It's not about religion as much as it is about power. The Taliban doesn't want charity to reach the needy villagers of remote parts of Afghanistan because it would hurt their grip of power over them.
Charity: 6 Americans on medical team among 10 killed by militants in remote Afghanistan
They fear Christianity. Light shining in darkness reveals the evil that lurks therein.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Limited Options in Afghanistan
If someone attacks you there are limited options as to response. 1) You can beat the "crud" out of them and go home. 2) You can turn the other cheek. 3) You can try to make them your friend.
I think that Option 1) is a deterrent but likely won't make any lasting friends. Option 2) is what Jesus would have done -- but, He works on a much higher plane of existence than we do. Option 3) holds some possibility but probably will only work with an application of Option 1).
So, what are our options in Afghanistan? 1) Beat the "crud" out of them and go home. 2) Whimper and tell them we understand how we've mistreated them for all these years and how we deserved it. And by-the-way, if you feel that you need to attack us again, that's OK. 3) Seek a treaty of friendship and cooperation (which loosely translated means that we will give them money to keep them from attacking again while they continue to hate us).
I think Option 1) is appropriate. Option 2) is a sure path to destruction -- our own. Option 3) is a money pit that allows the problem to fester until it breaks out again.
We've tried a combination of Options 1) and 3). Perhaps it is time to revisit 1) and forget 3).
Clinton Heads to Afghanistan as Fears Mount Over War
I guess there's a reason that I wasn't considered for the Diplomatic Corp.
I think that Option 1) is a deterrent but likely won't make any lasting friends. Option 2) is what Jesus would have done -- but, He works on a much higher plane of existence than we do. Option 3) holds some possibility but probably will only work with an application of Option 1).
So, what are our options in Afghanistan? 1) Beat the "crud" out of them and go home. 2) Whimper and tell them we understand how we've mistreated them for all these years and how we deserved it. And by-the-way, if you feel that you need to attack us again, that's OK. 3) Seek a treaty of friendship and cooperation (which loosely translated means that we will give them money to keep them from attacking again while they continue to hate us).
I think Option 1) is appropriate. Option 2) is a sure path to destruction -- our own. Option 3) is a money pit that allows the problem to fester until it breaks out again.
We've tried a combination of Options 1) and 3). Perhaps it is time to revisit 1) and forget 3).
Clinton Heads to Afghanistan as Fears Mount Over War
I guess there's a reason that I wasn't considered for the Diplomatic Corp.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Opium Wars in Afghanistan
When the economy of a country is in shambles, the people will turn to whatever means necessary to survive. This often includes raising crops destined for production of illicit drugs. Those illicit crops typically finance criminal and rebellious organizations that add to the political turmoil in a region. That turmoil keeps the economy in shambles and makes it more difficult for a conversion to legitimate crops. This is the problem in Afghanistan. Although progress has been made, the lawless areas of the Southwest part of the country are still the world's largest producer of opium. Drug users in the U.S. and EU are financing terrorists that are keeping the multi-national forces busy in Afghanistan. Are we our own worst enemy?
It is in some ways the old problem of the chicken or the egg. Can you fix the illicit drug manufacturer without first removing the rebel elements and restoring law and order -- or must you restore law and order first so that the drug trade can be eliminated. In reality, both must happen almost simultaneously to be effective. If we could rid the world of the drug users it would cut off the funding for the rebels.
It is in some ways the old problem of the chicken or the egg. Can you fix the illicit drug manufacturer without first removing the rebel elements and restoring law and order -- or must you restore law and order first so that the drug trade can be eliminated. In reality, both must happen almost simultaneously to be effective. If we could rid the world of the drug users it would cut off the funding for the rebels.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Business Bootcamp for Disabled Vets
Texas A&M University has a long military heritage. It supplies more officers to the U.S. military than any other college or university in the U.S. other than the military colleges. I am proud of my university and that heritage. The article linked below is one more example of A&M's commitment to those who serve our country.
Disabled vets muster at business boot camp
When our soldiers return from active duty, adjustment to civilian life can be difficult. I applaud all those who seek to make that transition a little easier. Our country did a poor job of assimilating Vietnam Veterans. We must do a better job with our Iraq and Afghanistan Vets as well as those who served in other parts of the globe. After all, they have given themselves -- even their very lives -- that we might enjoy the freedom that we have.
Disabled vets muster at business boot camp
When our soldiers return from active duty, adjustment to civilian life can be difficult. I applaud all those who seek to make that transition a little easier. Our country did a poor job of assimilating Vietnam Veterans. We must do a better job with our Iraq and Afghanistan Vets as well as those who served in other parts of the globe. After all, they have given themselves -- even their very lives -- that we might enjoy the freedom that we have.
Monday, July 14, 2008
A RISKy Game
Have you ever played RISK? It is a strategic board game in which you assign armies to the countries which you hold. You then attack other countries or defend your own if being attacked. The object is to gain complete control of all of the countries represented on the board. The game is great for teaching basic strategic thinking.
Generally there are two basic types of players of the game. One is defensive -- always worried about holding onto what they have. They tend to play reactively. If attacked in a specific place, they quickly build up armies in that place in order to defend against the next attack. They are motivated by the fear of losing. The other type of player is offensive in nature. They are always on the attack. They look for and probe weaknesses in their opponents. They will often sacrifice some areas for the sake of an overall strategic plan. They usually win.
Mr. Obama seems to be the first type of player. Let's put 10 armies on Afghanistan. We don't need them in Iraq anymore because we haven't been attacked there lately. I don't like losing. Do you? Then why back a loser?
Generally there are two basic types of players of the game. One is defensive -- always worried about holding onto what they have. They tend to play reactively. If attacked in a specific place, they quickly build up armies in that place in order to defend against the next attack. They are motivated by the fear of losing. The other type of player is offensive in nature. They are always on the attack. They look for and probe weaknesses in their opponents. They will often sacrifice some areas for the sake of an overall strategic plan. They usually win.
Mr. Obama seems to be the first type of player. Let's put 10 armies on Afghanistan. We don't need them in Iraq anymore because we haven't been attacked there lately. I don't like losing. Do you? Then why back a loser?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)