MDresden

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Please comment, Mr. Dresden, on

1. Why Mr. Bin Ladin had a vandetta against the US. What do you believe his motivations were.

2. Why the Muslim world generally, per this study by Universit of Maryland (the largest of its kind), tends to see eye to eye with Mr. Bin Ladin's gripes:

"A recurring narrative in focus groups and in polls is that the US has put forward the liberal ideals of democracy and national sovereignty and then effectively abandoned those principles by promoting undemocratic governments in the Muslim world. Thus Muslims feel betrayed by the US."

http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sppu...0and%20America

3. Why you repeatedly claim that the US had no interest in permanent bases and occupation when the lead ranking man on the armed services committee, Mr. Graham, and General Petreaus appear to disagree:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/wo...6petraeus.html

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lindsey-g...eliot-spitzer/

4. Why do you repeatedly tout the the claim that America is building lasting infrastructure, when, in fact this is proven as not true. The reason is that you pass off the infrastructure to corrupt, effeminate, incompetent elites like Dr. Spanta who have no semblance of meritocratic leadership:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010302175.html

Title? US Funded Infrastructure Deteriorates Once Under Afghan control

"Roads, canals and schools built in Afghanistan as part of a special U.S. military program are crumbling under Afghan stewardship..."

5. Why is it that despite your nation building efforts and braggadio about your less than stellar accomplishments in that regard you have the following to contend with as the reality:

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/07/01/w...st-afghan-war/

"Well, no such thing occurred. As the trend line for these accomplishments rose, the positive trend line for the Taliban-led insurgency rose faster. The once southern-Afghanistan-based insurgency spread across the nation; the Taliban and its allies struck in Kabul at their pleasure; and the large military/social-work operation to clear insurgents from Marjah District in Helmand Province—framed as the test case to validate US-NATO strategy—became, in McChrystal’s words, an endless, ‘bleeding ulcer’ as the Taliban has gradually reasserted control there."

6. What are your views on Dr. Ron Paul and his arguments against intervening on behalf of these half wits who cannot do their own dirty work (i.e. Mr. Karzai, Mr. Spanta and the link who fled Afghanistan with their trousers in a pinch when the Russians invaded and left the poorest people to fight and lead) and require the American Military to do it for them.

[MDresden]

All I got to say is watch the news as we begin to pull out. You'll understand once we are done we are done. We'll probably have a small intel base located here and there I would imagine...but nothing like all the bases we have right now.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

All I got to say is watch the news as we begin to pull out. You'll understand once we are done we are done. We'll probably have a small intel base located here and there I would imagine...but nothing like all the bases we have right now.

Sure Matt,

But that isnt the point. You are very happy we killed Osama Bin Ladin no doubt, but you do not understand the complexities and have no idea what or who you think you killed. For that matter, you have little idea of what actually fueled Bin Ladin and the worldwide Islamic Insurgency that keeps America unsafe and spending trillions. For instance, the Saudi Kingdom is chaired by autocrats that we keep in power. We basically prop them up, we armed the Bahrainis, and we have little idea that these people are probably much more imperialistic then a defensive jihaadist like Mr Bin Ladin. It is the Saudi monarchy that is actually funding the radicalization and misinformation amongst Muslim youth, not Mr. Bin Ladin. His gripes appear to be rooted in history.

The problem with your approach to things is that you simply state again and again: "he killed 3000 of us." As I noted, have you thought about how many people our policies, weapons to autocrats, and interventions killed in his world? Ill give you a hint... its far greater than 3000.

So why are you so happy that you treated the symptom but not the disease?

I urge you to read this article Toramana posted, and then followup by Reading Michael Scheuer's book Imperial Hubris and his biography of Mr Bin Ladin. Mr Scheuer, since you watch Fox news you would know, is a regular guest on FOX (Beck, Hannity, etc). He was the leader of the Bin Ladin Unit at the CIA and give 2 sitting presidents 6 chances to kill him:

Here is a portion of Imperial Hubris:

"his declaration of war against the United States marks the resumption of the
struggle for religious dominance that began in the seventh century. For him and his followers, this is a moment of opportunity. Today, America exemplifies the civilization and embodies the leadership of the House of War, and like Rome and Byzantium it has become degenerate and demoralized, ready to be overthrown. But despite its weakness, it is also dangerous... for members of Al Qaeda, it is the seduction of America and its prolifigate dissolute way of life that represents the greatest threat to the kind of Islam they want to impose on their fellow Muslims."

At this point we are faced again with the chance to incorrectly answer the question “Why do Muslims hate us?” Do they hate us for what we think and how we live, or do they hate us for what we do in the Muslim world? The answer, per Professor Lewis, would be mostly the former, amounting to the same kind of ill defined threat posed by America and the West to Islam that Ayatollah Khomeini railed so shrilly against for more than a decade. Khomeini’s rhetoric about the threat posed to Islam by evil, degenerate, and irreligious Americans fueled some sporadic acts of anti US violence, but never spawned anything but never stimulated anything resembling a jihad. Indeed, the most destructive anti US act of the Khomeini era—the bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut in 1983—was conducted by Hizballah using Khomeini’s rhetoric to cover its simple goal of preventing the US military from establishing a long term presence in Lebanon. Notwithstanding Khomeini, Hizballah attacked because of what the United States did—intervened in Lebanon—not because of what it is or thought. Given the similarity between the failed civilization thesis and the ayatollah’s indictment, the brilliant analyst Ralph Peters creates a portrait of Bin Ladin as a Sunni Khomeini, violently lashing out hither and yon in an effort to destroy an evil civilization and its lifestyle. “Consider a minor player on the worldstage that has been hyped into international stardom,” Peters wrote late in 2000,

"Osama bin Ladin is not waging a war against the West’s realities. He doesn’t know them. He struggle against a riveting, overwhelming, wildly skewed personal vision of the West, exemplified by an America that he has conjured from shreds of information and his own deepest fears… Mr Bin Ladin’s acolytes know little--often nothing—of the mundane West, but are galvanized by the psychologically rewarding opportunity to hate. Men of few earthly prospects, they imagine a divine mission for themselves. It is the summit of self gratification."

So by this point we have progressed from the ramifications of a railed civilization, and the anger it engenders to a Khomeini like hatred of America because of its “dissolute way of life” that seduced Muslims, to a group of young ignorant men with few “earthly prospects” who sustain themselves psychologically by hating and killing what they hate. The pay off, naturally, is Osama Bin Ladin the mad man. Again Ralph Peters paints the scene, this time from his excellent book, Beyond Terror, Strategy in a Changing World.

"Osama Bin Ladin is willing to die, but he wants a commensurate effect when he goes… In terms of religion, he imagines himself as Allah’s humble servant, but is in fact, an extreme egomaniac, “leading God from below.”
But [bin ladin] cannot be dealt with as a rational actor, since under the cunning surface, he is irrational in the extreme. His methods make cruel sense, but his goals are far beyond the demise of a particular regime or the recognition of a Palestinian state. He wants to destroy, at the least, a civilization he has cast as Satanic. He does not want to defeat the West—he wants to annihilate us. If he had the technology today, he would use it."

This line of analysis, as already noted, comes from excellent, and learned writers, and I am loathe to challenge or criticize those from whom I learned so much. Still I think these analyses miss the mark regarding Osama Bin Ladin. For nearly a decade now, Bin Ladin has demonstrated patience, brilliant planning, managerial expertise, sound strategic and tactical sense, admirable character traits, eloquence, and focused, limited war aims. He has never, to my knowledge, behaved or spoken in a way that could be described as “irrational in the extreme.” The term “irrational” it seems to me is better applied to Americans who have forgotten, or never learned, Nathan Bedford Forrest’s lesson that “war means fighting and fighting means killing,” and are horrified by the modest—compared to what is coming—casualties Bin Ladin has so far exacted.

There has been no similar reporting from those who know, fought alongside, served under, fought against, or interviewed him. To the contrary, Bin Ladin is much more frank—about Al Qaeda’s successes and, especially it defeats—and much less prone to hyperbole than many Western leaders who thunder denunciations of him. Professor Lewis and Mr. Peters may very well be correct that contemporary Islam is a failed civilization; Peters writes that the “Arab homelands of Islam” should be written off as “incapable of constructive change.” There are also probably millions of Muslims who blame the West for that failure and are eager to use indiscriminate violence in seeking revenge. Bin however, is not one of those individuals. “In the same way,” Bin ladin wrote in 2003, “I inform you of the good news that our ummah has been promised victory by Allah, but if this victory has become delayed, then it is due to our sins and out sitting back from helping the religion of Allah.”

Bin Ladin has consistently put the blame on the decrepit condition of Islamic civilization squarely on the Muslims themselves. He certainly damns the West for attacking Islam and accuses it of stealing Islam’s natural resources and trying to eliminate all Muslims, but he gives credit for the Crusader’s success to the fact that many Muslims have strayed from the path set down by Allah and his Prophet and failed to join a defensive jihad to defeat the West’s attacks and then work to restore the greatness of Islam. The enemies of Muslims—be they Americans, Christians, Jews, Polytheists—are dominating the Islamic world, according to Bin Ladin, because an insufficient number of Muslims have stood up and fought for their faith. Rather than taking the negative road of blaming non Muslims for the plight if Islam, bin Ladin has stuck resolutely to the positive message that the Islamic world cannot be defeated because Allah promised it victory if Muslims obeyed his words and the Prophet’s guidance. Yes Bin Ladin does blame others—especially the US led Crusaders—for attacking Islam, Muslims, and Muslim territory, but he claims that Muslims, if they return to Islam, have it in their power, and need help from no one but God, to annihilate the attackers. Bin Ladin, at the end of the day, is a happy warrior, a brilliant hunter-killer waging war to achieve precise, devastating, but limited goals. There is simply no evidence that he is vaingloriously trying to lead the world—Muslim and Christian, and other—to armegeddon. And it is for this reason that I, with respect, strongly disagree with those who apply the failed civilization theory to Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda. An armed, patient, and positive predator always is more dangerous and less prone to errors than the bomb throwing madman crazy for revenge."

[MDresden]

Simple. We sit and relax and wait then respond like rabid dogs...(to quote another post.)

[faye]

what aload of crap, b.a. one minute you are telling us , using mr scheuer to do it, what a big bad boogie man osam bin laden is. now you are justifying him. you claimed you want the young men of the us military, the joes and the mitch's, like you care, to be brought home. then you start banging on at this guy who says he is a us soldier.
you put him up on show like this to make him look stupid? why don't you just have quiet conversation with him? if you think he is naive, then try to educate him not do this stupid crap.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Simple. We sit and relax and wait then respond like rabid dogs...(to quote another post.)

So basically you damn the rest of the American populace to partake in a stupid game where we kill innocent people to sustain hegemony, while claiming to support freedom abroad, and then we strike like rabid dogs when one of their own gets pissed enough to want to fight? To do what? To sustain an empire that we did not want to build in the first place? To ensure that Lindsey Graham and David Petreus get their rocks off on "winning" where others have not won before? All the while we waste massive amounts of American treasure and enough blood to do exactly what they want us to do?

In the southern state where I grew up, people had bunkers of weaponry. If China or Mexico or any other nation intervened as we do in their affairs, these simple, religious, and pious Americans would stand up and fight... and they would stage an insurgency as well. How would you feel if they intervened in our affairs in such ways?

YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani

[BarakzaiAbdali]

what aload of crap, b.a. one minute you are telling us , using mr scheuer to do it, what a big bad boogie man osam bin laden is. now you are justifying him. you claimed you want the young men of the us military, the joes and the mitch's, like you care, to be brought home. then you start banging on at this guy who says he is a us soldier.
you put him up on show like this to make him look stupid? why don't you just have quiet conversation with him? if you think he is naive, then try to educate him not do this stupid crap.

You mis understood. Mr. Bin Ladin is not a big bad boogie. He is a response to our ACTIONS abroad. Mr. Paul is stating everything I believe. Mr Dresden, like General Petreus is an interventionist without an understanding of our history. Mr. Petreus though, appeared to understand the complexities, but he actively subverts doing the right thing and telling the American people the truth. It doesnt matter whether Matt is a soldier or not... he doesnt deserve automatic deference because of that. He swore an oath to defend the constitution and is failing in that oath because he is actively subverting what the founders preached. The reason why I will continue to do this publicly is that others ought to read the truth. Christ himself said: "I taught nothing in secret."

Moreover, Mr Dresen's signature quote shows how emotionally invested he is in the narrative that has been constructed where he is told, by the career generals that we are there to protect our shores here, which pure BS.

[MDresden]

"which pure BS." According to you...in this case it's a He Said/She Said argument. I think we're done here.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

"which pure BS." According to you...in this case it's a He Said/She Said argument. I think we're done here.

So basically you admit that you are there because you want to be... not because you are truly defending our freedom. I refuse to give you credit for that or take part in some jingoistic crap that elevates you to the level of a mini god (small g). Here is the pure BS defined, so we are not done here Sir:

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/11/01/g...ober-surprise/

[faye]

according to your mr scheueur obl was/is the biggest, baddest boogie man. don't you read his stuff that you been putting up. if you were sincere you would know that a soldier is indoctrinated with your governments bs and you would have more sympathy. you just like to be able to make a fool of people.
you seem pretty confused to me. one minute you don't care about afghanistan, like azmal says, the next minute you do.
but aren't you and your family also, like karzai, effeminates sitting out the wars in afghanistan, in another land?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Or the BS here where General Petreus admits that it is our actions, and our relationship with israel that is creating the Bin Ladin phenomena:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/petrae...ng-wiesel.html

Yet, once confronted by the fact his career is about to go down the same direction as the honest and brilliant Chaz Freeman:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html

He did not deliver and stay honest like Freeman did...he wants so badly to be President, that he quickly reneged on the truth of "why they hate us."

Michael expands on this here:

YouTube - Bill Maher interviews Michael Scheuer

[MDresden]

Scheuer is like a comedy hour...it's only his take on everything.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

according to your mr scheueur obl was/is the biggest, baddest boogie man. don't you read his stuff that you been putting up. if you were sincere you would know that a soldier is indoctrinated with your governments bs and you would have more sympathy. you just like to be able to make a fool of people.
you seem pretty confused to me. one minute you don't care about afghanistan, like azmal says, the next minute you do.
but aren't you and your family also, like karzai, effeminates sitting out the wars in afghanistan, in another land?

Answers to your questions:

1) Mr. Scheuer does not define him as a boogie man. He defines him an insurgent leader that was focused, strategic, and generally fighting against American policies not against American freedoms. Sheuer preferred we stop our interventions, hence his support for Paul.

2) Soldiers being indoctrinated doesnt let them off the hook. He is an adult with the ability to post on forums at his whim and likely has some of the best internet access around. It his duty and obligation to read the facts and seek the truth, whether he be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, hindu etc. The truth is what matters here. Christ did not subvert the truth just to save people's feelings and that was a good example to follow. If I hear that someone, for example, labels Gary Adams of the IRA as as a terrorist... I refuse to simply accept the media narrative and the British take on the military wings of the Irish Republic Army. It is my duty to read up on it, understand why the IRA is pissed and why they fight the British instead of simply accepting the narrative out there. That is why we are taught to read and use computers in the first place.

3) Azmal and I have a personal issue with one another and I will resolve this issue shortly with him.

4) Caring about Afghanistan, as an American, comes on two levels. One is, as a nation, do we have to "care" enough to cause intervention and war to the point where we send people there who have nothing to do with the country and watch them die over there and lose their innocence when they kill over there? Do we "care" enough to force and hoist a system on the people that has nothing to do with their natural proclivities, while arming and keeping in power a corrupt beyond imagination government? So if caring means letting Afghanistan go, then yes, as an American, I refuse to care enough to support sustained nation building endeavors that come with the price tag of forcing our views on them.

As private citizens and civilians, Americans have every right to "care" for Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam Afghanistan, etc in terms of sending their personal wealth, by their choice, to Afghanistan to help in whatever capacity they see fit.

5) Regarding fleeing Afghanistan, yes, we must be honest enough to admit that is exactly who we are. So for that reason, we do not have the right to prop ourselves up on the support of a military backed regime and claim we will now lead the people and teach them how to be better Afghans modeled off the American-Afghan paradigm. You have people here like Mr Karzai who were unsuccessful, or like Mr. Abdullah who was a failed physician and now they swept back into power as oligarchs. We ran away from our duty a long time ago and now we have to live here, work here, pay taxes here, and not claim that we are the natural leaders of the Kabul Regime.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Scheuer is like a comedy hour...it's only his take on everything.

Mr Paul appears to share his take as do many others including Mr Hoh.

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

" In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets. "

The comedy Matt, is that you have no data... you are not scientific in your thinking and you are demonstrative of the utter and profound lack of civic education in America that has progressed. You basically have a belief, built off Superman Comic books and GI Joe and you decided

1) We are the real American heroes
2) There are baddies out there that are all evil and we are 100% good
3) We dont do bad things
4) They decided to hate and attack us because they want all our sweet stuff and hate Britney Spears

So then you decided to build your belief narrative based on these goals. Can you prove to me otherwise? Let me guess, you are not here to prove anything, but to learn. OK, so show me you have learned. Explain to me why Mr. Bin Ladin hates us.

[MDresden]

This is where you are wrong "and teach them how to be better Afghans modeled off the American-Afghan paradigm."

We are providing the basic necessities...education, food, water and sustainability (agricultural and security.)