From the BBC:
Thousands of enraged Afghans have taken to the streets for a fourth day, after US soldiers inadvertently set fire to copies of the Koran.
In the deadliest day of unrest so far, at least 12 people died across the country, as mobs charged at US bases and diplomatic missions.
More than 20 people have been killed since the unrest began, including two US soldiers who died on Thursday.
It didn't end well for Danny and Peachey, either.
For the concluding scene of what all of Daniel Dravot's efforts to civilize the Afghans gets him, see here.
Posts
109 comments:
On the one hand, I understand how they feel. When I was 9, my mom threw my holy book, The Chronicles of Narnia, against the wall, and it split into seven pieces. Righteous rage coursed through my veins.
On the other hand, my parents had enough control to make sure that I wouldn't even think of attempting retaliation.
Doesn't the US have enough power to put an end to this circus? If any American citizens are potentially in danger, why isn't this silliness being forced to a halt? Explaining and apologizing can't possibly do any good. Violent rioters aren't capable of civil discourse.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
I've puzzled for years over a pop Feuerbachean problem about Islam.
In Christianity, Jesus Christ is the incarnate 2nd person of God. Explain that how you will (and I've never quite got my head around how Arian must be the most foul, false, Satan-licking false prophet ever for emphasizing the God part), Christ is divine. Yet this divinity is representable, in a sense homely even. The idea is, he had to be, in order to teach and redeem humankind.
Mohammad is just a prophet-- "the Prophet", supposedly greater than (to Islam) the non-divine Jesus.
Yet this Greatest Man in History-- but *not* God, or a god-- strictly maintains the very invisibility that was YHWH's inviolable prerogative in the Old Testament. Nothing seeing nothing doing. No images, no representation. The man might as well be speaking from a burning bush.
Islam maintains all this sanctification like Judaism on hyperdrive. Shrines, cities, entire countries are, theoretically at least, inaccessible even to The People of the Book (and there's hell to pay if they bring their Book or its message, certainly!).
Ironically, crimes of mutilation and murder that would shock the Greeks at the sack of Troy are joyously excused in this religion of mad sanctity.
Let's have some of this reaction in Germany when they burn Sarrazin's book.
They don't have videogames over there. This is how young males have fun over there.
Muslims sure are weird. US drones pummel one town after another and kill lots of people.
Afghans go about their business.
US burns some books.
They got nuts!
Oh, bother, let's look up the references to Muslim theology and see if Lucius is being idiosyncratic or if he's onto something. I get schooled, cool, go to Wiki, read the entry.
Having taken a course that dealt only with the history of Islam during the life of M, there weren't many digressions into theology. I don't trust Wiki, much. And I'm probably not going to buy any books with more thorough explanations. Not going to the library, either.
So, save me some money and time, as well as everyone else who hasn't studied this, and expound upon your observation with background. You might be quite erudite, then again you could be some sort of hack which is incredibly likely here on iSteve.
I'm not doing research nor am I impressed that you can't tailor your comments to a general audience.
God love 'em. Afghanistan almost never ends well. It could be their national motto: "You'll be sorry."
Eleven years ago, I thought Afghanistan was hard to seize, but a little reading cleared that up. Afghanistan isn't harder than any other country to take over. It's the holding on to it that's the real trick.
Hard vicious Muslim hillbillies, a sad, beautiful, brutal place. The Brits couldn't hold it, when that was their whole game. Go back and read Peter Hopkirk on Bukhara Burnes (buried there, somewhere) and Sir Louis Cavagnari (buried there, somewhere). They're not buying what we're selling. They didn't buy what the Soviets were selling.
If you've got a couple of hours, go back and watch the Kevin Reynolds film "The Beast of War," with Jason Patric and Steve Bauer and George Dzundza, from 1988. Filmed, ironically enough, in Israel.
On a personal note, I still get a little choked up when Billy Fish explains that the Gurkha aren't cavalry, and charges off to his death.
Can't quite imagine Americans going to their deaths that stoically.
Hi, Maya, you seem like a young women
with a good head on your shoulders. Re:
"...my parents had enough control to make sure that I wouldn't even think of attempting retaliation."
I takes a back seat to nobody in my regard for the US military, but also think our involvement in the ME will go down as a quixotic but expensive footnote-misadventure, along the line of the British invasion of Argentina and Uruguay in 1806-07 or the decades of Dutch occupation of Brazil in the 1600s...
I think you have inadvertently brought up one reason we are in this mess, which is considering the population of undeveloped countries analogous to children. Children can be spanked, made to see the light, etc.. But Afghans aren't children. Many appear willing to fight. Past a point, motivations don't particularly matter. Does the religion matter at all, or is it just a marker for "our side", like a flag? I don't know, though suspect the Afghans were the way they are now before Islam even existed. Re:
"Doesn't the US have enough power to put an end to this circus?"
Perhaps this is exactly what the Afghans are fighting. The presumption of people elsewhere, a long way away, to decide what is a circus in their life and what isn't. Sure we could end it. And the Taliban would win, because they'd be right about us. Perhaps they already have.
Now enter Whiskey who will tell us that our future is at stake if we don't stay and fight, fight, fight in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Whiskey's allies will call for the continued importation of these rational, modern people into the United States and drum out of the conservative movement anyone who objects.
"Doesn't the US have enough power to put an end to this circus?"
It's hard to have "power" when you've a Prez who says, "We offer our regrets."
I'd like one who says, "Too bad. Shit happens." Not likely to get one who'll say that, tho.
"Hard vicious Muslim hillbillies"
This is, by far, the best characterization of the denizens of the place.
Oh, how Presidents need to be told, "You don't really want to sent the Feds into those woods, now, do you? Remember what happens to Ned Beatty in 'Deliverance'? There's simply no humanizing them. It's genetic. Can't fight biology."
Use all the drones and bombs you want, but keep troops outta there.
Hey, Afghanis, blacks, and yobs have at least one thing in common. They are not into book burning.
They have one of the poorest countries in the world. They have one of the most backward, corrupt and culturally sterile countries in the wolrd. Extremely low standards of living. Very low quality of life. Drones being fired at them. Run by the brain-dead Taliban. Two foreign occupations in only three decades. Zero rights for women and no educational or employment prospects. And all they worry or care about is a few copies of a book being burned. GOOD GRIEF! These people are irredeemable. Lets just get the bejabbers out of there!
Rumsfeld had the right approach to Afghanistan initially: use special ops and air power, plus the Northern Alliance as proxies, to depose the Taliban. And that should have been pretty much it. Maybe keep an airbase there, keep special ops liaisons with the Northern Alliance to bomb the Taliban if they threatened to retake the cities and that's it. But Bush had too much of a bleeding heart to leave it at as a punitive expedition: he wanted Afghanistan to be a shining example of democracy, women's rights, etc. And NATO and the UN went along credulously.
And then Obama tripled down on Afghanistan, apparently just to back up his campaign talking point about it being the "real" war that Iraq was a distraction from.
US Casualties in Afghanistan from 2001-2008 = 785
US Casualties in Afghanistan from 2009 to present = 1,274
Amazing how Obama gets a pass on this. What happened to the antiwar protestors after he got elected?
On a related note: why isn't Kipling taught in every high school English class? He's accessible and entertaining for teenage boys, he offers relevant historical lessons to boot.
ok, steve. You are well read. I think there is more than a hint of snark in this post though, and this might be too sober of an instance for any of that. People died, ya know?
Anonydroid said: It's hard to have "power" when you've a Prez who says, "We offer our regrets."
Hunsdon replied: I am reluctantly compelled to defend President Obama, or at least to point out that this "war as social work" approach is not unique to him.
The "arch conservative" (ha ha ha) George W. Bush was similarly "understanding" about Islam.
If we are to remain in Afghanistan, our civil religion* more or less dictates that we show respect and understanding of their folkways. (Yes, however ludicrous they are, or seem to us.)
We have come a mighty long way from the British political officer's reply, "Yes, and it is our custom to hang people who encourage suttee." (Yes, I know this was India not Afghanistan, and that suttee is not a Muslim practice.)
* in the sense of our organizing myths, our shared beliefs. I don't mean, of course, any sort of actual religion.
There's a country singer I'd never heard of until recently, Josh Thompson, with a song "Way Out Here."
The line that seems relevant here is:
Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun/
You might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome, son.
If you translated that into Daria or Pushto, I'll bet you'd see a whole lot of bobbing heads at the next loya jirga.
They're not sub-human, but they're not like us. If we persist in our efforts to bring the blessings of modernity to them, well, Kipling wouldn't be surprised how it turns out. I don't know exactly where to draw the line between nature and nurture, but neither one bodes well for our adventures in Afghanistan.
DaveinHackensack asked, inter alia: On a related note: why isn't Kipling taught in every high school English class? He's accessible and entertaining for teenage boys, he offers relevant historical lessons to boot.
Hunsdon replied: I really like Kipling, but surely you can see the problems he poses? I mean, it's hard to square the circle of "The White Man's Burden" with modern PC orthodoxy.
Re: "The Beast of War" - actually it's just "The Beast". Under-exposed movie imo. It is on Netflix, at least as a DVD.
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Steve.
If nothing else, we've outlasted the Russians, the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan for only 9 years. Air Force Magazine recently published a history of that earlier quagmire. As Yogi Berra would say, it's déjà vu all over again.
Following their standard doctrine, the Soviets first tried a ground strategy. But neither large-scale sweeps nor small-unit actions were effective. "Clear and hold" operations produced only temporary results. Even when remote areas of the countryside were cleared, there were never enough troops to hold them.
In 1983, the Soviets switched to an air strategy focused on shutting down supply routes and eliminating their local sources of support. The critical failing was that the Soviets would not take the political risk of bombing the training and supply camps in Pakistan, giving the mujahedeen the advantage of a sanctuary.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/November%202011/1111bear.aspx
"Remember what happens to Ned Beatty in 'Deliverance'? There's simply no humanizing them. It's genetic. Can't fight biology."'
A cross-cultural study of the noble savages around the world would be fascinating. An image of Chinese peasants with various animals trapped in cages while their wounds fester comes most readily to mind. Perhaps the worst of each culture would help us gauge what even the best are capable of under stress.
Then we'd know all, wouldn't we.
Re: "The Beast of War" being "The Beast": pardon me, it's both. Samples on youtube.
Steve, on your moderation - the fact that you admit you mod, I think makes you fully liable for what you now 'publish'. Maybe you're ok with that but, to me it'd be a little scary. Most sites let users themselves vote or ban; in this way diverting the responsibility to the crowd. Maybe you have lawyer friends who have given / can give you advice.
"They're not sub-human, but they're not like us. If we persist in our efforts to bring the blessings of modernity to them, well, Kipling wouldn't be surprised how it turns out. I don't know exactly where to draw the line between nature and nurture, but neither one bodes well for our adventures in Afghanistan."
You're not as cynical as me. I believe all natures are heavily dependent on socialization. The muslim elites deliberately maintain a population of ignorant, mostly illiterate muslim rabble who can be readily manipulated by anyone representing moral authority in the Islamic world.
I enjoy noting how many commenters on iSteve really believe there's an evolved pacifist, neuter-man genetically predisposed to civilized behavior.
This OT incident will not surprise those who read this seminal text either.
On a related note: why isn't Kipling taught in every high school English class? He's accessible and entertaining for teenage boys, he offers relevant historical lessons to boot.
I think english teachers tend to have effeminate tastes to begin with and then you add to it the message that any male failure (i.e. reading worse than girls) is just evidence that female failures are discrimination and not something that should be addressed.
Bush's "religion of peace" in all it's glory.
why isn't Kipling taught in every high school English class?
"Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!"
Or not...
The perception that Afghanistan could not conquered AND held wouldve been news to the India based Mauryas,Sungas,Guptas,Palas,Ranjith Singh
The Arabs,Mongols,the Turkic Ghaznavid,the Mughals or the Persians under the Achaeminids,Sassanids and later Nadir Shah.
This historical false narrative that Afghanistan could not be conquered was little more than a combination of a
1)Face saving measure by the British who got clobbered.This is similar to a former imperial power Macedonia who claimed who got bogged down by the petty republics in the Punjab and its exhausted troops despaired of fighting the Maurya empire.
2)It helped that Winston Churchill was there to record the massacre
3)The Romantic era still had a stranglehold on the Victorians who were always on the lookout for the "noble savage"
4) 3) led to all sorts of fancy geneologies for the Afghans such as the descedents of Alexanders soldiers,lost tribes of Israel or even proto Greeks.Thus discouraging any attempt to disrupt their idealized culture
5)The Great Game compelled the British to spread this propaganda of the wild,ferocious ,unconquered Afghan to dispel Russian adventurism
As to why the Soviets failed,they wouldve succeeded if it wasnt for those meddling Americans!
Americans couldve easily ended it as a punitive raid, put up a puppet govt less loathsome than the Taliban but more pliant to American interests,left a few bases.And divide the region under American,Russian,Indian,Pakistani and Chinese spheres of influence and left.(divide et impera)
But NOOOOOOOOO "compassionate conservative" GWB had other plans.
As for the Pushtuns code of honor and courage,that has been mostly extinguished by the Soviets and Americans have ahem pissed on the remaining embers in AfPak.
Rioting,arson and fleeing in womens clothes when cornered(as the taliban did in 2001) suggest a degraded populace.
For the remnants of this medieval culture,it can be found in the Pushtun communities in India only.
For those who believe it is impossible for a warrior people to lose their mojo I give to you current day Scandinavia,Germany and Japan.
I am Lugash.
We're starting from a very low base with respect to civilizing the Pashtuns.
I am Lugash.
"He's accessible and entertaining for teenage boys"
School is incredibly skewed to girls.
Steve was more open to a punitive raid on AfPak back when he reviewed Training Day in Oct 2001.Understably like most Americans back then he was brimming with retributive fury(something the Greeks called thumos-and being essential to civilization)
As well as being open to torture,kidnapping,rendition,black sites-all things which he and other many other paleos now oppose.
http://www.isteve.com/Film_Training_Day.htm
What kind of man will it take to hunt down and exterminate Osama bin Laden?
You might well be tempted to send into Afghanistan someone much like the rogue L.A. narcotics cop spectacularly played by the formidable Denzel Washington ("Remember the Titans") in "Training Day."
....
Washington's character has the manly presence that marks a successful commando chieftain, whether in the War on Terrorism or, as here, in the War on Drugs. Washington is quick-witted, fearless, aggressive, profane, and brutal. It all adds up to the rare masculine charisma that allows a man to say, "Let's roll," and be confident that other men will naturally follow him into harm's way.
To understand the allure of being able to deal out justice unfettered by red tape, imagine that your Special Forces unit in Afghanistan had just captured some Al Qaeda terrorists who know where bin Laden is hiding. Would you merely read them their Miranda Rights?
If not, which laws would you be willing to break to find bin Laden? Would you use bribery? Truth serum? Torture? Would you shoot one to encourage the others? Would you kidnap their mothers and threaten to murder them? (That's how the Jordanian secret police broke Abu Nidal's terrorist ring in the 1980's) All of the above? Or would you simply look the other way while, say, your Afghan rebel allies had their unspeakable way with your prisoners?
Interesting questions, right? I don't have any answers, but if you do, then: How far should your method for fighting terror also apply to fighting the drug plague that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans?
Hollywood mass consumer culture must be dominant mode of "belief"/existence in every corner of the globe. And more primitive Third World refugees must be brought into the System and then sent to the last "hideously white" redoubts of US, Australia and Europe.
No refugees seem to have sent yet to the HW Michigan UP. I think the intent there is to create a human-free wildlife zone.
@Maya
On the one hand, I understand how they feel. When I was 9, my mom threw my holy book, The Chronicles of Narnia, against the wall, and it split into seven pieces. Righteous rage coursed through my veins."
Why the heck did they do that, and it broke in seven pieces??
Anyway your analogy is flawed, a neo Christian parable with pagan imagery geared towards children is not the same as the Quran which Muslims consider is THE miracle as Jesus is the miracle for Christians.
Bible for Christians<> Quran for Muslims
It is the revelations of the Quran thru Muhammad(a mere mortal unlike Jesus) that is the defining aspect of Islam.
For Christians ,the Bible is part history and part revelation(mostly the Torah)
So the Quran can be compared to the Jewish Torah(which is a pretty big deal for Jews as well-Some Chasidic rabbis went as far as to marry a Torah as the rabbi standing in for God)
@Anonymous
"I think english teachers tend to have effeminate tastes to begin with and then you add to it the message that any male failure (i.e. reading worse than girls) is just evidence that female failures are discrimination and not something that should be addressed."
Exactly,except in my case most of my English teachers were female and we were subject to chick lit type reading assignments which led to groans and despair for male students all around.
Girls invariably scored higher in such courses than the boys.
It is inconceivable that in a wussified ,PC environment we would read anything like Caesars Commentaries or Churchills dispatches.
Well, I think it was generally acknowledged that the ferocious resistance of the Afghans to Soviet occupation was a significant factor behind the collapse of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe and the downfall of Soviet Communism. I wouldn't be too surprised if lots of the Eastern Europeans and perhaps even some of the Soviet dissidents therefore regarded the wild Afghan savages as their heroic allies, who helped bring them freedom. The Afghans took up the gun, while the Poles and the Czechs and the Russian intellectuals mostly wrote anonymous letters of complaint and published harshly satirical short stories abroad.
Draw your own conclusions regarding America's totally corrupt and increasingly despotic and incompetent American Regime...
Im not sure the British did seriously try to hold Afghanistan, mostly they just raided the Afghans.
In the movie clip, when Sean Connery is on the rope bridge singing the third verse from "The Son of God goes forth to War" it rocks.
These old timey, guts and glory, Blut und Boden(Blood and Soil) glorious western civilization songs are impossible to find on any CD or decent sounding recording. I am talking about something like "God Save the Queen" sung by orotund voiced men not women.
Or, Gawd forbid, 'Dixie' sung by men with bass voices and not some tinny instrumental. It is almost like there is a tacit agreement to limit the availability of these types of songs because they might be used to bring the some of the white tribes together in an angry but unified group. Songs work better than reasons.
I mean what's up with that?
I welcome any suggestions.
Steve -
Way off-topic as regards the current thread, but [urgently for the iSteve-o-sphere] the NY Post just won the right to see the teacher evaluation data in NYC, and posted it all online:
Parents praise release of NYC public school teacher ratings
By FRANK ROSARIO, JULIA MARSH and DON KAPLAN
Posted: 12:07 AM, February 26, 2012
Last Updated: 8:42 AM, February 26, 2012
nypost.com
City parents gave The Post an A-plus yesterday for publishing teacher-evaluation data that revealed valuable information about the educators who are leading their children.
“You never know what’s going on inside the schools, so I can’t tell you how important these lists are to me as a parent,” said Scott Rogers, 37, of Manhattan.
“I have three kids going through the system right now. I want to make sure they are in the best schools with the best teachers. This should have been done years ago.”
The Post received the data after fighting a protracted legal battle with the teachers union, which filed a lawsuit in a desperate bid to block the 2010 Freedom of Information Law request...
The story includes links to the actual data.
On the one hand, I understand how they feel. When I was 9, my mom threw my holy book, The Chronicles of Narnia, against the wall, and it split into seven pieces.
Well you can't just leave us hanging like that - what did you do to infuriate her?
Don't be a tease.
[BTW, was your copy of "Narnia" in English, or in some eastern European language?]
Dr Van Nostrand said a good bit.
Hunsdon replied: My focus is on early modern Afghanistan, and I grant the success of the Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Sikhs. (Leaving out the Arabs, those are some of my favorite tribes/nations.)
However, your numbered points don't strike me as accurate or on point. Churchill's presence in 1897 has nothing to do with either Bukhara Burnes or Louis Cavagnari, killed in 1841 and 1879 respectively. Regardless of fancy theory in London, the British Army out on the sharp end was, in the 18th and 19th centuries, fairly clear eyed about who they fought.
Your faith in American omnipotence in defeating Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, well, I just don't know what to say.
To end on an amicable note, however, I entirely agree with you regarding the merits of the punitive expedition. It is a solution whose merits I have argued for the last twelve years.
In essence, on a punitive raid you descend upon Afghanistan with fire and sword, killing and burning without too much discrimination, for a couple of weeks, and then leave. No reconstruction aid, no apologies, no puppet regime.
Before the last field grade officer departs, he makes a little speech. "We're infidels, and we're going back to Camp Lejeune where we're having a pulled pork BBQ, with lots of Jack Daniels and some strippers. Don't make us come back."
dogzma said: I enjoy noting how many commenters on iSteve really believe there's an evolved pacifist, neuter-man genetically predisposed to civilized behavior.
Hunsdon replied: If there is such a people, there are heavy counter-selection pressures working against them. I'm reminded of a clan from the Anglo-Scottish borders, the Rutledges. They were referred to as "Every man's prey."
"ok, steve. You are well read. I think there is more than a hint of snark in this post though, and this might be too sober of an instance for any of that. People died, ya know?"
In that case, we can't crack jokes about any historical event cuz people died in 99% of them.
It is not an Afghan problem, it is a muslim problem
When the Pushtuns were Hindus and Buddhists, the place was advanced, they even had a university 500BC at Taxila
Afghanistan is no different from Iran, Iraq and Libya in terms of being a mad-dog and the only common factor is islam
"I think english teachers tend to have effeminate tastes to begin with and then you add to it the message that any male failure (i.e. reading worse than girls) is just evidence that female failures are discrimination and not something that should be addressed."
Reading the recent book "Dirty Minds", about recent psychological research into sex and love, I was impressed by the extensive evidence that men in the presence of women, experience a marketed decrease in ability to think cognitively.
Obviously, this argues strongly against integration of women in all workplaces, especially in combat; and also argues for same sex education. It also explains to some degree the superior performance in school of women, and, at least in the past the superior performance of men at work.
Robert Hume
I'm ready to lay down the white man's burden for a while. It's getting expensive and weighs a ton. How about y'all?
One helluva fish tail.
@Lucius
I believe that visual representation of Mohammed was forbidden for fear that it might lead to idolatry. At least, that was the theory. In practice, Muslims seem to insist on the ban for exactly the opposite reason: because it's disrespectful to the prophet.
>I enjoy noting how many commenters on iSteve really believe there's an evolved pacifist, neuter-man genetically predisposed to civilized behavior.<
The existence of differences, including in behavior, is central to HBD. You haven't been paying attention. Go back and read all of Steve's articles from 1990 forward. Tasteful strawman, btw; didn't know there was an uglier way to say ball-less.
"For those who believe it is impossible for a warrior people to lose their mojo I give to you current day Scandinavia,Germany and Japan."
Be interesting to compare/contrast IQs of the populations to which you refer. Something tells me....
In America; when our book was effectively 'burned' by the atheists (No creation in school! No prayers in school! No Ten Commandments anywhere!), our response was to retreat to our country clubs, fraternal clubs, camps, garages, barns, and basement rec rooms, get drunk, roll over and spread 'em wide for the invading hordes and their 'advocates' who'd spotted and accurately assessed our defeat.
Afghan culture, such as it is and despite the many wars, outlives what was our own.
Things didn't work out too well for Sir William McNaghten or General Elphinstone, either.
In answer to a commenter above: Afghanistan can be held, but it cannot be held cheaply.
Would today's equivalents of Danny and Peachy be better off in Detroit?
“Life is not valued in Detroit. It’s a war zone here,” Wilkins said. “We need some ground troops patrolling these streets; they send them all overseas, but they need to be here.”
Between behavior like that in the story from Detroit and killing for the Koran, I think killing for the Koran is nobler.
And remember, if Afghans were good students of civilization as defined by multicultural America, they would one day have a mass immigration program that would turn Afghanistan into a worse hell than it is, while displacing the native Afghans.
I wonder whether West Point teaches the history of the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny in India? The Wikipedia entry says:
In 1772, when Warren Hastings was appointed India's first Governor-General, one of his first undertakings was the rapid expansion of the [East India] Company’s army. Since the sepoys from Bengal – many of whom had fought against the Company in the Battles of Plassey [1757] and Buxar – were now suspect in British eyes, Hastings recruited farther west from the high-caste rural Rajputs and Brahmins of Awadh and Bihar, a practice that continued for the next 75 years. However, in order to forestall any social friction, the Company also took pains to adapt its military practices to the requirements of their religious rituals. Consequently, these soldiers dined in separate facilities; in addition, overseas service, considered polluting to their caste, was not required of them, and the army soon came officially to recognize Hindu festivals. “This encouragement of high caste ritual status, however, left the government vulnerable to protest, even mutiny, whenever the sepoys detected infringement of their prerogatives.”
Makes one think of the current progress in America & Europe to a similar caste system by means of affirmative action and disparate impact suits and the recognition and protection given to minority religious & social preferences.
Did the Soviets face religious strife of this nature during the '80s or did a gang of godless communists handle Muslim sensibilities better than the Americans and their allies? I don't recall hearing of Russian soldiers burning Korans and causing riots.
Lucius said...
Mohammad is just a prophet-- ...
Yet ... Nothing seeing nothing doing. No images, no representation. The man might as well be speaking from a burning bush.
You have it backwards, he was trying to prevent icon-worship. Of himself.
Davis and Buchanan/Braden.
Vidal and Buchanan/Braden.
Caldicott and Buchanana/Braden.
@ Dr. Van Nostrand
"Why the heck did they do that, and it broke in seven pieces??
Anyway your analogy is flawed, a neo Christian parable with pagan imagery geared towards children is not the same as the Quran which Muslims consider is THE miracle as Jesus is the miracle for Christians.
Bible for Christians<> Quran for Muslims"
I know what Koran is. My 9 year old self would resent the heck out of you for your patronizing dismissal of Chronicles of Narnia. I happened to worship Aslan and hoped to be called to Narnia any day. My analogy is perfect because both compilations of stories are merely books which only a savage or a small child would use as an excuse to destroy a human life, let alone 20. Neither a Bible nor Torah nor Koran, nor even The Myths and Legends of Ancient Greece is worth engaging in a violent riot. Those who do deserve to be punished severely. Period.
Oh, and Mother threw the book because I was rereading it for the 886765347563476th time instead of doing chores. But don't you worry! I nursed it back into wholeness.
The Burden of Jerusalem - Rudyard Kipling
On top of reddit right now.
Can't say I disagree.
http://i.imgur.com/9AQEn.jpg
"Hunsdon said...
Dr Van Nostrand said a good bit."
Dr. Van Nostrand, like Duffman, says a lot of things. He strikes me to be about as knowledgable as his namesake, aka Cosmo Kramer.
RKU said: The Afghans took up the gun, while the Poles and the Czechs and the Russian intellectuals mostly wrote anonymous letters of complaint and published harshly satirical short stories abroad.
The Warsaw Pact put tanks in the streets to prevent a popular revolt in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 (the Prague Spring). And the East German border guards were kept busy for several decades especially at the Berlin wall. The Gdansk shipyard workers & Lech Walesa would like some respect.
Jacob Roberson: You have it backwards, he [Mohammed] was trying to prevent icon-worship. Of himself.
Yes, exactly. From everything I've read, the Muslims venerate Jesus as a Holy Prophet of God, and Mohammed's immediate predecessor. But from the Islamic perspective, the ignorant pagans who eventually converted to Christianity misunderstood everything, and began worshipping Jesus as God himself, rather than merely as God's prophet, which they regard as unspeakable sacrilege. Therefore, during his life Mohammed did everything he could to avoid such a disgusting fate for himself, and absolutely forbid any trappings of possible divinity, certainly including graven images of himself or any other prominent Muslims. That's why Islamic art always utilizes geometrical shapes rather than images of people.
In fact, I think I remember reading somewhere that a few centuries ago, a band of the most utterly fanatic and puritanical desert Muslims (it might have even been the early Wahabis) launched an attack on the site of Mohammed's tomb in Arabia, and utterly destroyed it and all its traces, since they even regarded the mere existence of tomb itself as a dangerous concession to "idol worship." Therefore, no one today even knows the site of Mohammed's burial.
"Maya said...
Doesn't the US have enough power to put an end to this circus?"
No, we don't. We have the power to kill them all. We have the power to leave them alone. We do not have the power to make an other, different people behave like we do. That is the folly of "nation-building".
"Kipling would not have been surprised"
Harry Flashman would not have been surprised either.
http://www.amazon.com/Flashman-Novel-George-MacDonald-Fraser/dp/0452259614
Our military and foreign policy elites would have been better served if they had read Churchill, Conrad, Kipling, and Frazier in college, rather than the modernist management drivel they learned.
"Lucius said...
Mohammad is just a prophet-- ...
Yet ... Nothing seeing nothing doing. No images, no representation. The man might as well be speaking from a burning bush."
"You have it backwards, he was trying to prevent icon-worship. Of himself."
Or maybe he was saying he's so great that no icon could ever do justice to him.
On the other hand, Islam doesn't allow representation of any living creature.
"It is not an Afghan problem, it is a muslim problem.
When the Pushtuns were Hindus and Buddhists, the place was advanced, they even had a university 500BC at Taxila."
I don't know. The Buddhist/Hindu Khmer civilization that build Angkor Wat vanished without invasion by Muslims.
And I'm not sure Hinduism is all that sane.
Look at Hindu violence against Christians.
And was Tibet any kind of advanced civilization under the rule of Buddhist theocracy?
"I takes a back seat to nobody in my regard for the US military, but also think our involvement in the ME will go down as a quixotic but expensive footnote-misadventure, along the line of the British invasion of Argentina and Uruguay in 1806-07 or the decades of Dutch occupation of Brazil in the 1600s..."
I completely and totally agree. We shouldn't have gone there. We need to get out of there. There is nothing that we can do for the vast, vast, majority of those people. However, since, unfortunately, we happen to be there now, why are crazy mobs allowed to attack our diplomatic missions?
"Im not sure the British did seriously try to hold Afghanistan, mostly they just raided the Afghans."
They just raided lots of people but they surrendered.
Blogger Conatus said...
...Or, Gawd forbid, 'Dixie' sung by men with bass voices and not some tinny instrumental. It is almost like there is a tacit agreement to limit the availability of these types of songs because they might be used to bring the some of the white tribes together in an angry but unified group. Songs work better than reasons...
I am not even a Southerner, yet this gets fired up.
"Go back and read all of Steve's articles from 1990 forward. Tasteful strawman, btw; didn't know there was an uglier way to say ball-less."
There's nothing major I've forgotten in the Sailer articles I've read over several years now. However, history rather than SS is my resource here. I'd give you the idea that some groups seem more genetically predisposed to taking atavistic pleasure in the torture and killing of enemies. I truly believe whites as a group prefer a clean kill, quick, efficient and more humane. when they commit homicide; but I wouldn't say caucasians were any less prone to killing their enemies.
Come to think of it, Sailer has written at least one article on whites' relative efficiency at mass murder. Me thinks you are the one who should reread some iSteve articles (see some on world wars).
"Reading the recent book "Dirty Minds", about recent psychological research into sex and love, I was impressed by the extensive evidence that men in the presence of women, experience a marketed decrease in ability to think cognitively."
My brother, who is a US Marine and a veteran, argues that women can't be allowed to serve in combat because research shows that men can, usually, act rationally while in despair over just witnessing deaths of their male friends, but that ability is severely impaired when they witness brutal deaths of women.
Actually, we had this argument about 10 years ago. I'll ask him where he read/heard about this study.
Looks like some folks are as hot of blood as they are dim of mind. I am submitting as Anonymous for fear one of them would try to kill me. That is why liberal media types rarely criticize these crazies.
Mohammed is a de facto god, no matter what Islamic doctrine may claim.
Kipling wouldn't have been surprised and neither should anyone else. In order to pacify a medieval society steeped in superstition and hostility to outsiders would require a multi-decade military presence, colonization and, ultimately, assimilation. Nothing short of that is going to change Afghan society. They have very little other than suspicion of each other and hatred of outsiders.
>Kipling would not have been surprised
Why would anyone else be? If you challenge someone you get a fight.
Meaning and importance of the scripture and the founders in various religions, that is an academic question.
So, the muzzies can't take a joke. That's their loss, then. You just keep burning korans or drawing bearded men with a bombs in their turbans. Because it's the funniest thing since whatever. And whine a little louder if they get to kill some of your occupation force.
Let's get real. The Afghans killing Americans is a product of:
A. Obama weakness, groveling, apologizing ... and ...
B. Pakistan's Jihadi-Military network taking advantage of US weakness to push the US towards the exits.
Lesson: being weak gets you punched in the face, being Putin generates fear and respect.
Pinker's idea of humanity marching towards peace/love is put to the sword by the reality of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if you want the option of sending predator drones to whack jihadis in Pakistan, or sending in SEAL Teams into Pakistan to get guys like Bin Laden (such as Mullah Omar) you better be in Afghanistan.
It was NOT a guy like Denzel Washington who got bin Laden -- here is Steve's flaw, he's not studied violence and its ways and who is most effective at it. Bin Laden was found by tedious study of various jihadis rounded up, waterboarding interviews, and I have no doubt whatsoever, drug-aided interrogations (torture is so 19th Century). Then careful surveillance and use of existing in-country natives to make discreet inquiries, identified bin Laden to a reasonable degree of certainty. This required a substantial presence inside Afghanistan and Pakistan (including I have no doubt some discreet American observers on-site). Then the men who killed bin Laden were almost certainly White, extremely disciplined, and extremely controlled, and extremely practiced in violence. SEALs are controlled, not posturing macho idiots.
Kipling wouldn't have been surprised and neither should anyone else. In order to pacify a medieval society steeped in superstition and hostility to outsiders would require a multi-decade military presence, colonization and, ultimately, assimilation.
Bullshit. In 1920s, Bolsheviks successfully conquered and pacified all of the feudal "___stan" areas with very limited force. All that is required is political resolve and a lack of squeamishness: Setup local puppets, organize police state, mercilessly punish any deviations from the party line.
That template was actually working quite well in Afghanistan until Americans organized Osama bin Laden & Co and, most importantly, gave them Stingers. With economic stagnation and ideological decay back in the USSR, Russians simply did not have political resolve to keep going.
Anonydroid said: Looks like some folks are as hot of blood as they are dim of mind. I am submitting as Anonymous for fear one of them would try to kill me. That is why liberal media types rarely criticize these crazies.
Hunsdon replied: Nah. Look, Whiskey's still here! We argue, we draw lessons from history.
Anonydroid said: I'm ready to lay down the white man's burden for a while. It's getting expensive and weighs a ton. How about y'all?
Hunsdon said: We've got a winner. Gets my vote.
Follow up -- the US technically could wipe out every Afghan, but internally this is impossible, the SWPL population, non-Whites, and many White women would not allow it to be done. Not even say, on Sep. 28, 2001. At the time Joe Biden was calling the bombing of Afghanistan a War Crime and was pushing an offer of $250 million to the Iranians to not attack us.
The US could use very effective Stalin/Nazi/Japanese methods of population decimation, but again this is domestically politically impossible.
The US is nearly incapable of defending itself, because of domestic political considerations. Nearly all of them driven by SWPL-ism which in turn is driven by the feminization of culture and society, as the pill and condom overturn over a thousand years of Western Culture, in concert with globalization. It is a feminine conceit that violent behavior of non-group members can be conciliated and thus "tamed" (like a sexy glittery Vampire) to one' own end. It is the belief that Canute actually CAN use his Army to hold back the tide.
Thus all that is left is using Drones, SEAL teams, and other methods to periodically cause fear by selectively targeted assassinations. Clinton's "black clad Ninjas" or Steve's view of Denzel Washington as the posturing Macho Man who inspires fear (instead of derision for being an open and identifiable target). Drones and SEALS require access. If not in Afghanistan, then in India.
Right now half or more of Pakistan including the Army and ISI are fighting us. The other half takes our money. If we want to leave Afghanistan we had better instill FEAR and RESPECT among the ISI and military there, in a way that is consistent with domestic political considerations: not upsetting SWPL's, women, and non-Whites by killing too many people.
All I've got is nuking a major Pakistani city and blaming it on jihadis who stole a Pakistani nuke and bumbled and set it off.
You can't bribe, reason, cajole, or otherwise persuade the ISI and military to leave America alone (no more 9/11's, certainly no nuclear ones) -- so you need to intimidate and likely do it many times. If not Afghanistan, that means an Indian base, with all THAT implies (alliance with India AGAINST China and Pakistan) and highly increased chance of WAR with China.
Afghanistan looks cheap versus the alternatives. And Afghanistan would never have been necessary if Clinton had not kicked the can down the road and let them go nuclear.
The whole situation in Afghanistan really is quite remarkable. Over the last year or so, there have been a *vast* number of attacks on American and other Western occupation troops by our own local puppet-forces, most recently with the killing of two American officers in the inner sanctum of the ultra-secure Interior Ministry by an Afghan who then "vanished." As a result, all American advisors are being pulled out of local government buildings, lest they also be suddenly shot dead by their Afghan colleagues. As it now stands, a considerable fraction of all recent Western losses are at the hands of America's own bribed allies.
This seems utterly extraordinary. I've never heard of a similar situation in any previously recorded occupation. If troops are constantly fearful of being suddenly shot by their own local puppet-allies, what good are puppet-allies? That internal Pentagon study which was leaked to the media a few weeks ago said the same thing---the Pentagon military analysts had also never heard of anything like this happening in modern military history.
I think the inescapable conclusion is that the Americans occupying Afghanistan are more bitterly hated by the local Afghans than any of the previous armies that have tried to occupy Afghanistan, obviously including the Soviets. Certainly nothing like this ever happened to any of the Soviet forces, nor to the Americans in Vietnam, nor to the Nazis occupying Europe during WWII, nor to the Imperial Japanese, nor to any of the various British Imperial occupations.
Every day, in every way, our current American Regime sets new world records...
whiskey said, "Follow up -- the US technically could wipe out every Afghan, but internally this is impossible, the SWPL population, non-Whites, and many White women would not allow it to be done. Not even say, on Sep. 28, 2001."
You are deranged. You write about killing every Afghan as though it is some minor detail, yet you support the people in the US who would import these third worlders into our nation. We have no right to kill the Afghans. We should leave them all alone. September 11 was not an Afghan attack. It was an immigration issue that would never have come to fruition if your compatriots had not had their way in 1965. But instead of fixing that problem, you call for us to kill innocent Afghans. I guess this is more proof of where your loyalties lie.
Re:
"Doesn't the US have enough power to put an end to this circus?"
Statecraft is important because one has to recognize the limits of raw power and the power of time. "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." (Sun Tzu), etc.. Apparently raw power cannot create the New Soviet Man or the New World Order.
It's hard to make people love you by killing them.
Perhaps the US should husband its military resources in its own interest? One of the most anti-US military things ever said, arguably downright evil, is then Secretary of State Madeline Albright's "What’s the point of saving this superb military, if we can't use it?" It makes one wonder if immigrants such as her do see Americans as disposable... We make nice toys, I guess.
Re:
"In 1920s, Bolsheviks successfully conquered and pacified... the feudal "___stan"... All that is required is ... lack of squeamishness..."
And the Bolsheviks are long gone, both from there and most anywhere else with real power, except perhaps some influential institutions in the USA and the West. And everybody says that's a good thing. And maybe it didn't really work so well in the Caucasus. And didn't Stalin relocate so many Cossacks and other ethnic groups (enforced diversity, I guess) into the *stans so that many of that cities had/have populations that were/are over half immigrant?
Follow up -- the US technically could wipe out every Afghan, but internally this is impossible,
The US "technically could wipe out" every Israeli too. And pretty much everyone on Earth as well, for that matter.
"The Man Who Would Be King" takes places in Kafiristan, a then pagan and now nominally Muslim side-pocket of Afghanistan. They're not Pushtuns--in fact, as Kipling noted, they're a remarkably light-skinned group who may have wandered in from somewhere farther northwest, although they're apparently not descendants of Alexander's soldiers.
And didn't Stalin relocate so many Cossacks and other ethnic groups (enforced diversity, I guess) into the *stans so that many of that cities had/have populations that were/are over half immigrant?
Not quite. 95%+ of "relocation" (forced deportation, of course) was to one of the *stans, Kazakh*. And the deportations were just that, deportations. E.g., nearly all Germans, Chechens, Turks and Koreans were moved to Kazakstan not because they were useful to keep down locals. Rather, they were useful in making large swaths of one big cold desert/bare steppe habitable. And by all accounts it the move was cheaper than if it were to Siberia.
The cities are a different matter: industrial production and running large cities efficiently require certain level of education and IQ. *stans were not particularly known for either - thus numerous incentives were used to attract specialists from European parts.
And lastly, *stans saw large number of civilians evacuated there during WWII. Many stayed after its conclusion, thus further contributing to significant Slavic populations in the cities.
"Whiskey said...
SEALs are controlled, not posturing macho idiots."
So Whiskey is not a SEAL. We at least know that about him.
When I asked whether the US has enough power to put an end to that circus, I meant this particular riot in which American lives are being lost at the moment, not the general circus that is the Afghan way of life.
I'm actually extremely against sending American boys to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or any other hell hole in order to help people who don't want to be helped. I also feel bad for the savages we keep bombing. We should just leave them alone. Plus, each time we intervene on the behalf of some poor, persecuted group, they kill all black professionals and rape an old man with a knife or ethnically cleanse a city or become an extremely oppressive religious government, as soon we give them a hand up.
@Hunsdon
Hunsdon replied: My focus is on early modern Afghanistan, and I grant the success of the Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Sikhs. (Leaving out the Arabs, those are some of my favorite tribes/nations.)
Dr Van Nostrand:Why do you like one race of ravaging marauder and not another.
BTW I neglected to mention Mongols,Macedonians,Scythians,Huns and Kushans in the list of those who conquered Afghanistan.
Mughals<>Mongol.The founder Babur claimed descent from Timur Lane and Genghiz Khan.But the subsequent line was thoroughly Indo Persianized.
However, your numbered points don't strike me as accurate or on point. Churchill's presence in 1897 has nothing to do with either Bukhara Burnes or Louis Cavagnari, killed in 1841 and 1879 respectively.
Dr Van Nostrand:Ah yes,but I chose Churchill because of of contrast of the war in Sudan around the same time.And to contrast it with Churchills general contempt for the plain dwelling Hindus.
Hunsdon:Regardless of fancy theory in London, the British Army out on the sharp end was, in the 18th and 19th centuries, fairly clear eyed about who they fought.
Dr Van Nostrand:If that was so,they wouldnt have come up with the silly martial/non martial races theory.It was the American recruiters in WWI India who began to deal a death blow to the theory much to the objections of Winston Churchill.
When the Zulus put up a good fight, the Victorian chattering classes and sections of the army elite were so impressed with them at one point that they almost bestowed to them a Biblical geneology thru Ham.
Hunsdon:Your faith in American omnipotence in defeating Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, well, I just don't know what to say.
Dr Van Nostrand:Do you really believe that the Soviet army wouldve lost even without American and Saudi arms ,money flowing thru Pakistan.Not to mention the logistics and training provided by the ISI?
The American press for once ,dropped their pro Soviet bias lite and sided with the noble savage in singing praises of Ahmad Shah Massoud, a Tajik who defeated many Soviet battalions while outnumbered.The Arab volunteers didnt do much but made great press and was rather embarrassing for Soviets to have Syrians,Egyptians and Iraqi as well rich kids from the GCC fighting a jihad.
For the U.S and Sunni Arab states,this invasion was a welcome distraction from the Shia revolution in Iran and had to capitalized at all costs.All of this is not to suggest omni potence!If Americans had this quality,they wouldve kept a sharp on a tall scion of a Yemeni construction magnate Osama Bin Laden.
In essence, on a punitive raid you descend upon Afghanistan with fire and sword, killing and burning without too much discrimination, for a couple of weeks, and then leave. No reconstruction aid, no apologies, no puppet regime.
Before the last field grade officer departs, he makes a little speech. "We're infidels, and we're going back to Camp Lejeune where we're having a pulled pork BBQ, with lots of Jack Daniels and some strippers. Don't make us come back."
Dr Van Nostrand:Lest we make recruit your women as strippers!Wait... the Pakistanis already made whores out of Pushtun women.
Sad, all the Spenglerian criteria for the death of a people are met in the Pushtuns(the core of Afghanistan)
@RKU
Well, I think it was generally acknowledged that the ferocious resistance of the Afghans to Soviet occupation was a significant factor behind the collapse of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe and the downfall of Soviet Communism. I wouldn't be too surprised if lots of the Eastern Europeans and perhaps even some of the Soviet dissidents therefore regarded the wild Afghan savages as their heroic allies, who helped bring them freedom. The Afghans took up the gun, while the Poles and the Czechs and the Russian intellectuals mostly wrote anonymous letters of complaint and published harshly satirical short stories abroad.
Well acknowledgement and propaganda are not incompatible.
Afghanistan was a relatively placid place, modernity was slowly creeping in and the Afghans wouldve pounced on any excuse to fend it off.the Soviets provided it like corrupt Shah did in Iran and the defeats by Israel did in various Arab states.
Take look at Afghan school girls in the 1960s
http://deroucicho.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html
Poles,Czechs and Russians had been thru two major world wars and had enough.Afghans had not endured war in a long time and they had relatively less to lose.
By the end of the civil war in 1995,they had accepted the stern rule of the Taliban and their absurd regulations on beards and mandatory prayer because they were tired of war.
@rec1man
It is not an Afghan problem, it is a muslim problem
When the Pushtuns were Hindus and Buddhists, the place was advanced, they even had a university 500BC at Taxila
Afghanistan is no different from Iran, Iraq and Libya in terms of being a mad-dog and the only common factor is islam"
Apparently you are unaware that traditional Vedic Hindus from the North Central and Southern India considered the ancestors of current day Afghans(Kambojas,Sakas,Pahlavas) to be utter barbarians and to distanced from Indian civilization at all costs.
They were termed as mlecchas(barbarians).
However the Kambojas and associated groups were always trying to weasel their way into the Vedic fold of which Taxila was but one attempt.
The ancestor of Rama,King Sagara after defeating them forced to grow beards and cut their hair short/bald which to the long haired Hindu mustache twirlers was a humiliation.And the coiffure stuck.
@Hunsdon
Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun/
You might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome, son.
If you translated that into Daria or Pushto, I'll bet you'd see a whole lot of bobbing heads at the next loya jirga.
Perhaps so,but even mild mannered sedentary plain dwellers would likely nod appreciatively.
Josh Thompson and his ilk(whose values I share) may love their guns but they are not frontiersman anymore, there is a functioning society which (for the most part) protects their rights and prosecutes offenders.
Afghans traditionally had no such luxuries.So they have no choice but to indulge their blood lust.
I would say Josh Thompson and his culture is the more resilient and admirable in that they keep those values alive in the face of harsh modernity and associated soul crushing banalities such as big government while dropping the less desirable trappings of an ancien regime honor culture.
Afghans had little encounter with modernity and history,heck last decade, teaches us that like other medeival cultures they wont acquit themselves too well.
Alexander had their number a long time ago when he distinguished between the courage of a well trained citizenry of a"civilized" populace and the barbarians with their hit and run tactics while alternating between ferocious fight and panic driven flight.Guess which category he put the Afghans in and which he preferred?
Seriously this lot here going on and on about the fighting capabilities of the Afghans reminds me of Tacitus where he taunted the lax,pleasure loving Romans with his descriptions of the energetic Germans.
Am I the only one here who when told of the Soviets invading Afghanistan channeled Kissinger to say its a shame they cant both lose?
BTW:How do you translate "bacha baazi" into English?
@Anonymous
In America; when our book was effectively 'burned' by the atheists (No creation in school! No prayers in school! No Ten Commandments anywhere!), our response was to retreat to our country clubs, fraternal clubs, camps, garages, barns, and basement rec rooms, get drunk, roll over and spread 'em wide for the invading hordes and their 'advocates' who'd spotted and accurately assessed our defeat.
Afghan culture, such as it is and despite the many wars, outlives what was our own.
Rioting ,arson and killing your allies is for you a preferable response than the Anglo American you mentioned above.....oooooookkkkkkkkkaaaaayyyyyy
Afghan culture is not same as it was 1000 years or even 500 years ago.They changed languages,religions,re defined their ethnicity on the basis of their conquerer(Khan is a Mongol/Turk title,not an Indo Iranian one)!
Afghans and Central Asians were known to Indians,Chinese and Persians to stick their finger in the wind and change to that religion and culture for political/economic benefit.
That is why I find the notion of Afghans as an unsullied noble savage so laughable, they were notorious for their low cunning and treachery which many Indian kings realized the hard way when they hired them as mercenaries.
Errata:
It was the American recruiters in WWI India who began to deal a death blow to the theory much to the objections of Winston Churchill.
Of course that should be WWII
"That is why I find the notion of Afghans as an unsullied noble savage so laughable, they were notorious for their low cunning and treachery which many Indian kings realized the hard way when they hired them as mercenaries."
They'll have to get in line. There's a world full of conniving savages. Heck, it would take years just to get the ones we've allowed into Western nations in check so that we could go about the business of civilization once more.
I ask myself 'What would Joe Stalin do?' when pondering the Afghan Gordian Knot. His ghost recommends:
i) Merciless repression of the kulaks.
ii) Show trials for the counter-revolutionary saboteurs and wreckers who brought about the current failure. Round up the usual neo-conservative suspects. It will make them feel closer than ever to their idol - the infamous Trotsky.
iii) Forced re-location of the American population to Afghanistan - preferably Mexican Americans who have only recently arrived. It kills two birds with one stone - eliminates an internal threat & an external one at the same time.
From WaPo:
"Violence in wake of Koran incident fuels U.S. doubts about Afghan partners, By Greg Jaffe"
That's what we get for scrubbing Kipling and Graham Greene from the public school curriculum: a generation of public leaders who are constantly surprised by the Law of Foreseeable Consequences.
"ok, steve. You are well read. I think there is more than a hint of snark in this post though, and this might be too sober of an instance for any of that."
Serious but not sober and more than a little absurd. There is nothing temperate or abstemious in the US presence there.
"People died, ya know?"
Yes, just like people who place their hands on a hot stove burner get burned. We obviously can't stand the heat, why don't we get the hell out of the kitchen?
"I'm actually extremely against sending American boys to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or any other hell hole in order to help people who don't want to be helped. I also feel bad for the savages we keep bombing. We should just leave them alone."
Agreed--that is, if by "leave them alone", you mean exactly that and not "give them lots of foreign aid so they can finance their savagery but don't presume to tell them how to use it".
Great stuff as usual, Steve, and you beat me to the video. I've linked and commented on this, with special reference to the whole idea of trying to manage the Middle East in general, and Afghanistan in particular on the Ex-Army blog HERE.
Thus all that is left is using Drones, SEAL teams, and other methods to periodically cause fear by selectively targeted assassinations.
Sure, if the world were like your PlayStation 3. In the real world, they just find another old Muslim ascetic to replace the previous martyr for the cause.
Also, why do you want our best troops on the other side of the globe when Mexico's low-grade civil war is already creeping north of the Rio?
And how come your Muslim-hate never seems to extend to calls for keeping them out of the country? Oh that's right, it's white women's fault. If only some flinty-eyed, no-nonsense Jews were in charge of immigration policy then the US would be a viable Anglo-Saxon nation-state again. What do all the Scots-Irish at the JCC think about that prospect?
All this talk of Whiskey, Kipling, White Man's Burden, and yet no one has put forward "The White Women's Burden".
Google gives some interesting results, besides a review of the recent movie "The Help", like the British feminists and Indian women.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027753959090027U
"And I'm not sure Hinduism is all that sane. "
This from the video description.
"The Karni Mata Temple is an important Hindu site. It is a beautiful temple made of marble with solid silver doors. However, it is not the architecture of this temple that attracts tourists; it is the thousands of rats that inhabit it. There are special holes and tunnels around the temple to facilitate the rats' movements as well as a wire screen over the courtyard to protect them from birds of prey. Pilgrims are anointed with ash while the scurrying critters run over their feet. This is considered very auspicious as is spotting a rare white rat."
Mr. Anon said...
"Whiskey said...
SEALs are controlled, not posturing macho idiots."
So Whiskey is not a SEAL. We at least know that about him.
Laf! I see why you're "Mr Anon."
Simple logic states that Muslims are a finite quantity.This Doesnt mean you have to kill all of them, but you can kill enough to discourage them from fighting further and accept defeat.
It worked with other peoples, Muslims are no different.
Little problem there General LeMay. Killing all the men, raping the women and enslaving the children works great if you're trying to establish the Mongol Empire. Doesn't work so well with the Democratic Rainbow Warrior Army.
What exactly do the overseas military have to do with guarding the border?!Or fighting the drug cartels?Arent these jobs for the National Guard ,Border Agents ,DEA,ATF,FBI ,State law enforcement and other various other alphabet soup agencies?
Because that's what the military does: protects the homeland from attack. Only obtuse idiots think unionized bureaucrats should guard US borders and the military should guard Iraq and Afghan borders.
It was a Catholic not a Jew that was responsible for the invite the world 1965 party(please note there wasnt a whole lot of invade the world back then),take it up with the Pope.
Ah, yes and no. Jews were instrumental in abolishing the national origins quota system, indeed, in advancing the whole 'civil rights' agenda.
Also, have you bothered to discern the relation between first inviting the world, then invading the world?
Your kind are fifth columnists.
I dont agree with everything Whiskey says but where has he or those he support endorsed Muslim immigration?
He wallows in defeatism on the issue. He says, basically, "we can't stop that. So we should be bombing..." and pulls out a list. It's the most transparent kind of misdirection imaginable.
It was a Catholic not a Jew that was responsible for the invite the world 1965 party(please note there wasnt a whole lot of invade the world back then),take it up with the Pope.
There's a great case to be made that it was Jews who lead the lobby for that legislation. Adults know that representatives in a representative democracy are just, well, representatives.
Catholics tend to be far more trans nationalist than Jews others.
That only works as a joke.
If you're gonna burn a book, at least have the common sense to burn something safe, that everyone will hate ... say the complete works of Wilhelm Reich.
Someone mentioned Flashman in the comments. Flashman should be required reading for any American who wants to have absolutely anything to do with foreign policy. I would recommend, in particular, "Flashman" and "Flashman the Charge". The latter is set in the Stans during the Tsar's Empire of the 1850s. Amazing reading. Never read an American writer who wrote history so well.
There are a lot of myths about Afghanistan. It is true that holding on to Afghanistan is difficult. But it is not impossible. The reason it has not been done very often and for very long is that there is nothing worth holding on to. The risk/reward ratio doesn't work in favour of staying there. The country is barren, desolate. The climate is harsh. The rewards for staying are few and costs too heavy (due to the nature of the Afghans). But impossible? No. The Russians actually conquered the Stans in the 19th century by using Cossack soldiers who were unrestrained brutes.
The Afghans are a barbarian people. They have no respect for effeminate laws and rules of warfare. Americans strike them as decadent, corrupt and contemptible. When the Russians came on horseback to conquer the stans in the 19th century, they did not appease the people, they crushed them with brute force. The stans were quiet for very long and the only reason the Soviet Union ended up with all the stans is because the Tsar's Empire had already swallowed them up in the 19th century. The Russians could have taken Afghanistan but didn't because they did not regard it as having strategic value.
I have to agree with Whiskey on Putin. The Americans mock him but he is a real man and a soldier compared to the effeminate, soft and utterly contemptible politicians that make up the West's political leadership. If you think the Chechens are any less vicious than the Afghans, think again. But they were conquered.
Post a Comment