Posted on 09/12/2019 3:00:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
It's now been nearly a full generation since Sept. 11, 2001. There are people currently serving in the U.S. military who weren't born when that act of evil took place -- and the military still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, the home base of the Taliban-supported al Qaida attack on the United States that took nearly 3,000 American lives.
With time comes forgetfulness. The same period of time has now elapsed since Sept. 11 that elapsed between the end of World War I (1918) and the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles (1936). Believing that World War I had ended all war, the Allied powers did nothing. That same year, Germany concluded its Axis alliance with Italy, as well as its Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. Less than three years later, the world would be at war.
Forgetfulness is easy, because immediate costs are painful and steep. American foreign policy nearly always vacillates between two poles: isolationism and reactive interventionism. The American people (correctly) don't like the consequences of isolationism -- increased attacks on America and her allies, maximization of influence by our enemies -- but we also dislike (correctly) the consequences of maintaining a global military presence. It was easy to tear into the Clinton administration's weakness on defense in the aftermath of the Cold War, but there was almost no political cost in it for Clinton at the time. The sepia glow of media coverage regarding Barack Obama hasn't been darkened by his single-minded quest to minimize American influence around the world. CARTOONS | Robert Ariail View Cartoon
But every so often, we're reminded that the world is filled with enemies.
We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?
The answer, of course, is no. That's why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times -- a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.
The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?
So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.
Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn't replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.
It's now been nearly a full generation since Sept. 11, 2001. There are people currently serving in the U.S. military who weren't born when that act of evil took place -- and the military still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, the home base of the Taliban-supported al Qaida attack on the United States that took nearly 3,000 American lives.
With time comes forgetfulness. The same period of time has now elapsed since Sept. 11 that elapsed between the end of World War I (1918) and the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles (1936). Believing that World War I had ended all war, the Allied powers did nothing. That same year, Germany concluded its Axis alliance with Italy, as well as its Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. Less than three years later, the world would be at war.
Forgetfulness is easy, because immediate costs are painful and steep. American foreign policy nearly always vacillates between two poles: isolationism and reactive interventionism. The American people (correctly) don't like the consequences of isolationism -- increased attacks on America and her allies, maximization of influence by our enemies -- but we also dislike (correctly) the consequences of maintaining a global military presence. It was easy to tear into the Clinton administration's weakness on defense in the aftermath of the Cold War, but there was almost no political cost in it for Clinton at the time. The sepia glow of media coverage regarding Barack Obama hasn't been darkened by his single-minded quest to minimize American influence around the world.
But every so often, we're reminded that the world is filled with enemies.
We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?
The answer, of course, is no. That's why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times -- a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.
The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?
So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.
Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn't replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.
All of which means that American troops are likely to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Few politicians will be bold enough to simply state that truth. After all, when John McCain said as much in 2008, he was roundly mocked by Barack Obama -- the same Obama who escalated the war in Afghanistan and retained thousands of troops there, despite promising withdrawal repeatedly. But our politicians should be brave enough to recognize that a weaker America on the world stage means a more vulnerable America at home. If we didn't learn that lesson on 9/11, we're bound to repeat it.
But every so often, we're reminded that the world is filled with enemies.
We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?
The answer, of course, is no. That's why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times -- a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.
The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?
So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.
Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn't replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.
All of which means that American troops are likely to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Few politicians will be bold enough to simply state that truth. After all, when John McCain said as much in 2008, he was roundly mocked by Barack Obama -- the same Obama who escalated the war in Afghanistan and retained thousands of troops there, despite promising withdrawal repeatedly. But our politicians should be brave enough to recognize that a weaker America on the world stage means a more vulnerable America at home. If we didn't learn that lesson on 9/11, we're bound to repeat it.
Uh, pretty sure that is actually what the word “Monarchy” means.
Pearl Harbor day was not a national event until then. Americans were too busy working third shift and inventing nuclear weapons.
So, a bunch of people lighting candles and weeping eighteen years after the joint Saudi-Pakistan attack on New York and Virginia obviously have not learned the lesson Admiral Halsey expressed so well with his fleet signal on December 7, 1941:
"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs".
+1.
+100
Like I said, you are wrong
OK. I guess what you are saying is there was a coup we are unaware of in the Saudi Royal Family and only the rebellious fraction was behind 911? Is there evidence of a coup in that 2001 timeframe?
It doesn’t matter whether the on-paper government of Saudi Arabia (or Pakistan, for that matter) ordered and directed the attack.
What matters is that their nations were and are at war with our nation, and that all of the blood and all of the treasure expended since 9-11-01 has not even begun to break them to our will.
And, to top it off, we killed the main Arab enemy of the Saudis, just to say “thank you”.
For what?
Just a hunch on my part but I can’t help but wonder if a number of things we now consider to be unrelated actually are very related. The cover up of Saudi involvement in 911, Epstein, Hillary’s emails, #FusionCollusion, who knows what else. It’s the same people involved again and again. Mueller and Comey both had to have known it was the Saudis, they were both Directors of the FBI during the timeframe. How is it the CIA and FBI, apparently, had no interest in or knowledge of what Epstein was doing? We know for a fact Strzok and McCabe were aware of #FusionCollusion. Just my humble opinion but I can’t help wondering if this isn’t the dilemma Barr is facing. He can’t pursue #FusionCollusion because he can’t reveal just a part of this mess because it is a thread that is woven into decades of corruption and cover up.
Yep. Put a muslim in the White House two times. Put muslims in Congress and everywhere else. Bringing in young muslims males of fighting age solo by the troopship full.
EVERY day; 'CHOICE' kills about 3,000 future Americans.
And now; we are angry at MUSLIMS?
Saudi Arabia is not at war with the USA and is in fact a strong ally
No less than the President of the United States stood before the entire Arab world in a meeting in Riyadh and proclaimed the relationship in no uncertain terms.
I expect you did not hear because you dogmatically refused to listen
“I expect you did not hear because you dogmatically refused to listen”
No, I heard it, all right, and I thought it was incredibly stupid.
(Please note that Melania is in the photo wearing long sleeves but no burka)
Second row should begin with the appropriate portrait for the caption “Elected POTUS November 2008”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.