The Times tells us that few Taliban are interested in taking some American cash to switch sides. Possible explanations:
(a) As residents of a land-locked country, these Taliban are unfamiliar with the notion that rats desert a sinking ship; or
(b) they have no belief that the ship is sinking.
I lean towards (b). Why would someone who has stuck with the Taliban this long switch sides now, when Obama is going to declare victory and anounce major US troop withdrawals next month?
Hamid Karzai met with Ahmedinejad last week at an Asian summit in one of the Stans and today met with Iran's defense minister to discuss " foreign intruders".
Ambassador Eikenberry spoke in Kabul today warning Karzai about criticizing the people keeping him in power.
You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows on this one. Secret negotiations with the tollybons; Pakistan falling apart; Iran meddling openly and in cahoots with Karzai; a massive narcotics industry geared almost exclusively towards the West. What could possible go wrong?
Posted by: matt | June 20, 2011 at 06:09 PM
(c)What can you do with US dollars after you've been beheaded.
Posted by: Clarice | June 20, 2011 at 06:31 PM
(d) Barry's ship is the one slipping 'neath the briny deep and their rats are watching our rats skampering down the mooring lines, as Rick puts it.
Posted by: Ignatz | June 20, 2011 at 06:34 PM
For my possible upcoming stint of jury duty at the county court, the first time I'm to do is fill out a questionnaire and send it in.
One of the questions asks for my race.
Of what possible interest or relevance could that be in an impartial system of justice?
Posted by: PD | June 20, 2011 at 06:37 PM
first *thing* I'm to do
Posted by: PD | June 20, 2011 at 06:37 PM
Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Posted by: Extraneus | June 20, 2011 at 06:40 PM
Or they could take they money play both sides with an emphasis on stringing the US along and switch back when we leave. Or they could just take our money and use it to buy guns and IEDs that they will supposedly inform us about.
A similar Plan with the warlords of eastern Afghanistan worked equally well in the past.
As the saying goes everyone there is dirty, it is just a question of how dirty
Posted by: Abadman | June 20, 2011 at 06:52 PM
"
You have to look at the motivation of the people doing the fighting,”
Yeah. If we REALLY want a successful stimulus
we should air-drop steamer trunks full of cash like we did in Iraq.
That worked pretty well, didn't it?
Posted by: Booooooossssshhhhh ! | June 20, 2011 at 06:53 PM
You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows on this one. Secret negotiations with the tollybons; Pakistan falling apart; Iran meddling openly and in cahoots with Karzai; a massive narcotics industry geared almost exclusively towards the West. What could possible go wrong?
What this tells me is that (e) we are being played for suckers by people who have taken our measure.
The Taliban we are paying off now may in fact dime out others. But that's how the game is played in Afghanistan. By hook, or by crook, or by sicking the infidels on them, you get rid of your competition for power. The people we are paying off will tuck away their black turbans in the back of the mud hut closet, let us do their dirty work for them, and then merrily dance down the pathways to power when we leave.
Also, don't be fooled: Afghan Taliban are for the most part driven by lust for power. There are a few ideological ones being driven by the sociopaths living in Pakistan, but by and large we are dealing with bullies and thugs who want nothing more than to control local populations by fear and murder. Afghans themselves are a people mostly driven by the quest for security, which typically manifests itself by the lust for power and control.
Iran meddling? Of course they are. Aside from the government of Iran being interested in bleeding us, the Qods force is making a killing on the lucrative drug pipeline that funnels cheap heroin and hash into Pakistan,Russia, and Western Europe, not to mention into Iran itself, where nearly one in five people below the age of 30 are regular opiate users. Nice way to keep the hotheaded youth in line and make a little money in the process.
A friend of mine once quietly compared our relationship with Afghanistan to an old man in a strip joint. Old guy will blow tons of money on some young stripper, and she will play along as long as the money is flowing. Old man may even start to believe that the stripper really likes him, and she'll go along with that too to keep the money flowing.
But at the end of the day, that rotten whore will take all his cash, and leave him waiting in the parking lot with tickets to Vegas, while she splits to buy meth for her psychotic boyfriend who beats her.
Posted by: Soylent Red | June 20, 2011 at 06:54 PM
How about (c) they take the cash and then don't switch sides.
Cheu hoi, motherf***er.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 20, 2011 at 06:54 PM
How do we enforce this lovely contract? Can the Mob consult with us on this. Will there be a "sit down?"
He's just not that smart.
Posted by: MarkO | June 20, 2011 at 06:58 PM
Old Navy saying: "Reverse the rat guards".
Big game tonight - Florida v. Vandy [who wins this goes on to win the WS] IMHO.
Go Gators!
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 20, 2011 at 07:04 PM
He's just not that smart.
Surely his SAT's were better than George Bush's and especially Sarah Palin's. Weren't they?
Posted by: Extraneus | June 20, 2011 at 07:05 PM
I don't even care about his SAT's anymore. It is clear on the face of his actions that he's just not that smart. I think he had high grades, but I also think I know how he would have come by them.
Nevertheless, those are olden times. Today, whatever he might once have been, he's just not that smart.
Posted by: MarkO | June 20, 2011 at 07:08 PM
Granted, but I'd still like to see them. And the LSAT. After all, he's quite possibly the most brilliant president we've ever had. I imagine lots of rejected Harvard Law applicants would probably like to see that LSAT score as well, just so they could feel better about being rejected.
I'd also like to see Keith Olbermann's, Charlie Gibson's and Katie Couric's, for that matter. (I'm guessing Jon Stewart and Chris Matthews were decent students, but somehow I'm not guessing that about Obama.)
Posted by: Extraneus | June 20, 2011 at 07:17 PM
March 26, 2009: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a visit to Mexico, said Wednesday that America's inability to prevent weapons being smuggled across the border is causing the deaths of Mexican police officers, soldiers and civilians.
These people should fry over the Gunrunner operation.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 20, 2011 at 07:30 PM
What Sec of State Clinton should be complaining about is Mexico and their efforts to push as many Illegals in to the US as possible.
http://biggovernment.com/jdeangelis/2011/06/20/mexico-sues-georgia-over-immigration-law/
The idea that Mexico and other countries can decide what our immigration laws are is insane. Try telling Mexico that they should change their immigration law and see how far that goes.
Posted by: pagar | June 20, 2011 at 08:02 PM
Yeah, only she's in favor of that. Actually, she's in favor of both.
More illegals on our side, and more of our guns on their side, killing theirs and ours. A few broken eggs but delicious omelets.
This is who the American people elected.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 20, 2011 at 08:08 PM
"One of the questions asks for my race."
5K. 15K is too far without practice.
Posted by: sbw | June 20, 2011 at 08:16 PM
Why would someone who has stuck with the Taliban this long switch sides now, when Obama is going to declare victory and anounce major US troop withdrawals next month?
That's the ticket, and the reason us ignorant military types generally resist withdrawal dates. Good thing we have those geniuses in the White House and DoS to run things with all that smart diplomacy, cuz otherwise I'd be concerned.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 20, 2011 at 08:18 PM
5K. 15K is too far without practice.
Winner.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 20, 2011 at 08:26 PM
A more productive topic for a foreign policy thread would have been one discussing Ross Douthat's article today: Who Will Define GOP Foreign Policy: Rand or Rubio? That might get out ahead of the debate that may be shaping up for the 2012 election.
Posted by: anduril | June 20, 2011 at 08:39 PM
A good starting point for a domestic policy discussion would have been Walter Russell Mead's latest: Blue State Schools: The Shame of a Nation.
Posted by: anduril | June 20, 2011 at 08:42 PM
"Who Will Define GOP Foreign Policy: Rand or Rubio?'
I say it's Ayn Rand.
Posted by: corn-fed conservative | June 20, 2011 at 08:45 PM
soylent,we need to sit down over a few beers and compare notes.Remember the story of the Romans sowing the fields of Carthage with salt?
Posted by: matt | June 20, 2011 at 09:15 PM
Perry and Texas flip off Obama
Let there be light
http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/06/texas-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-get-around-federal-light-bulb-law/
Posted by: windanseaners | June 20, 2011 at 09:17 PM
"Let there be light"
Oh! How sweet it is. Freedom means being stupid enough to prefer oxen power when an 18-wheeler offers to ship your freight at 1/4 the energy cost.
Brilliant!
Inspiring!
Audacious!
Mendacious
Posted by: corn-fed conservative | June 20, 2011 at 09:25 PM
--Freedom means being stupid enough to prefer oxen power when an 18-wheeler offers to ship your freight at 1/4 the energy cost.--
Not quite apt, bright boy.
Freedom means not being compelled to pay twice as much to haul our goods on a half assed bio fueled semi that takes twice as long and costs twice as much and has a van lined with mercury when a perfectly nice conventional diesel big rig is available.
Posted by: Ignatz | June 20, 2011 at 09:32 PM
Law Prof Ann Althouse to the NYTimes:
"Just. Shut. The. Fuck. Up."
Posted by: daddy | June 20, 2011 at 09:46 PM
Meanwhile, back at the ranch,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/republicans_flicker_on_light_bulb_ban_repeal.html
Posted by: narciso | June 20, 2011 at 09:47 PM
I sense a fear in the force
heh heh heh
Posted by: windanseaners | June 20, 2011 at 09:47 PM
Just sent Insty a note:
Mobilize the army of Davids to create a DIY 100 watt incandescent lightbulb kit in time to tell the feds to stuff it.
Posted by: sbw | June 20, 2011 at 09:53 PM
Althouse on the NYT pizza cooking technique
Heh! And that's not the worst she has to say. LOL
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 20, 2011 at 09:53 PM
Talk about fear, The Progressive of Madison Wisconsin is not happy with the union performance in WI.
Fun read.
Posted by: henry | June 20, 2011 at 09:56 PM
daddy,
Clarice needs to read that article in the Times because it now gives her the moral certitude that she is now as green as Ireland every time she stokes up the Egg:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 20, 2011 at 09:57 PM
Someone should set up a lightbulb smuggling op from Texas. SCAM!! We bring good things to light!!
Posted by: Clarice | June 20, 2011 at 09:57 PM
Althouse it right, of course. Fry the enviros and save the trees, I say.
Posted by: Clarice | June 20, 2011 at 09:59 PM
Wow! Check out this chart!
What Happens on the Internet in 60 Seconds: Every Minute of Every Day
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM
If you break a fluorescent bulb, there is no need to call in the hazmat team, the agency says. Just clean it up quickly with paper (no vacuuming or brooms), keep the kids away and open the window for a 15-minute douse of fresh air.
The mercury from one fluorescent light bulb pollutes, according to some activist groups, 6000 gallons of water beyond levels safe for drinking. In 43 U.S. states, it is legal to dispose fluorescent bulbs as universal waste
yeahawww!
Posted by: windanseaners | June 20, 2011 at 10:05 PM
"Who Will Define GOP Foreign Policy: Rand or Rubio?"
Are we to assume that it must be one or the other? Eh?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 20, 2011 at 10:14 PM
California--always eager to be one step ahead of the rats in the race to the bottom--has already outlawed the incandescesnts, one year ahead of the feds. I started hoarding about a year ago, but others did the same and they soon disappeared.
And can we resurrect the discussion of federal regulation of toilet tank capacity?
The shower-adjusters have intruded into our lives to a shocking degree. And there are millions of serfs who supinely acquiesce...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 20, 2011 at 10:20 PM
Back in 1993, Danube, 'Demolition Man's cheery huxleyan dystopia, seemed like satire, today it seems like a goal for these people.
Posted by: narciso | June 20, 2011 at 10:24 PM
DoT, is it illegal to ship them in?
I remember at an former job they put in motion sensors in the offices that would turn out the lights if there was no movement detected for one minute or whatever. So I'd be sitting there about to solve some major problem or come up with some Nobel prize winning idea, and all of a sudden the light would switch off and I'd lose my train of thought. After that happened a couple of times I figured out how to disable the damn thing.
Posted by: jimmyk | June 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM
The irony in this piece, is Eickenberry was busy stabbing every party in the country, including McCrystal,
http://cnsnews.cloud.clearpathhosting.com/news/article/us-ambassador-rebukes-karzai-hurtful-ina
Posted by: narciso | June 20, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Didn't Obama tell Sarah Brady that they were working on gun control under the radar, a statement he no doubt, thought she would keep, under the radar. I haven't heard a peep about this comment in respect to Operation Gun Runner, I wonder why? (No I don't really)
Posted by: Rocco | June 20, 2011 at 10:38 PM
jimmyk-
Ball peen or claw?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 20, 2011 at 10:43 PM
"motion sensors in the offices that would turn out the lights'
They did that in a Government office and everyone went to sleep.
Posted by: Agent J. (formally known as "J".. | June 20, 2011 at 10:44 PM
I don't want 100 Watt light bulbs.
I want 100 Watt Heat Balls.
This is what genius is.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | June 20, 2011 at 10:48 PM
Jimmyk, those are 60-watters at the link. I don't know the precise wording of the law, so I don't know the status of, say, 95-watt bulbs.
Bush signed this law. The GOP candidate(s) should campaign on its repeal. Winner.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM
Obama: "I inherited a Bush economy"
Perry: "Me too"
Posted by: windanseaners | June 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM
I've never been so concerned about losing a presidential election, and this goes back to Ike's second term. But, when I see the cast of GOP characters and listen to their blather, I'm underwhelmed. I see preening; I hear focus-group nothingness. No one inspires, except, perhaps, his or her own slice. They seem to conspire to find a way to disqualify each other and the group with meaningless love tests and pledges and wishful thinking.
Dear Lord, may I be wrong. Please.
Posted by: MarkO | June 20, 2011 at 11:23 PM
@DoT
"How about (c) they take the cash and then don't switch sides.
Cheu hoi, motherf***er."
I think that used to be "Chieu Hoi," and I used to interview recently turncoated CH's in my lousy Vietnamese. They usually did it for the money. Then two months later, our Phoenix forays would catch them collecting taxes at night for the VC. Our HES was so bad we couldn't figure it out unless a Ruff/Puff along with us knew his family. Of course, sometimes the VC & the RF & PF were all siblings.
@MarkO
Not to falter. I'm gonna look at Perry hard, even though the DNC slime machine is loading up with green goo already.
Posted by: daveinboca | June 20, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Yeah Dave, I misspelled the "Chieu" part.
I had a couple of them that I trusted, at least somewhat. One of them came over with the clear (but false) understanding that I was going to kill him on the spot if he didn't. He did me some favors after that, and had a permanent cheerful smile on his face whenever I saw him. As you know, this was an extremely weird time and place.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 21, 2011 at 12:12 AM
I know this is all you need to distract you from our disastrous economy, right?
Obama Campaign to Unveil Adorable, Fuzzy Mascot to Distract Voters From President's Unblemished Record of Economic, Foreign Policy Failures
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 21, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Republicans should nickname the mascot Pinocchio.
Almost as good as WTF for a campaign slogan.
Posted by: Stephanie | June 21, 2011 at 12:18 AM
Sh!t. Thought they went and did it for reals. Parody? Nevermind, but with this crew...
Posted by: Stephanie | June 21, 2011 at 12:20 AM
Oh in case you were wondering, it is a Failosaurus, called "Failie" for short. ;)
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 21, 2011 at 12:21 AM
The one thing I continue to be unable to understand is this guy's 47-48-49 approval ratings. WTF indeed?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 21, 2011 at 12:46 AM
Bush signed this law. The GOP candidate(s) should campaign on its repeal. Winner.
Posted by: 2011 soccer jerseys | June 21, 2011 at 04:30 AM
Long Winded OT.
A local Talk Radio discussion today got me to wondering how many Lawsuits we currently have where the State of Alaska is suing the Federal Government. Doing an Internet search, this is what I came up with since 2008:
1) Challenging ObamaCare (2010)
2) Challenging the listing of the Polar Bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008.
3) Challenging the listing of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale as an Endangered Species (ESA) (2010).
4) Challenging the designation of 3,013 square miles of shoreline and marine area as Critical Habitat for the distinct population segment of Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet. (2010)
5) Sued to remove the Eastern Steller Sea Lion from protections under the (ESA) Endangered Species Act. (2010)
6) Appealed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision to deny the state’s application for a recordable disclaimer of interest (RDI) in the bed of the Stikine River. (2010)
7) Awaiting a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on whether the regulatory bar prohibiting the Secretary of Interior from taking land into trust for the benefit of Alaska Native tribes and individuals is valid. (2010)
8) Suing against a Federal Decision that prevents Alaska from killing wolves to protect a declining Unimak Caribou population. (2010)
9) A lawsuit against the government to block a federal moratorium on offshore drilling in Alaska---Salazar's pseudo-Moratorium (2010) (this suit was recently dismissed saying Salazar didn't actually issue a Moratorium)
10) Suing the Feds over designation of 187,000 square miles of Arctic coast as critical habitat for the polar bears (2011)
11) Joined a Lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management regarding recent changes in federal policy on how that agency manages public lands, alleging that the BLM policy imposed by Salazar arbitrarily creates a new public land designation of "wild lands," directs federal agencies to protect the wilderness values of such lands, creates additional potential costs and delays in the permitting process, and overrides existing regional land use management plans...(2011)
12) Challenging both the Clinton-era Roadless Rule for Tongass National Forest and a federal judge's recent decision overturning an exemption to that rule in southeast Alaska. (2011)
13) Multiple Lawsuits against the Feds concerning ESA (Endangered Species designations) relating to ribbon and other seals, humpback whales, wood bison, and salmon.
14) Multiple current Challenges to the EPA and what the EPA considers as its authority under the Clean Air Act. (Such as restrictions prohibiting burning firewood in stoves in winter in Fairbanks) 2010) Alaska has been challenging the EPA's authority to regulate GHGs (Green House Gases) since 2003.
So apologies for listing those but it helped me see what we're up against up here. Governor Parnell has recently created a new position for a lawyer who deals specifically with issues involving the Endangered Species Act and nothing else. Since IANAL I don't know if thats a lot of Federal Lawsuits but it sure seems like a lot.
Are you guys as clobbered with so many Lawsuits seeking to keep the Fed's from regulating your State to death?
Posted by: daddy | June 21, 2011 at 04:45 AM
Big Fail, that adorable fuzzy mascot is a grinch of some sort. Probably the Grinch who Stole the Sunspots.
===========
Posted by: It's the Sun, It's the Sun, It's the Sun. | June 21, 2011 at 06:42 AM
I gotta campaign slogan for Sarah.
==============
Posted by: It's Wrong. | June 21, 2011 at 06:53 AM
Whoa, preview? And did a whole thread just go into the ether?
====================
Posted by: Oh, Typepad Goddess won't ya buy buy me a Mercedes Benz. | June 21, 2011 at 06:55 AM
Musta been some other blog. Windows might have a problem with some wordpress blogs.
=================
Posted by: Now three lines of evidence about the stilling sun. | June 21, 2011 at 07:05 AM
Just looking at the pic of Janet Napolitano that Drudge put up. I hope I'm not out of bounds, but... Yeeesh.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 21, 2011 at 07:40 AM
And what's with the pearls, anyway?
Posted by: Extraneus | June 21, 2011 at 07:43 AM
Should have 'used the Iludium Q 36 space modulator,' ahem, stimulus'
Posted by: narciso | June 21, 2011 at 07:49 AM
Don't you mean the "Iludium Q36 explosive space modulator"?
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy | June 21, 2011 at 08:53 AM
About the light bulb discussion last night - Insty had a link two weeks ago to Amazon for 100 watt incandescent lights (he gets revenue for the click through), so I clicked and ordered. (They come 24 bulbs to a pack.) I live in California and received my shipment just fine - no light bulb police confiscated them! lol.
He must have gotten a lot of clicks on that item because he has been repeating the link every few days, in fact he had the link again yesterday.
Posted by: centralcal | June 21, 2011 at 08:54 AM
I've got an entire closet full of 100 Watt bulbs. I've been hording for well over a year. Last week I bought 20 more at 25 cents a piece. A Bargain!!!
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | June 21, 2011 at 09:03 AM
daddy,
That is an impressive list. You should forward to Insty, Prof. Jacobson and Powerline. When Clarice wakes up I'm sure she'll want you to write it up for AT.
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | June 21, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Sadly, Jane, I procrastinated until they were no longer available in the stores here (bought a couple of 4/packs just days before they were removed from shelves).
I was really tickled by Ann Althouse's post on the 500 degree oven and pizza baking vs. the 100 watt light bulb. Made me think of Clarice and her green egg. Always ahead of the curve, that Clarice!
Posted by: centralcal | June 21, 2011 at 09:18 AM
Most of the Taliban foot soldiers won't accept cash for two reasons:
1. If they are Arab - they have plenty of money back home. They are in Pakistan and Afghanistan performing a religious duty - much the same as Mormons out and about on their bikes each summer. Fighting Americans is a Mission Trip - not a job.
2. If they are Afghani/Pakistani - where are they going to go? Home? The family and village elders gave them the boot in exchange for cash already. They don't want the young men back.
Posted by: DaveO | June 21, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Sadly, Jane, I procrastinated until they were no longer available in the stores here (bought a couple of 4/packs just days before they were removed from shelves).
Hmmmm, maybe I should go into business.
It's funny. I don't think I go through 2 lightbulbs a year.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | June 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM
McCain's not that smart, either.
If you're gonna destroy a party, better it was the democraps that got kicked in the ass.
The obama madness? Like I said, McCain would'a been worse.
And, by 2012, I expect Sarah to have an INDEPENDENT fling. Better than Ross Perot's. I don't expect the stupid party to have learned much, though.
Posted by: Carol.Herman | June 22, 2011 at 03:22 PM