ;-D) My Father was in the Navy, WWII, my *mother was in the Navy (Wave working as a stenographer in military Courts Martial, as well as being the *daughter of Captain Doyle, my grandfather)

Nobody in the Recruiting office CARED !

The Navy was "gravy" with "three hots and a cot" which compared *quite favorably to foxholes and K-Rations. As you know, there were more FOBs than foxholes, but we didn't know that yet.

The only reason I did *not end up in the Army (I had been tested, and ordered to report for duty within 20 DAYS) was that my recruiter had just come back from sea duty. In his absence *his son had tried to join the Navy and ended *up (horror of horrors, for the Chief) in the Air Force ! So the Chief (recruiter) pulled strings to get *me into the Navy, but they had *nothing to do with my own prominent Navy family !

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

What you're saying about Vietnam is historically incorrect. During the draft, and before college deferments were canceled, the draft hit... blacks and poor whites. So no, it didn't hit everyone. Once college deferments were canceled and the draft did for a short time hit everyone - lo and behold, the Vietnam War immediately began to be wound down. A few years later the draft was canceled as well. Anything to prevent middle class white boys from being sent abroad to fight in unnecessary wars.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

What inaccuracy is there? It's just what I said. The deferment system was an irrelevancy to the main point, that a widely distributed draft destroyed public support for the war, same as the draft during Korea did.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@shallowfocus

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that the U.S. *has no draft. Many people do, completely in error. The fact is that the U.S. presently has no ACTIVE draft. But ask any male turning 18 whether or not SSS (Selective Service System) LAW requires him, under penalty of full felony, to *register for with the SSS right up to this very day.

The U.S., therefore, has a presently "inactive" draft. However, let us not fool ourselves, if the "need arose" we are prepared to go from inactive draft to *active draft in less than 48 Hours. Now that women are making "inroads" into the Military Services, there have also been Legislative attempts to make *them susceptible to the draft as well. So far, without, success, but it is not an illogical position.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I'm not positive everyone registers for Selective Service, but I know when I went for a security clearance (~2001), it was like the third question on the list, and if I hadn't registered, I would have been denied until I did.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

Yes. Young men, by their 18th Birthday, are required, under penalty of felony, to register with SSS. Congress was even discussing making that requirement apply to females, but that effort did not "fly".

Shallowfocus, whose comments I quite respect, indicates that there may have been modifications to the law in around 1986. This may be. But given *your experience in 2001, those changes were likely more of a cosmetic nature than of a "law repealed" nature.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

My friend Thomas Hancock above provides additional proof, if any more were required, that he does *not know anything about Vietnam.

His suggestions, to paraphrase, that I "get with the law, or leave the country" was a present day echo of all those ignoramuses in favor of pursuing that inane Vietnam war in perpetuity.

"My Country - Right or Wrong"

"Love it or Leave it" ...

etc. et alii.

Some levels of ignorance never die.

Expand full comment
Notyours's avatar

And anecdotally, if one didn't by said birthday (in the 80's), one received a sternly written letter from the bureau strongly recommending one do so immediately.

I saved it... but complied.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

If I dig in my files I may have such a letter. I think I kept all the selective service crap in the event someone questioned me later.

Expand full comment
Notyours's avatar

Ditto!

I'm still trying to determine where in my bureau naughty timeline that particular record falls.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I forget the age you have to register - 17 or 18 - but I would have registered right around 1986 - I turned 17 that year.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

Basically, "By" your 18th birthday.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

That's a distinction without a difference. There's de facto no draft in the US, and there isn't going to be:

"The effort to enforce Selective Service registration law was abandoned in 1986. Since then, no attempt to reinstate conscription has been able to attract much support in the legislature or among the public."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@shallowfocus

How wonderful ! Just tell that to any male loved one as he approaches his 18th birthday. Knowing he'll thank you later.

You know ..... as much as I am loath to sound as if I am not in *awe of an "authority" like wikipedia.

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

What's the big deal about registering? Don't you owe that to your country by taking advantage of the benefits of living here? If you don't want to abide by US laws, you can emigrate.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@Thomas Hancock

Your posts sound as if you are a pasty-faced nerd living in your mother's basement. And that holds whether you are 16 or 46 years old.

The point about registering, silly man, is that the requirement to register technically *IS A DRAFT, bcuz all of those men can be "activated" in less than 48 hours.

I am not responsible for educating you, but allow me to share with you a valuable quote.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

~ Abraham Lincoln

So, back to your computer game derived logo.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I registered in 1986 or 87. When the Iraq War part 1 came around in 1990, I was literally heading down to volunteer when my mom threw a hairy canary fit telling me I was doing _NO SUCH THING_ and was instead packing up and going to Canada. She had Vietnam on the brain. I remember my stepfather coming to me and telling me that "I had to stop talking about this to keep peace in the house" and I let myself be deterred at the time. Mind you, this is the same dude that did two years in Korea shimmying across rivers on cables being a signaleer during the war.

I was always ashamed I allowed myself to be deterred, so when I got my chance later I took it. As it stood, I probably wouldn't have even finished basic and AIT quickly enough to deploy in '90-91

Expand full comment
Diogenes's avatar

I think Merle Haggard wrote a song about that....

That even he later laughed about as ridiculous.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

The war wasn't stopped to keep Sen. Dipshit's son safe. It was stopped because it had little political support in the US. Yes, it was when the coffins came home to the small towns that opinions changed.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Exactly. In the college deferment era, there was actually more support for the war among the boomer generation (then in their teens and twenties) than among their parents. The moment college deferments no longer existed, and middle class white boys were finally expected to fight and die in Vietnam, support for the war magically evaporated.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Truth

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@shallowfocus

Certainly not in any World I have ever visited. Teenagers don't, in general *Care about war, *any war, until it looks like they are about to be drafted *into one. By their twenties, back then, they have already *been taken by Uncle Sugar if they are going to be.

I think it would *really shock a lot of you who just read books about Vietnam to get the *slightest clue regarding just how *many Active Duty Troops and even Officers were *also fully against the War, especially following the Tet offensive in January of '68. Tet was not really "such a much" militarily, but it *totally "gave the lie" to Johnson's assurances that the War was even then in the process of "winding down". Right ! ;-D

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I think it destroyed confidence in the ultimate victory, which people had believed in because they were told so up to that point.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

Just so, yes. The Americans at home had finally had enough of "we've got 'em on the *run, yes we do !"

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Tet had something to do with it too.

The relationship between educational achievement and support for Vietnam was an interesting effect. In summary, the higher your completed educational level, the more likely you were to support the government Vietnam policy.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

Wow, Dude ! Can I recommend some *footage of the riots on the college campuses during that era ?

There was NO ONE cheering *either Johnson or Nixon in ALL that time !

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

You said you'd read Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me". Towards the back of the book he pulls out a Gallup poll which indicates what I am saying. It is counterintuitive until you think about what college really means: government indoctrination to create bureaucrats.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

I have my own copy all warmed up for research tomorrow. Gotta get up for an appointment in the a.m. But, yeah ..... counterintuitive in the VERY least ! I went to college in Oregon on the G.I. Bill, and they didn't even dare touch THAT stuff with a ten foot POLE at the time. Maybe Loewen meant colleges in TEXAS ! ;-D

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

The absolute *CLASSIC support for the war was among the working class collectively called "The Hard Hats" who were wetting down their leg over a handful of Hippies in Golden Gate Park.

You can *still get Right wingers to hyperventilate just in the *mention of Hippies ! ;-D That's a mysterious source of terror, there, over a "nothingburger" that is now over Fifty years old !

The only "educated" people in favor of that war were most of our *Parents who did not know enough about the Vietnam War to comprehend that it was NOT just WWII Redux. That little "misunderstanding" was not called "The Generation Gap" for nothing. ;-D

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

My grandfather was a cop in Hoboken, Irish dude actually named Gilligan. Anyway, he was pro-war to the end. He looked at it as no different than his WWII service and thought people that thought differently were "pussies" and "pinkos". He was a fairly bright guy, btw. It was just what he believed.

He never talked about it but I was told about his actions in preventing the riots that overcame Jersey City in 1968 from proceeding into Hoboken. My mom has his nightstick under her bed, filled with lead and covered with old blood spatters and dents from where he'd tap on cast iron fences as he walked his beat.

That said, Loewen had a point about the educated being more pro-war than the working class. Not everyone was like my grandfather.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Some of us were yelling at everybody to pay attention to Ron Paul, who was telling you exactly how it was going to go down........

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

"Paul voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Expand full comment
DC Reade's avatar

That was the AUMF being sold simultaneously as both a quick in and out raid and an open-ended justification to do everything else Anti-Terrorist, forever.

I think only one Congressperson read the fine print.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

To get Bin Laden because he attacked us. Once that was done we had no business there, and had no business nation building at any time. He also voted against the other War on Terror bills.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Once that was done? The wars started in 2011. Bin Laden was killed in 2011. So you're saying that Paul supported the wars "only" for a full decade? Amazing.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

And never nation building.

You can try to rewrite history all you want but we lived through it.

Expand full comment
Harry Hood's avatar

You can and you should. This mess is in that administration's hands. Afghanistan was the wrong country; bin Laden wasn't even there. There is also significant blame to lay on Reagan's CIA who created and trained the Taliban.

Expand full comment
Rather Curmudgeonly's avatar

GEN Tommy Franks wanted the Army to have the glory of killing OBL and that was how OBL escaped Tora Bora. Even still, that's not the reason we ended up sticking around and trying to nation-build.

Expand full comment
DC Reade's avatar

The Afghanistan mission was presented by various media talking heads and official spokespeople by turns- as a fast snatch-and-grab of Osama, or as long-term nation-building. And the American audience was invited to pick whichever rationale they preferred.

Expand full comment
Koshmarov's avatar

"the American audience was invited to pick whichever rationale they preferred"

...to the extent to which they paid attention, which wasn't vastly.

Thank you for your service! Would you like to know more?

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

They prefer amnesia regarding anything unpleasant.

Expand full comment
LMS's avatar

It's all their fault, ANYONE in government, elected or hired. We never wanted this but when does it matter what the citizens want.

Expand full comment
Koshmarov's avatar

You can't vote against the perpetual war and expect success. Try it and see.

Somehow the pacifist Trump voters are the saddest of all to me. I don't mean "pathetic" in a derogatory sense at all -- I think that they are well-meaning people who expected him to deliver on campaign promises he clearly did not deliver on. The Pentagon is a tough nut to crack -- in the bon mot of the people who work there, "a self-licking ice-cream cone."

Expand full comment
IndependentThinker's avatar

Donald Trump tried...and tried...and tried to deliver on his campaign promises but the entire deep state hated his guts for trying and threw everything they could think of or fabricate against him to thwart his efforts. The man has my deepest respect and admiration for standing tall and continuing to fight for the America and American people he loved.

Expand full comment
Rather Curmudgeonly's avatar

Trump had it in his power to cashier any General (or appointee) that thwarted him; he had plenty to choose from. What he lacked was the spine (or balls) to follow through.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

It would have been better if he had no loved ones for the cabal to target and destroy if he had. Fine line to walk there, for sure.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

So the cabal was going to target and destroy Trump's loved ones? Interesting. Which loved ones? Destroy how? When did this all happen? And why didn't it happen? Is there any tangible proof for any of this? Do we know whether the cabal threatened previous presidents and their loved ones? Or even Biden and his loved ones? Also, if Trump was aware of the cabal before the 2016 election, why did he even run in the first place? And if he was brave enough not to be intimidated by the cabal, why did he do so little while in office?

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

Really? Look what happened with Comey

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

The permanent government is made up of the financiers like Goldman Sachs, and big business, including the military industrial complex, and the intelligence services. The rest of it is just playing musical chairs with Congress, the president, etc.

The people we elect serve the permanent government, or are quickly shown they will have no career without doing so. We only choose the people who have almost no power to change anything. The permanent government is not elected, of course. It is there, term after term.

What the establishment wants in politicians is simply people who will act as courtiers to those members of the permanent government, and keep the money flowing in the right direction. Trump was deemed too erratic to do this. He was an unknown, un-vetted by the keepers of the orthodoxy of the elite. That's why the horror at his election.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Funny how the deep state didn't put up a fight when Trump passed things that Republicans want (like tax cuts) but fought him tooth and nail when he tried to pass things that Democrats want (infrastructure, better health care). It's almost as if this deep state is a pro-Republican and anti-Democrat deep state.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Your name says it all.

Expand full comment
Koshmarov's avatar

Hey, I think it/she/he has had some good things to say. I'm not the master genius of all time and I don't run things around here, but a rule of thumb that has served me well is that when you engage in ad hominem, you're losing.

This comment section would be incredibly boring if we ran all dissenters out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered. First of all, we would be suffering a deficit of tar and feathers.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

If you want to champion for smug, thinly disquised divisive rhetoric that ensures people keep fighting each other and prevents them from recognizing the big picture- thereby keeping the status quo comfortable, have at it.

Expand full comment
Koshmarov's avatar

I already regret making that comment and being a self-appointed hall monitor. Discussion here, though, is generally (although not invariably) civil, and I think many of us like it that way.

All I'm trying to say is that you, I, and shallowfocus have an equal right to comment; it's a free forum (until MT decides to shut it down). I don't think name-calling is helpful to the exchange of ideas. That's it.

The temperature of this comment thread seems a little bit hotter than usual; it may be that many have had some personal stake in the outcome of America's longest undeclared war. (Do we get to count the Cold War?)

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

I"m no fan of Trump, but the intelligence services, in coordination with the Democratic Party, undermined him from Day 1. As if that isn't horror enough (think about it: the CIA trying to run the U.S. like it was El Salvador), the Democrats then convinced millions he was a Russian agent. Instead of, you know, trying to figure out why they lost.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Again, you're assuming that this "horror" somehow only existed during the Trump presidency. If the deep state magically appeared on the day Trump was elected, how did it ever burrow, uh, deep enough to become the deep state? It makes zero sense. So either the deep state has always existed and has always run the US like it was El Salvador *and is still running the US like it was El Salvador* - or the deep state is just a silly fairytale that conspiracy theorists tell their grandchildren. Take your pick.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Or maybe this deep state has certain values that are antithetical to the postures Democrats make.

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

Polls show the current rank and file of Democrats love the deep state, while the GOP are against them. This is a complete flip from the 1960s. I think the Democrats know who their friends are.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

So the deep state's are antithetical to the Democrats' values but align perfectly with the Republicans' values? Well yes, that's exactly what I tried to say. The deep state is deeply Republican.

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

Who says Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) have "values?"

Anyone who identifies/registers as a capital-D Democrat or capital-R Republican has already chosen to put party over real values.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

You don't want to call it "values"? Great. The Republicans for the last 40 years have been very consistent about wanting lower and lower taxes. Even while they flip flopped on everything else, they stayed consistent on that. So what is that if not a value?

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

Read My Lips... no values.

Expand full comment
Diogenes's avatar

I see what you did there.

Pretty clever.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Then what are they if not values? This isn't a trick question. Tax cuts are a Republican obsession, it's basically the only subject all Republicans can agree on. It's not a value? Great. What would you call this phenomena then?

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I wouldn't put it that way. It's aligned with its own interests which you choose to bucketize as Republican.

The truth is that it couldn't care less about party.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

..... nor does it *need to.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Okay, great. What are its interests? And who are the human individuals that the deep state is composed of, while we're at it?

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

A whole bunch of careerists that fill out higher ranking GS slots and SES slots. Unified by a common interest in self-preservation and certain policy goals. They want their confirmed leaders to be alumni of their environment. They don't think of themselves as evil or anything; they are convinced they know better, though.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

And the only president in history that this deep state even tried to bring down is Trump? Sounds unlikely.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

True facts right here. Ron Paul was anti-war and labeled a crazy. Tusli Gabbard is anti-war and is called a RUSSIAN ASSET!

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Ron Paul voted for the war in 2001, just like everyone else. The only one who voted against it was Barbara Lee.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

The war on terror was a lot more than authorization to get Bin Laden.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

This withdrawal/collapse was created by Trump. Absent him, we'd still be expending corpses in Afghanistan with no end in sight.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Oh, bullshit.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Who signed the agreement? Who set the date for May? Who extended the date and now looks like an asshole?

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Who canceled the Keystone pipeline immediately upon assuming office? Who canceled the boarder wall ASAP as well? And Biden somehow couldnтАЩt take a different action on a FP decision as every other President has done when they didnтАЩt alike their predecessors deals and plans? Now who looks like an asshole? Your TDS is no longer covering your behind here.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

So Afghanistan is Biden's fault because Biden didn't undo what Trump did? Okay, sure, why not.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

What are you, like 14?

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

I'm seriously asking. You're saying that Trump fucked up Afghanistan, but it's Biden's fault for not undoing Trump's deal? That's your grand theory of the fall of Kabul?

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Don't put words in my mouth to try and bolster your ludicrous and TDS agenda-driven assertion.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Not unless he wanted to make a new intervention with a lot more soldiers, no. The small force in-country wasn't going to fare well against the Taliban.

He let his advisers talk him into the date extension.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I don't understand what you mean here. Trump kissed the ass of Kim Jong-Un, Putin, Erdogan, the Taliban, basically everyone that the security state would have fought gladly. No one thinks ass-kissing is good, but I got my vote's worth out of him. He ended the Afghan war, finally. True, he didn't do it in a triumphalist way, but he did do it in a way that was really hard to undo. In the end, Biden blinked.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

And oh by the way, I give Biden credit for blinking in the end. He could have sent brigades in and fought it out, but he said 'fuck no' to that, I presume.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Actually it's exactly what the citizens want. Remember the 2004 election? It was the only election in the last few decades when the Republican president won the popular vote. And why? Because the voters overwhelmingly supported Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

In early 2002, public support for invading Afghanistan and going to war with Iraq was over 80%. It was nauseating how people lined up behind the MSM to support it. (Much like a current soon to be catastrophic situation that we are in, only this time the sheep have actually offered themselves and their children up to the sacrificial, тАЬexperimentalтАЭ altar.) I guess next, the American people will be pouring gasoline over themselves and lighting a match. Cult USA.

Expand full comment
IndependentThinker's avatar

You are spot-on, Candis.

It is horrifying how QUICKLY, WILLINGLY, and EAGERLY millions of people will UNQUESTIONINGLY do what a person identified as an "expert" tells them to do.

In an era when people are neither educated to think for themselves nor encouraged to do their own research, people have become intellectually lazy; hence, "experts," media news readers, and bureaucrats become demigods to be unquestioningly believed and followed obediently.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised...Hitler demonstrated that phenomenon in 1930s Germany. During the economically difficult times in Germany, it took a very short time to create the mass hysteria and Hitler worship that swept over Germany with devastating results.

(NO, I'm NOT comparing today's situation to the Holocaust--I'm comparing how easy it has been to whip up mass hysteria and obedience.)

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

LOL, you people

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I said it above but people in general always support war until the casualties start biting. It's the patriotic thing to do, after all. If they think the war has a point, the casualties won't be as much of a deterrent, but this thing never had much point.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

Which is why the American public was prevented from seeing the coffins coming back from W's Iraq war.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I personally found the most heartbreaking thing was seeing the effect being a CAO had on the NCOs I knew.

In other words, you can't hide it from everyone.

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

Except, there are plenty of Americans who thought they would (and wanted to) see a Hiroshima ending, not the copout that played out.

Expand full comment
DC Reade's avatar

You mean, like, the XBox version of Hiroshima of American adolescent video gamer fantasies. You know, gather all of those Talibans into a five square mile area, and then- NUKE!

A-bombs would be just the ticket for the limestone geography and underground aquifer of Afghanistan, no doubt. As long as you don't live on the same planet.

You're probably right that a lot of Americans would prefer that outcome to "the copout".

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

I'm not saying I agree with these Americans. I just know that many preferred that outcome. Lake America! Fuck Yeah!

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@publius_x

That is because *far too many people are ignorant of the fact that a "Hiroshima" ending is no longer possible. We don't *make nukes that small anymore. With micro-circuitry, a bomb equal in power to that used in Hiroshima could be made the size of a baseball and left on any park bench. The Hiroshima bomb was a small H Bomb.

We don't have anything that "restricted" in power in the era of A-Bombs.

We didn't even know about what our own nukes would do that had very little to do with size and power. It was not until the 1990s that Carl Sagan introduced us to "Nuclear Winter". The concept that even during an exchange using *small (at that time) nuclear weapons, the detritus *alone kicked up by such weapons would BLOCK OUT THE SUN for at least 30 days. Imagine what world *crops would look like after 30 days without the Sun. Recognize, also that weather circumnavigates the Globe. We cannot A-bomb one place, without having that radiation carried by the weather, blowing right back around into our *own faces ! This is what Sagan called Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. Even Reagan got on board with that idea. I worked with these weapons during the Vietnam War, and I can tell you that when I got out in 1971, the U.S. had no CLUE about the scientific "points" Sagan made about the insanity of these weapons in the Nineties.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Point out that A-bomb and H-bomb are reversed in this post. Hiroshima was a gun-type uranium bomb, Nagasaki was an implosion plutonium bomb. Today's weapons are more like the Nagasaki bomb with multiple stages that are set off by the energy budget of the previous stage. Usually lithium is used which converts into tritum as part of the reaction.

Interestingly enough, the use of a very large warhead is considered a waste nowadays because so much of the energy is reflected into space. Most US warheads are no larger than 1MT at their maximum setting. Contrast this to the Tsar Bomba on Novaya Zelmya at 50MT or Bravo on Bikini at 15MT. I think the Russians retain a FOBS which is pretty large, considering what it does, damaging RF infrastructure over a wide area. No ground detonation there.

The military view of MAD mostly has to do with deterrence. We don't fire nuclear weapons at Russia because we don't want our homeland turned into charred ash, and vice versa. Our allies believe that we would back them in the event of a nuclear threat. Certain countries that don't have a backer felt compelled to build their own arsenals - thinking the NKs, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa (the only one on the list who has disarmed).

Stopping the Iranians is futile, they'll only feel safe with a deterrent.

The environmental effects are not part of the decisionmaking, though I know you are correct about the environmental impact. That said, worldwide, something like 2,056 nuclear tests have been conducted. Some large and above ground, some small and/or below ground. Every one generated fallout and fission byproducts. Did you know that they actually go down to the German High Seas Fleet battleships scuttled in Scapa Flow (in 1919) and cut out pieces of steel from them to get samples without the radiation profile of all steels made today?

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

THANKS, MAN ! Point in re A-Bomb and H-Bomb was indeed reversed ! My Bad ! ;-D In my day, lithium was not part of the process, which is why we had official gear made to "sniff" for tritium before we dared open (tritium poisoning) the magazine door where the "special weapons" were stored. Glad to hear they "cleared" *that up !

HBI: "Interestingly enough, the use of a very large warhead is considered a waste nowadays because so much of the energy is reflected into space."

At least partly, yes. The wep can be set for Air, Surface, or "sub-surface" (underwater) release. The Surface Release wastes the most energy, but it would wipe out a city and leave a forty mile-wide crater in its place.

This is considered "directional release", and in this aspect, the spec/wep is much like simple prima-cord.

The air release was phenomenal, bcuz the blast was directed down and out from the target - max destruction. Hiroshima was an air release. Timed to take place just *above the surface. Surface release digs the "trench", but then, as you mention, wastes much of the "payload" by *aiming it straight up to space.

Underwater release was by *far the safest for me, the aircraft and the crew. Can you imagine an "air" drop from a P-3 that does *not feature also vaporizing the plane ? ;-D

It is not like we could come in and perform an "over-the-shoulder" delivery, such as the attack fighter-bombers used. So we just prayed that we would never be ordered to perform *other than an underwater release.

MAD was not even considered in my day, and when it came up, it really *was about releasing excess radiation,

such that even if you "got" the enemy, leaving him unable to respond, you were *still going to "eat it" in a couple of days when the weather brings it around to you.

Obviously worse with the more weps that *do release on both sides.

The type of MAD that you mention, was considered, but it was considered to be for "wimps" ! I kid you not ! This was still when we believed that these exchanges *were survivable, provided only that you released *your goodies first ! We thought we could flatten the enemy, and if they could not respond, there WERE no further consequences. As I say, we could barely *spell "radiation" properly back in those days !

Another potential "oopsie" Sagan pointed out, was that there are certain places on the Earth (usually subduction zones) where the surface of the Earth may only *be five to seven miles thick, making *big spec/weps highly contraindicated.

Yes, I did know that warheads were *much smaller these days. Once we heard Sagan, twenty years after I got out, the choice was to either give up spec/weps, OR to make them the "size of a BB gun!" You KNOW we were not going to grow up, and put up these insane weps away ! ;-D Hate what it *already says about the environment, though.

No, I did not know about, and had never heard of, the Germans and the Scap Flow ! Something to look up !

Thanks, man, your knowledge seems to be literally inexhaustible !

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

The point is, they donтАЩt think. They let the тАШWizardsтАЩ do their thinking for them.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@Candis

Yes. The combination of first being *woefully uniformed, and the active state of NOT thinking on top of THAT, is the reason that we don't want people who cannot comprehend nuclear weapons (like Trump, who wanted to know, since we put so much money into nukes, why don't we *use them more often) to have access to the nuclear release codes.

Expand full comment
IndependentThinker's avatar

Our citizens are so dumbed down and conditioned to unquestioningly believe anything the corporate media or elites tell them, that most of them are voting for only a familiar name or a "pretty" face and nothing else.

Expand full comment
Sue's avatar

Most citizens get their news from FaceBook. God help us.

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

And so do you, probably. If you have to actually say "Independent Thinker," it's most likely not true. But you can aspire to it.

Expand full comment
Koshmarov's avatar

"Because the voters overwhelmingly supported Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Don't forget the voter support for state-sanctioned torture. Ooooohh yeah. Fun country.

I'm not here to defend John Kerry's entire political record, but the trashing of a guy who actually went to Vietnam as opposed to a guy who couldn't show up for his ANG duties was pretty wild. It worked.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

Kerry was kind of a douchebag who hurt himself more than anyone else did. If he'd been a little more circumspect about the things he said coming back to the US after his time in Vietnam, he would have had less trouble later. He had to know that whatever he said or did, the Vietnam thing was going to follow its own trajectory. At least, he should have known.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@HBI

Kerry, as a Skipper of a River Patrol boat, was doing one of the *MOST dangerous jobs *open to a Naval Officer in Vietnam, present day armchair generals aside. What he did and said coming back from Vietnam took more *STONES than the Establishment could handle,

but it all HAD to be said.

Ending the Vietnam War was not *about "go along to get along" with the Establishment.

The only place Kerry ever failed, was when he did *not produce his Naval Combat War Record as a silent rebuttal to the "Swift Boat" hyenas coming after his military service. But, apparently, he was just too much a patrician to get down in the "mud, the blood and the beer" with the "Swift Boaters". Pity that. Don't run for the office if you can't maneuver with the opposition.

Far from being a "douchebag", Kerry was an *officer willing to tell the *Establishment where they could "put it". With 58,000 American *dead to represent, the Establishment needed to HEAR what Kerry had to say, whether they were willing to "applaud it" or not !

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

He comes off as a douchebag. This isn't about anything in particular he said, it's about his general demeanor.

Apparently he rubbed his fellows in the Navy the wrong way or they wouldn't have stood up and shat all over him during 2004.

Do you really think Kerry shortened the war with what he said and did? I doubt it. The war wasn't going to end until Nixon found a way to do it that protected him politically.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

Oh, please, man ..... those clowns were not *his crew, they didn't even KNOW him. There were a paid "oppo" crew. And what they said to Congress about River Patrol Boats was just HILARIOUS. Either they had never *BEEN on a PBR, or they were just outright LYING. My vote is for the latter. (PBR is correct. The Navy, in its infinite wisdom, has to classify everything *backwards. PBR, then, stands for "Patrol Boat, River", (one each ;-D)

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

The people who liked him said nice things about him, the people who didn't shat on him. Most people didn't want to get involved. The usual.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I checked up on it, at least two Swift Boat guys served in his crew.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI, well, then I accept that, and I will stand fully corrected. However, if we are now of the level of "logic" that we are *judging warriors on the way we *think they look, I say that Mike Tyson looks like an *absolute maniac ! You will, however, fully understand, I am sure, when I am more than content to allow *YOU to inform him of that fact ! ;-D ;-D Hey, *somebody's gotta tell the guy, right ? ;-D Might as *well be you !

I am not too shook on your Kerry revelation, (thanks for looking it up) of course, due to the fact that it was *politics, not a matter, OR the level of proof required for, a Courts Martial.

Unless something really *was hinky, however, I still wonder why Kerry did not do more in his own defense. If he thought the whole thing was "beneath", then, the results of that arrogance is what we call "Karma". If he was guilty ....... whatever.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

p.s. No, what Kerry did, did NOT hurry the end of the war. But, his INTENT was to hurry the end of the war, and (other than my own pilot) Kerry was the ONLY officer I had *EVER heard with the stones to say what he thought about the war OUT LOUD. Not only OUT LOUD, but on TV, and directly *TO CONGRESS, which, after McNamara, most needed to *hear this from a Commissioned Officer.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

And accomplished jack diddly squat. I mean, Billy Mitchell, Smedley Butler, lots of lesser lights got the same treatment essentially that Kerry did. Politicians distanced themselves from him; fellow servicemen were divided on his remarks. He _should have known_ both the impact of his words and the likely result. I'm also pretty sure he could have made the same criticisms without making himself a big fat target. That was my point from the start. True, it would have been less emotionally satisfying but no one could have said he didn't do his duty in that scenario.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

HBI

We have a logical fallacy in play here. A textbook example of "non-sequitur". Even the SEALS do not have a perfect "mission accomplished" rate. The measure of a warrior is the willingness to risk his *ass for "the cause". Not how many times he turns in a "perfect ten" on the field.

I submit the *high likelihood that Kerry was *perfectly willing to RISK everything you mention. He was not, and clearly did not *need to be, a career officer, "working for the pay, OR the professional applause of his military peers, or the approval of the civilians in his social circle.

And, above all, there is a level to which I will merely allude here. Kerry is Irish. I am Irish on both sides, with some Choktaw tossed in on my Dad's side.

The reason that Celts in general, and the Irish in particular, are *so sought after as Cops, is that Celts, unlike people of *any other nationality, are WILLING to *DIE over what we call "The Principle of the Thing". Employers love that, bcuz they can manipulate it to high Hell.

It often does not make *sense to other people, it often does not even make "sense" to us. But we KNOW - Irish men *and Irish women - ( to include my two twin red-headed sisters) WILL literally *DIE for the "principle" of the thing.

Even Caesar could not figure that phenomenon out. He invaded Scotland TWICE. We have his personal diary from the time he invaded Scotland the *second time. He had the question that you seem to have. He could not figure out WHY these damned Scots would FIGHT HIM to the Death, *each time he invaded. (And his Second Invasion was staged *specifically in an attempt to *answer this question for himself.) Because mass death IS what he gave the Scots ! In his diary, he talks about invading countries that are *worth fighting for, that give him tribute in gold, in figs, in all manner of tribute *without fighting him.

The Scots live on a bunch of *rocks sticking up out of the foggy ocean. Their land grows nothing but clover and grass for feeding sheep. PBS had the diary, and they made a special on this, reading the translated diary as the program progressed. They showed the Scots being slaughtered on their own battlefield. At the base of pic, was the name of the battlefield, rendered in Gaelic.

Suddenly, the Gaelic unscrambled into English to read "Our Land". Then *I understood what poor Caesar never did. The Scots were NOT dying over good land. They were NOT dying *directly to protect their families, they were Dying over the PRINCIPLE of the thing. OUR LAND ! Nobody but a Celt *gets that we *HAVE to do that. Whether or NOT it is "good strategy". And, by gawd we *WILL do that, because it is in our DNA.

So, I fully understand why you saw Kerry as a fool. It *never will occur to me to see him that way. He did what he did, as I *fully understood, over the *principle of the thing. In my gut, please believe me when I say that he *had no choice to do it any OTHER way, full phalanx of 'woulda coulda shoulda s' aside.

I got the *shit beat out of me during a simulated Concentration Camp (SERE School) again, and *again when I did not *have to, but I could NOT violate the Principle of the thing.

SERE is Search, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape. Five-day school simulating being shot down behind enemy lines.

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

That, and the windsurfing video, and the flying private on Ms. Ketchup's dime... lots of stuff not to like.

Expand full comment
Thomas Hancock's avatar

He also played hockey at the time. An image of him playing hockey, a non-homosexual sport for regular guys, may have improved his "image." There was no hockey picture.

Expand full comment
Diogenes's avatar

My respect for Kerry has actually grown some over the years.

I'm aware of his many shortcomings and understand why he is disliked, but I don't think he gets enough credit for things like looking into the the connection between the CIA and selling crack in LA during the 1980's (his senate investigation was in 1986). His hearing landed like a thud. No one in the media wanted to pick it up. I think it scarred him and he gave up investigating 3 letter agencies after that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Committee_report

Findings

The Kerry Committee report found that "the Contra drug links included... Payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."[5]

Expand full comment
Koshmarov's avatar

"My respect for Kerry has actually grown some over the years."

Same. He's in the system, of course, and is not going to defy its boundaries.

I thought he was a far better Secretary of State than HRC -- not that that's a high bar.

Expand full comment
Diogenes's avatar

Ya, Hillary had all the foreign intervention courage of a diplomat who had never been shot at. For all his other failures, Kerry did not suffer from that.

Expand full comment
Atma's avatar

@Areslent

'Deed he did NOT ! People with Swift Boat backgrounds are *daily working as sitting ducks. Both banks of the river are BURIED in jungle. Shots start coming at you, and you cannot even SEE the assailant. Thank gawd the VC/NVA would occasionally use tracer rounds to check on their own accuracy while also somewhat giving away their own position.

But this fact of *being a sitting duck out there, was the *reason that PBR crews came down river just *blasting their Doors, or their Hendrix ! It isn't as if the enemy does not *already have your position "scoped in" ! Tough duty. I have nothing but admiration for PBR crews.

Expand full comment
Carol Jones's avatar

Yup you elect who mirrors you-- are you swayed by tax cuts -- then there is a man, are you swayed by patriotism--then there is a man. Its a reflection of the people. Everywhere this is the case-- just really obvious in the US

Expand full comment
Readersaurus's avatar

On polling-day---unless, of course, the electoral processes are defrauded, in which case it doesn't matter even on election-days.

"A republic, madam---if you can keep it." (attributed to Benj. Franklin, delegate)

Expand full comment
Sue's avatar

As long as we have Citizens United citizens will have no voice. Only corporations will get what they want.

Expand full comment
shallowfocus's avatar

Well, yes. This is a feature of American "democracy", not a bug.

Expand full comment
Madjack's avatar

Obviously not. There is a lot of blame to go around. The Biden administration biggest error was in execution. They should have secured our people and our material (weapons)

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Yeah, well..IтАЩm certain they had their reasons for not lifting a finger to do the most OBVIOUS thing in the world.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

They were hoping against hope that someone would find an excuse to keep fighting there. That's why the date extension and such. Figured they could extend it indefinitely, but they didn't count on the Taliban being so...effective.

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

not true. Bush and Cheney are two guys.

Expand full comment
Danno's avatar

And Obama and Biden are two more guys.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

And Susan Rice and Samantha Power are two gals.

Expand full comment
Koshmarov's avatar

Rice and Power in a foxhole together would make for a riotous sitcom on the order of M*A*S*H. I want Armando Iannucci directing it. "Oh, shit, a grenade! what do we DO with it?!"

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Except Susan would deny it was a grenade, and claim it was a video.

Expand full comment
IndependentThinker's avatar

Don't forget: Valerie Jarrett and Michelle make a third and fourth gal.

Expand full comment
publius_x's avatar

And Caitlyn Jenner makes a... wait a minute.. is this the Newsom Recall thread?

Expand full comment
rtj's avatar

Dunno how much Michelle actually has to do with any of it. But i've been naive before.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

At least because of VJ I can sleep peacefully at night knowing Iran stopped developing nukes.

Expand full comment