Skip to main content

This diary is part of an ongoing series called Two Minutes Hate, in which the author enjoys several minutes of cathartic anger at the douchebag of the day. Lovers of reasoned, intelligent debate need not read on.

So, George Will wrote an op-ed today.

In it, he turned his INVALUABLE intellect to the problem of Afghanistan, and came to the conclusion that

Genius...sometimes consists of knowing when to stop

Let us set aside the question of whether the suggestions he makes are good ones. Let's ignore the fact that his specific policy prescription, namely

America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

makes NO FUCKING SENSE (it's not possible to use air power and Spec Ops to patrol a 1500-mile border with anything resembling effectiveness).

In fact, let's dismiss the whole question of whether Afghanistan is even a worthwhile war.

The chief outstanding question in my head is as follows: Where the flying FUCK have you been, George "The 'F' Stands For Fucker" Will?

Where were you the last EIGHT GODDAMN YEARS? I don't know if you noticed, but we were fighting in Afghanistan under a President that wasn't a Democrat. Shocking, I know, because you've got the attention span of an inattentive turtle, but if Afghanistan has been an unwinnable waste of life, it has been so for much longer than since (to pick a day totally at random) January 20th, 2009.

The fact is, I know exactly where you were: busy toeing the Republican Party Talking Points. As long as it was a Republican war, it wasn't worth your precious time to speak out. But now that a Democrat is in charge, suddenly it's a HUGE mistake that Barack Obama bears TOTAL responsibility for.

The most shocking thing to me is how liberals have rallied around him like he's some sort of noble figure taking a courageous stand. He would be a noble figure taking a courageous stand if he had written this column at any point during the last eight godawful years. But the fact is, he's a brainless conservative lackey who only sees the folly in Afghanistan because it's suddenly under the command of a liberal.

Fuck you, George Will.

UPDATED SCUMBAGGERY: I don't know how I missed this the first time, but:

...Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Man, the condescension is TANGIBLE. It's about a half-step from out-and-out RACIST. Does this guy even have editors?

Originally posted to slash196 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 07:56 AM PDT.

Poll

George Will

100%110 votes

| 110 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  He would have never written the column (15+ / 0-)

    under a Republican President.
    George Will could care less if we're in Afghanistan until the 22d century. The only thing these guys want is for Democrats to fail.

    •  The majority of Dems and Repubs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dartagnan, citydem

      mostly vote for wars when the President is a member of their own party. But they are critical of wars when the President is a member of the other party.

      I rarely read Will--because of his extreme right-wing views, it's clear that in anything he writes, the spin will trump truth. However, I am supportive of any article in the corporate media that is anti-war spin.

      Since WW II every war has been for the benefit of the war profiteers. They all suck. The American grunts who did most of the dying, as did those on the other side, had no clue regarding why in the hell the were shooting at each other.

      If the war in Afghanistan was evil during the Bush years, it is no less evil now. It seems to me that there was no Taliban involve with the execution of 9/11. Even if there had been, it's no excuse for the continued killings of the many hundreds of thousands of women in children who had nothing to do with 9/11.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:49:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  goes back even further, actually (0+ / 0-)

        familiar with General Smedley Butler?:

        "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

        -8.25, -6.26 If knowledge hangs around your neck like pearls, instead of chains, you are a lucky man... Alan Price

        by snookybeh on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 12:29:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a VFP member, I am familiar with (0+ / 0-)

          general Butler. His short booklet "Addicted to War" is available on the VFP site. Great quote--hope that those who read the comments on this diary will take the time to read the entire quote.

          War is costly. Peace is priceless!

          by frostbite on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:30:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Like your rants, slash (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, kestrel9000, janmtairy

    ...keep it up, and I'll keep reading and rec'ing them.

    Cheers!

    "See if you can guess what I am now?" -John "Bluto" Blutarsky

    by Bonsai66 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 07:59:42 AM PDT

  •  All it takes to turn a wingnut into a pacifist (10+ / 0-)

    is a Democratic president.

  •  I really can't understand... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, beaky

    ...the argument to pull out of Afghanistan and let God sort it out.

    It was under the Taliban rule that Al Qeada was allowed to operate with relative impunity within the country as they planned the 9/11 attacks.

    And now the Taliban is posing a threat again in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    There's nothing pre-emptive or unjustified about going after the Taliban.

    Perhaps we should rethink our tactics (which seems to a process underway), but to just leave seems reckless as the threat's not gone.

    Trust me, I'm not a hawk. I protested against going into Iraq every step of the way.

    But to leave the Taliban to its own devices is not an option.

    •  Under this rational... (6+ / 0-)

      ...there are about twenty other places on this earth we should invade.

      •  OBL operated from Afghanistan.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous

        Al Qeada was harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan, making them both culpable in the murder of thousands of American civilians on American soil.

        It's not bluster, it's not "intelligence," it's not speculation. The Taliban is largely responsible for the attacks, and now they're trying to take power once more. There's no way that could end well.

        •  That "harbor" was tenuous... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sunbro, frostbite

          The Taliban were willing to turn over Al Qaeda for financial and political considerations right after 9/11.

          The Taliban has strong and deep roots in the madrases which are financed by the Saudi's and the UAE. There are millions of young zealots being schooled as we speak.

          The AfPak war is no longer about Al Qaeda - and hasn't been since the original attacks that routed them. But, this fantasy still feeds the rational for war.

          •  The argument could be made (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Claudius Bombarnac

            that allowing political and monetary concessions to a brutal oppressive regime would be an unethical sacrifice to attain a limited and probably transient victory.

            Of course, such an argument would be totally inconsistent with the history of US foreign policy.

            •  9/11 had too high a profile (0+ / 0-)

              to play the usual games. America had to show overwhelming force and might right from the get go. But, they underestimated the Taliban just as they underestimated the Viet Cong in Vietnam.

              As America continues it's current policy of military whack-a-mole, the Taliban is capturing the hearts and minds of the young by taking advantage of the poor social conditions of the peoples in the region.

              The Taliban were conceived and nurtured in Pakistan and exported to Afghanistan with help from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE AND the USA.

              Nuclear armed Pakistan is now the true prize for them. Al Qaeda plays a very minor role in the current situation.

              There is a saying that is very apropos in the AfPak conflict: "You reap what you sow."

          •  From the official report: (0+ / 0-)

            In the fall of 1999, the four operatives selected by Bin Ladin for the planes operation were chosen to attend an elite training course at al Qaeda's Mes Aynak camp in Afghanistan. Bin Ladin personally selected the veteran fighters who received this training, and several of them were destined for important operations. One example is Ibrahim al Thawar, or Nibras, who would participate in the October 12, 2000, suicide attack on the USS Cole. According to KSM, this training was not given specifically in preparation for the planes operation or any other particular al Qaeda venture. Although KSM claims not to have been involved with the training or to have met with the future 9/11 hijackers at Mes Aynak, he says he did visit the camp while traveling from Kandahar to Kabul with Bin Ladin and others.48

            The Mes Aynak training camp was located in an abandoned Russian copper mine near Kabul. The camp opened in 1999, after the United States had destroyed the training camp near Khowst with cruise missiles in August 1998, and before the Taliban granted al Qaeda permission to open the al Faruq camp in Kandahar.Thus, for a brief period in 1999, Mes Aynak was the only al Qaeda camp operating in Afghanistan. It offered a full range of instruction, including an advanced commando course taught by senior al Qaeda member Sayf al Adl. Bin Ladin paid particular attention to the 1999 training session. When Salah al Din, the trainer for the session, complained about the number of trainees and said that no more than 20 could be handled at once, Bin Ladin insisted that everyone he had selected receive the training.49

            The special training session at Mes Aynak was rigorous and spared no expense. The course focused on physical fitness, firearms, close quarters combat, shooting from a motorcycle, and night operations. Although the subjects taught differed little from those offered at other camps, the course placed extraordinary physical and mental demands on its participants, who received the best food and other amenities to enhance their strength and morale.50

            It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fundraising activities.121 Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)122

            Link

            •  The Taliban never financially supported al Qaeda (0+ / 0-)

              In fact, it was the other way around:

              Global Security.org

              ...The CIA estimated that prior to September 11, al Qaeda spent $30 million dollars annually, $10-$20 million of which went to the Taliban.

              Since September 11 and the fall of the Taliban, al Qaeda funding has drastically decreased. Countless financial facilitators have either been arrested or killed resulting in decreased fundraising with increased fund transfering difficulty. Many corrupt charities have gone completely out of business. Due to the monetary shortcommings, al Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia decreased in May and November of 2003. Al Qaeda's negative image has also caused significant decreases in charitable donations.

              In addition to a decrease in funds, al Qaeda's expeditures have also enormously decreased due to cutbacks in the organization. Al Qaeda no longer provides financial assistance to the Taliban or runs Afghan training camps. Terrorist operations, however, require little money and are still relatively easy for al Qaeda to fund.

      •  The word is rationale, and I don't think so. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous

        I don't recall any other nation that actually supported, protected, and housed Al-Qaeda leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

        Perhaps you could enlighten us.

        "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them..." Amen.

        by nsfbr on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:18:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Right answer, wrong question (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bablhous

            Saudi Arabia didn't and doesn't harbor Al Qaida in the way that the Taliban did, because right under "Destroy America" on Al Qaida's to-do list is "Destroy the oppressive Saudi monarchy".

            If we use your basis of "Any nation that had a substantial cell of Al Qaida operatives" we'd have to include Indonesia and Yemen (and, come to think of the, the USA).

            •  Sounds good... (0+ / 0-)

              ...let's go conduct wars of necessity there to. Obama's been dealt such a bad hand that it might just be necessary to have a lot more wars of necessity before we succeed in rounding up all the bad guys.

              •  I was being facetious (0+ / 0-)

                You were either deliberately misunderstanding the question or you actually can't tell the difference between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

                •  The difference between Saudi Arabia (0+ / 0-)

                  ...and Afghanistan is that Saudi Arabia owns a big chunk of the corporations that are calling the shots on world war policy. Don't tell me about good wars and bad wars and evildoers. All wars are bad wars and the motives behind them are never clear cut simplistic soundbites.

                  •  WWII was catalyzed by American imperialism (0+ / 0-)

                    Our possessions in the South Pacific were Japan's main beef with us. We had them because of capitalist, corporatist expansion. We cut political deals with the largest mass-murderer in history. Million of innocent civilians were blown to pieces, raped, murdered, and displaced. The war effort was a massive attack on civil liberties and the largest government handout to big business in history.

                    So why is it called "The Good War"? Because, unlike almost all wars, among the many bad and terrible causes and consequences, there was good to be found. The ethical outcome of the war cashed out positively. It's reasonable (but not absolutely certain) to suggest that Afghanistan might have a similar ethical balance sheet.

        •  Saudi Arabia (0+ / 0-)

          But lets bounce Afghan rocks because the Saudis pump oil.

          Cities are good for the environment

          by citydem on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't want to put it in the diary (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, 4CasandChlo, gsadamb

      but I agree with you. If it's too late to salvage the war in Afghanistan, it's BUSH'S fuckup for shifting to Iraq.

      The Afghanistan War is the best kind of war (and I say that with decided irony). It has an ethical justification: it is a response to a real threat and has humanistic good as its ideal outcome. Of COURSE it's a waste of lives and a brutal and traumatic and possibly counterproductive endeavor. I believe that's why it's called a "war".

      •  And there was an objective that was rational. . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous

        However, we never put sufficient resources into Afghanistan to have anything close to "winning." We put a few unlucky troops in to "guide" the locals, knowing full well that we needed to "save" our resources for the REAL war, Iraq, you know the country that didn't attack us, but was unfortunate enough to have a sea of oil under it.

        While it is not true that ALL conservatives are stupid; it is true that ALL stupid people are conservative.

        by 4CasandChlo on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:22:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This all may be true... (3+ / 0-)

    ...but it is interesting that the biggest CHANGE Obama has accomplished is to increase the size of the war in Afghanistan.

  •  Perfectly stated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, tRueffert

    I look forward to the next installment.

  •  But we must never forget. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Creator

    This is not a war of choice.  This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again.

    Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

    by bugscuffle on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:13:19 AM PDT

  •  George Will, foreign policy expert (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Creator, Claudius Bombarnac

    NOT!

  •  better late than never (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    janinsanfran, tRueffert, sunbro

    Will is an arrogant conservative, but good on him for speaking out against the US's unproductive entanglement in Afghanistan. He was somewhat critical of GW Bush on the Iraq war as well. The US can't afford war all over the planet whether GOP or Dem are in the White House. Barack Obama will help himself and the nation by following Charles DeGaulle's example from 1962 when he pulled France out of Algeria just when it looked like the French had suppressed the rebellion. Else wise we will end up leaving Afghanistan like the Russians did with our tail between our legs.

    Cities are good for the environment

    by citydem on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:21:07 AM PDT

  •  George Will's strategy is short sighted... (0+ / 0-)

    and will cause world-wide terrorism against civilian targets to flare up even more once people realize that America is waging war with no military 'skin in the game'.

    War has evolved from a military/civilian casualty rate of 99 to 1 at the turn of the 19th century to the current 1 to 99.

    'War by video game' promises to remove even that one...

  •  Good point about Will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frostbite

    But it's also interesting how the crowd here that screamed  no war!, bring the troops home,  immoral colonialists,  corporate war machine, peace at any cost and on and on  are suddenly very quiet when it comes to Obama's Afghan war.

    •  Hey, maybe that's because (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, mojave mike

      the people who actually killed 3000 of your fellow citizens and would saw your fucking head off and laugh while doing it still have a safe haven there.

      "Obama's Afghan war."

      You gotta be kidding me.  The guy is doing his best to deal with a complex, dangerous situation.

      Go earn a buck and buy a clue.

      •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Claudius Bombarnac

        ..let's go kill a bunch more people in Afghanistan. They killed 3000 of our fellow citizens. Let's bomb the shit out of them. We need to do it so that they know it's not a safe haven. This strategy has been working really well for the last eight years. All we need to do it turn up the pressure. More war! Yeah! Go Obama!

      •  Those same people were (0+ / 0-)

        also in Iraq.  They called themselves "al qaeda in Iraq"  They were worth going after then as they are now.  

        Obama has been in office   6 months, he owns it, just like he now owns the economy.   At some point,  you can't keep blaming  past administrations.

        Rather than tons of troops  we could use a  rejuvenated and  inspired CIA   rather than the demoralized  organization Holder  is creating.

    •  Well, Obama was pretty clear during (0+ / 0-)

      the campaign that he would focus on the war in Afghanistan. In many ways, that was the basis of his campaign: we shouldnt have gone into Iraq, we should have focused on Afghanistan. So Obama's stance isnt really a surprise to anyone, or it shouldnt be.

  •  This wuss (0+ / 0-)

    never served in the military.  Yeah, he probably jerks off to pics of Patton, but he doesn't know shit about actual on-the-ground military strategy.

    Why does this douche have a column, again?

  •  Actual genius (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gzodik, Claudius Bombarnac

    knows when not to start. Military action in Afghanistan was urgent and necessary. But after we missed that opportunity, staying around to nation-build under the weak camouflage of playing whack-a-mole with the Taliban has only led to tragedy on all counts. (Never get involved in a land war in Asia – why is it that screenwriters know history but our military doesn't?)

  •  Will = Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld apologist (0+ / 0-)

    Now that Afghanistan is "Obama's Vietnam," Will wants to "cut and run."  Will is a two-faced, elitist traitor.

    "The things that are worth dying for are those things that are not worth living without" Eduardo Galeano

    by mojave mike on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:48:08 AM PDT

    •  Will does not want to "cut and run" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citydem

      He wants to change the nature of the war - to remove 'boots on the ground'. This will make the war more palatable to the American populace.

      Obama is also very open to this scenario: "Increase 'over the horizon' military capabilities." His DOD budget has reflected this.

      This will lead to the ultimate in state run terrorism - unmanned drones striking targets thousands of miles away, operated by soldiers who go home to their wives and kiddies at the end of their shift.

      This development does not bode well for the world...

  •  A Dem is in the WH so war not important anymore?? (0+ / 0-)

    Smells like POLITICS to me, after 8 years of mismanagement in Afghanistan by Bush Cheney George will has an EPIPHANY... Count me in as UNIMPRESSED

    GEOGE WILL = SCUMBAG !

    Republican brand of HOPE: "I HOPE HE FAILS"... Country First Anyone?

    by DFutureIsNow on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:58:03 AM PDT

  •  George Will may be a scumbag, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Magnifico

    but unlike Charles Krauthammer the Rethug ass-kiss, he seems to believe what he says.

    If the war in Afghanistan is not bound to work in its present form, I think that a new strategy, that incorporates redeployment and that does not lose so many American and Afghan civilian lives is an idea that should be explored.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:04:40 AM PDT

  •  And don't forget (0+ / 0-)

    how they handled the service of Pat Tillman in that Afgan Bushmire.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site