RANGER AGAINST WAR: Wasted Days, and Wasted Nights <

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Wasted Days, and Wasted Nights

On and on, on and on, on and on
--On and On, Steven Bishop

Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues

Oh, the movie never ends

It goes on and on and on and on

--Don't Stop, Believin',
Journey

In the 1870's Amir Sher Ali Khan recreated the Afghan army
that disintegrated during the second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-80).

In the 1880's Amir Abdur Rahman had to reestablish the army

to unify the fragmented country. The army was remodeled

under King Amanullah following the third Anglo-Afghan War (1919),

but it met a fatal blow during the civil war of 1929.

A new military establishment was created by Nadeshah

after his accession in 1929.

The Soviet-sponsored reorganization and modernization of the Afghan
army
began in the 1960s and continued through the Moscow-backed
communist rule.

It was totally disintegrated during the civil war of 1992-2001.

Parameters, Autumn 2002 (footnote), Ali A. Jalali
____________

Sounds like an uphill battle.

Assuming we accept the official figures of Iraqi and American deaths (depending upon whose figures you choose), the number of deaths in Iraq was down last month, depending upon which months in which year you chose to compare the figure to.

The question is: How does a decrease in the violence in Iraq benefit the security of the American taxpayer?

The U.S. Army is funded and tasked to defend the U.S. The U.S. Army was not organized or paid for to become the Baghdad security force.

Bottom line: How does America benefit by a drop in violence in Iraq, a statistic which is an irrelevant fact, albeit an expensive one, bought and paid for to the tune of $500,000 a minute?

At one point in time, the existence of the Vietnamese Army was the sole focus of U.S. policy. When the Vietnamese Army collapsed, no North Vietnamese soldiers invaded California.

If Iraq imploded today, the U.S. would not be in any greater danger from terrorism than it was yesterday.

Labels: , , , ,

4 Comments:

Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

even with their dire pronouncements about the catatrophe to come on the pullout of U.S. forces remember, these are the same people who were wrong about the weapons that weren't there, the reaction of the iraqi population, how many troops it would take, how long it would take them, how much it would cost and just about every single other thing they said before during and after the invasion.

did they all of a sudden suck down some smart juice and become accurate predictors of events to come?

i bloody well doubt it.

Monday, December 3, 2007 at 6:33:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

MB,

They don't "suck it down"; rather, they take it in suppository form.

Monday, December 3, 2007 at 9:49:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous tw said...

One day they tell us that 2007 is the bloodiest year for US forces in Iraq and the next day they tell us that attacks on US troops are down. These folks have no credibility but I'm beginning to think that the general public doesn't either!

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 6:37:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

tw,

I'm glad that someone else noticed this inconsistency. goebbels called it "The Big Lie." It worked for Hitler so why not Bush.

Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 11:29:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home