LEARNING FROM CHURCHILL...

Over 115 years ago, Churchill offered up this lesson on warring in Afghanistan ......

" In his very first book in 1897, The Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War, Churchill reflects on the exact difficulties we are facing in exactly the same place. Despite all the advances in American firepower in the century since Churchill wrote, there is very little fundamentally different now—especially the forbidding geography of the country and the unremitting barbarism of the tribes that inhabit the rocky valleys; people rushing “headlong into the ninth century,” as Bing West put it here last week. Churchill was a skeptic that it was wise to pursue a policy of attempting to subdue the region through military means.

Churchill’s concluding chapter, “The Riddle of the Frontier,” ought to be assigned reading in our war colleges, not to mention the Pentagon and State Department. See whether some of these excerpts don’t sound entirely fitting to our present condition:

The spirit of reaction led to the final abandonment of the venerable policy of non-intervention. Instead of the “line of the mountains,” it was now maintained that the passes through them must be held. This is the so-called “Forward Policy.” It is a policy which aims at obtaining the frontier —Gilgit, Chitral, Jelalabad, Kandahar.

In pursuance of that policy we have been led to build many frontier forts, to construct roads, to annex territories, and to enter upon more intimate relations with the border tribes. . .

It may be said of the present system that it precludes the possibility of peace. Isolated posts have been formed in the midst of races notoriously passionate, reckless and warlike. . .

The possibility of a great combination among the border tribes was indeed not contemplated. Separated by distance, and divided by faction, it was anticipated they could be dealt with in detail. On this point we have been undeceived.

That period of war and disturbance which was the inevitable first consequence of the “Forward Policy” must in any case have been disturbed and expensive. Regarded from an economic standpoint, the trade of the frontier valleys will never pay a shilling in the pound on the military expenditure necessary to preserve order. . .

The “Full steam ahead” method would be undoubtedly the most desirable

Churchill knew better the Russians found out,but Bushie led us there anyway.

And Obama doubled down on the Bush blunder ....

The Bush blunder was engaging in nation building before destroying the enemy and securing their surrender.....the bush-obama war strategy wasted trillions in national treasure.

I love that fat boy! He was awesome.

Finally some people who talk sense!

And Obama doubled down on the Bush blunder ....

The Bush blunder was engaging in nation building before destroying the enemy and securing their surrender.....the bush-obama war strategy wasted trillions in national treasure. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

the Bush blunder was there is no surrender in Afghanistan he could have done as much with a few cruse missiles and never had boots on the ground.

I'm a huge Churchill fan. He saw Hitler for what he was long before the rest of the English were willing to admit that he was a real threat. That's why its so interesting to read Churchill's comments on Islam. The following quote is from Churchill's book The River War, Volume II.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property (either as a child, a wife, or a concubine) must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science (the science against which it had vainly struggled) the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

And Obama doubled down on the Bush blunder ....

The Bush blunder was engaging in nation building before destroying the enemy and securing their surrender.....the bush-obama war strategy wasted trillions in national treasure. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

i don't think it would have made any difference in what strategy is used to subdue the afghan insurgents.

i don't think it would have made any difference in what strategy is used to subdue the afghan insurgents. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I think you're right. We're dealing with Islamic extremism. There's never going to be a traditional victory or surrender. I'm not even sure the war is against Islamic extremism; our real problem is probably Islam itself.

The west has been fighting the Islamists for fourteen hundred years in one way or another. When George Washington was president, twenty percent of our federal budget went towards paying extortion money to Islamic pirates off the coast of what is now known as Libya. Approximately one million Europeans and Americans were kidnapped and sold as slaves by the Islamic pirates.

The first mission of the Marines was in 1801 when Thomas Jefferson sent them in to fight the so called Barbary Pirates. Alexander Hamilton said that if we went to war against the Islamists we would be fighting them forever.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once


Not much has changed. Hamilton was right.

I think you're right. We're dealing with Islamic extremism. There's never going to be a traditional victory or surrender. I'm not even sure the war is against Islamic extremism; our real problem is probably Islam itself.

The west has been fighting the Islamists for fourteen hundred years in one way or another.

Alexander Hamilton said that if we went to war against the Islamists we would be fighting them forever.

Originally Posted by joe bloe

you are right, can anyone see any of them ever agreeing to anything we might try to propose in settlement of this mess, much less ever surrender? if they do it would only be a ploy.

they do not have a way to come to an accommodation and maintain their dignity in front of each other

you are right, can anyone see any of them ever agreeing to anything we might try to propose in settlement of this mess, much less ever surrender? if they do it would only be a ploy.

they do not have a way to come to an accommodation and maintain their dignity in front of each other Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Muslims are taught that any treaty entered into with an infidel is not binding.

And once again, we are reminded that the problem is Islam its self.

And once again, we are reminded that the problem is Islam its self. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not.

But yes there is a very good argument to made that Islam is fundamentally a bad religion. When the teaching of the Koran is followed strictly, it causes human suffering like no other religion ever has, at least not any other religion as it is currently practiced.

I know we're supposed to pretend that Islam is the religion of peace and the terrorists are hijacking a wonderful religion, but it just isn't true.

The jihadists are practicing mainstream Islam as it has been practiced for fourteen hundred years.

Islam is an excuse. Control is the goal. They could have called it Fredism, but all religions have in them an element of control.

Joeblow, I am being serious. The priciple Prophet of Islam, Mohammed, would be considered by any reasonable standard to be nothing more a murdering Thug.

Sorry, but the sooner the Planet is rid of such repressive "Religions" as Islam, the better off Humanity will be.