Bombs Away, Applebaum!

There’s no war so badly lost, it seems, that someone can’t be found to say that it was all a good idea and the problem was not that the war was fought but that it wasn’t fought hard enough. This was once perhaps the purview of conservatively-minded national security types. But since the end of the Cold War it’s been increasingly the opinion of the keyboard warriors in the democracy-promoting intelligentsia who want nothing more than the bomb the world into oblivion for the sake of liberalism and human rights.

So we should hardly be surprised that the debacle in Afghanistan has brought the liberal interventionists out of their closets to argue that America’s never ending wars aren’t the problem – the real problem is that Westerners are lilly-livered softies who are too decadent to stand up and fight against the forces of evil that surround them, and that if we don’t step up the bombing then democracy, liberalism and all the rest of it will collapse in a tsunami of assaults from the liberty-hating Russians, Chinese and Islamists, who together have formed common front designed to destroy us all.

And so it is that Anne Applebaum (who else?) has stepped up to the plate with a little piece in The Atlantic with the catchy title “Liberal Democracy is Worth a Fight.” Of course, the rotten regime that just fell in Afghanistan was hardly a “liberal democracy,” but I guess it was more liberal and more democratic than the Taliban are likely to be, so we’ll let that one slip. The point is clear: liberal democracy is in peril, and Applebaum wants to issue a call to arms: We must fight. Fight, fight, fight. If not, we’re doomed!

And indeed, her article gets off to a fighting start with the following words:

Of all the empty, pointless statements that are periodically repeated by Western politicians, none is more empty and pointless than this one: “There can be no military solution to this conflict.”

Because, you see, as the Taliban have just shown, there are military solutions. As Applebaum says, “In many conflicts, probably Syria and certainly Afghanistan, there is a military solution: The war ends because one side wins.”

The problem is that it’s the wrong side that keeps on winning. And that bugs Applebaum. She tells us:

The need to prevent this from happening in other places—to prevent violent extremists from invading places where people would prefer to live in peace and in accordance with the rule of law—is precisely why we have armies, weapons, intelligence agencies, and spies of various kinds, despite all of the mistakes they make and the ugly things they sometimes do. The need to prevent violent extremists from creating structures like al-Qaeda or rogue, nuclear-armed regimes is precisely why North Americans and Europeans get involved in distant and difficult conflicts. 

That’s also why the phenomenon of liberal internationalism—or “neocon internationalism” if you don’t like it—exists: Because sometimes only guns can prevent violent extremists from taking power. Yet many people in the liberal democratic world, perhaps most people, don’t want to believe this. … They pretend that … that “solidarity” with the women of Afghanistan, without a physical presence to back it up, is a meaningful idea.

Whoa, there, Anne. That’s not actually “why we have armies, weapons,” and all the rest of it. At least, not historically speaking. Historically, we had them to defend our homelands from attack, or, in the more aggressive periods of our past, so that we could attack other peoples’ homelands and take them from them. Armies aren’t social workers whose aim is “to spread solidarity with the women of Afghanistan.” They’re not suited for that sort of thing. What they’re good for is killing people and blowing stuff up. So if there’s a physical threat out there that can be dealt with by killing people and blowing stuff up, then there’s a role for the military. But “building democracy,” “showing solidarity,” and all that guff – not suitable.

Anyway, Applebaum believes that we are in danger. Now Kabul has fallen, our enemies will have others in their sights: South Korea, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Japan, Taiwan – they are all in peril. Applebaum tells us:

Afghanistan provides a useful reminder that while we and our European allies might be tired of “forever wars,” the Taliban are not tired of wars at all. The Pakistanis who helped them are not tired of wars, either. Nor are the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian regimes that hope to benefit from the change of power in Afghanistan; nor are al-Qaeda and the other groups who may make Afghanistan their home again in future. More to the point, even if we are not interested in any of these nations and their brutal politics, they are interested in us. They see the wealthy societies of America and Europe as obstacles to be cleared out of their way. To them, liberal democracy is not an abstraction; it is a potent, dangerous ideology that threatens their power and needs to be defeated wherever it exists, and they will deploy corruption, propaganda, and even violence to do so. They will do it in Syria and Ukraine, and they will do it within the borders of the U.S., the U.K., and the EU.


Let’s unravel this a bit, as it’s kind of silly.

First, it makes no sense to lump Russia, China, and Iran together as if they are all one thing, and even less sense to put them all together with non-state actors like al-Qaeda.

Second, it just isn’t true that the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians see liberal democracy as “A potent, dangerous ideology that … needs to be defeated,” if necessary through violence. I’m no expert on China and Iran, so I’ll leave that to others, though I suspect that their attitude is not dissimilar to that of the Russians. But as far as Russia is concerned, there is precisely no evidence to suggest that the country’s leadership gives a damn about what form of government or political/social/economic system other nations have. What it cares about is that those nations are prepared to be friendly. If they are, then Russia is friendly back. Thus, the Russian Federation has very good relations with a number of liberal democracies. Armenia is a notional liberal democracy; its recent enemy, Azerbaijan, is not. But Russia is an ally of Armenia, not of Azerbaijan.

Simply put, Applebaum is talking out of her hat.

But on she goes. For she’s keen to persuade us that liberal interventionists are just not wooly-eyed idealists. They’re hard-headed realists. It’s their opponents who are naïve and don’t understand the harsh truths of the real world. She tells us:

In the real world, the battle to defend liberal democracy is sometimes a real battle, a military battle, not merely an ideological battle. It cannot always be fought with language, arguments, conferences, or diplomacy, or by deploying human-rights organizations, UN declarations, and fierce EU statements of concern. Or rather, you can try to fight it that way, but you will lose.

Well, here’s the thing, Ms Applebaum my friend, for the past 20 years, Western states, led by the USA, have not been fighting just by using language, arguments, conferences, and all the rest of it, but by invading countries and blasting them from the sky with real hard ordnance. And guess what, they’ve lost that way too!

And here is where the Applebaumian thesis falls down even according to its own internal logic. For even if Applebaum is right that liberal democracy is under threat from extremists, hard experience shows that military power is not an effective way of dealing with the problem. Our militaries are built to fight other militaries. We’re really good at destroying tanks and planes and all the rest of it. But fighting “extremism” – that’s ultimately an ideological problem and bullets and bombs don’t help a lot; indeed, they often make things worse. The proposed solution doesn’t actually solve the alleged problem.

In Applebaum’s world, our repeated failures in the past 20 years are just a matter of a lack of will and insufficient firepower. If only it were so easy. Would another 20 years and double the firepower have made Afghanistan more secure? What reason do we have to imagine that it would? None at all. Did an all-out invasion of Iraq – and let’s admit it, you can’t have a more in-your-face use of massive military power – solve the problem of extremism in Iraq? Or did it sow the seeds that made the rise of ISIS possible? (You know the answer).

So it’s not like Applebaum’s methods haven’t been tried. They have been, and found repeatedly wanting. So why does she think that it will work next time around? And why do the likes of The Atlantic keep giving people such as Applebaum space to write this nonsense? Now, there’s an interesting question. If we could solve that one, we’d all be a lot better off.

41 thoughts on “Bombs Away, Applebaum!”

  1. Mr Applebaum (Radek Sikorski) graduated from Oxford and his first job in 1986 was journalist at large in Afghanistan, with special interest in the Mujahadin. Which to you and me means intelligence spy for someone.
    He later became DM and FM in the Polish government for competing parties while presumably representing the constituency of USA.

    wikipedia: In the mid-1980s, Sikorski worked as a freelance journalist for publications such as The Spectator and The Observer. He also wrote for the Indian newspaper The Statesman of Kolkata. In 1986, he travelled in Afghanistan, as he stated in his book, “to write about the war the mujahideen were waging against the Soviet Union”. While a war correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph, he brought out the first report and photographs of the US Stinger missiles, whose use was a turning point in the war.[10][11] In 1987, he made a hundred-day journey, under Soviet bombardment, to the ancient city of Herat. He won the 1st prize singles in category the category Spot News of World Press Photo Awards in 1988 for a photograph of a family killed and mummified in their home as a result of communist bombing raid.[12]

    Over the years he seems to have fallen afoul of the US (caught bad mouthing them on leaked recordings) and his wikipedia entry seems to be less well-pruned that it used to be.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. In my youth, I had the pleasure (if that’s the word) to observe Radek Sikorski give many speeches to the Oxford Union. They were, to say the least, extremely eccentric. It came as a huge shock to some of us when he became Polish foreign minister, as in his undergraduate days he was certainly not somebody one could (or would want to) imagine running a country.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Radek did likewise with Lithuania.

      At one time, he was a “roving reporter” for National Review, at a time when he was younger and not as refined.

      While at that venue, Sikorski wrote an article describing a train ride conversation he had with a Russian woman. At one point (according to that article) the woman asks Radek why he hates us (Russians)? He replied by saying that it’s because they (Russians) haven’t acknowledged their past wrongs. That answer is a great projection of how many Poles carry-on relative to Russia, as well as the Western neocons and neolibs, concerning their failures like Afghanistan.

      Some Orange/Euromaidan advocates are worried that the US establishment might be losing their enthusiasm for the corrupt kleptocracy, comprising Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.

      Regarding a comment made above by the professor, The Atlantic is headed by an editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, who slants favorably towards the likes of Applebaum. He grew up in the area I did and knows some of my family relations. During a very recent CSPAN aired discussion, Scott Horton delved into Goldberg’s advocacy.

      Putting aside his neocon/neolib slant, a family member chirped back at me by saying Jeff is for team Israel and you (me) rah-rah for Russia. In turn, I said that my commentary is better premised and more objective. Never mind that I face a very steep incline much unlike Goldberg.

      This venue has some great very recently released discussions on Afghanistan:

      Liked by 1 person

  2. So she is arguing that there was a lack of will and firepower. Very well. Let’s think how much “will” would be enough. Mere bombs and training local military is proven to be not it, no matter how many of those. So what would it be?

    I can think of a scenario. Send in enough troops to occupy the entire country (be prepared to have casualties from manning vulnerable checkpoints). Herd the population from Taliban-sympathising areas into heavily-monitored concentration camps. They are bearers of dangerous ideology and therefore must be isolated for the good of Liberal Democracy, after all. As this would depopulate entire regions, send in volunteer civilian caretakers with option of permanent settlement. Fast forward couple decades (faster if gas cameras are involved), and it would be a liberal democracy so fine it could apply to be the next State of USA.

    Is that the kind of “will” she is talking about? And if not, *what exactly is*?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Somewhat on par to the boxer who keeps getting knocked out right after the start of a fight and then moaning about not getting more opportunities.

      The US establishment intelligentsia (if it can be called that) seems to have a bizarre affirmative action stance towards neocons and neolibs. Not everyone in that establishment is so gung ho on neocon/neolib agendas. Yet, the neocons and neolibs still get a good amount of high profile time, that’s typically soft towards them.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I already replied to Applebaum’s predictable article in another forum, and even forgot what that was. In essence, her article is an attempt to minimize the fall-out of linking the Saigon and Kabul defeats; this also potentially ridicules/exposes the entire ‘war on terrorism’ mantra. The USA has managed somehow to increase terrorism during its war on terrorism.
    Her assertion that military solutions do work shows her credentials as NATO’s prostitute. She tries to clear the ground for another rape of yet another country. The USA is exposed as a liar to allies and media and its own people, bold-facing as total truth Assange’s accusations and showing itself as the Voldemort of the world.
    Please do not forget the role of Mi6 in this – the British have tried to keep this going even when they even knew the American leadership, to their surprise, knew this was inevitable.
    Let me tell you my utmost hope: that both NATO, and then USA as a federation/country, collapse. Because that will be better for this world.


    1. “War on terror” wasn’t the last achievement of US regime has failed the same way, but they keep going to fail it to this day. Because, I suppose, it is typical “wounded gazelle” gambit of individualist society, where the profit of one outweighs benefit of many. The entire idea is to allocate resources towards solving some problem – and at the same time to make sure the funds never reach the problem as intended. And the bigger the problem becomes, the more funds can be allocated and therefore stolen. The entire system exist as upside down pyramid that puts most emphasis onto those who steal the most.

      The same way the “war on drugs” or “war on poverty” works – they increase poverty, increase drug proliferation, increase terrorism and criminality since it brings profit to individuals. The ongoing “war on doping” signals the demise of international sports movements. All these “wars” exist in a liberal framework of “human rights” as they understand it, and all the “upcoming” and “trending” challenges like climate and social justice are all going the same way. It’s like all these organisations, especially “NGO”, claim that they want to change something big for everyone while their real goal is to make sure nothing changes.

      It is almost like a self-supporting, runaway process that snowballs towards it’s destination, at witch point what happens is the same as we witnessed last week – the bubble bursts, and the faith disappears and the entire system collapses into a mess no one knows how to fix.


  4. The fact, that Taliban took power practically without a fight, is the proof that Afghanistan’s majority of the population chose to have it this way.
    Perhaps NATO may have succeeded if they stayed another 20 years. Nation building appears to be a long process with uncertain results.
    I hope they are learning.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I mean, nation-building does work sometimes. Like, the English were very serious about colonizing India and stayed quite a long time. It would be wrong to think that all such imperialist projects are doomed from the start.
      But in the American case, this one was definitely doomed from the start… In some sense, it was just a massive money-laundering operation, a way to extract trillions of dollars from American taxpayers and into the pockets of Military-Industrial Complex. It seems everything else was secondary to that primary goal, although I am sure Americans deeply rue their loss of a geopolitical hub. That must hurt quite a lot.

      Speaking of which: Much as I despise the Taliban, I couldn’t help but chuckle with Schadenfreude at their excellent trolling of Joe Biden. Taliban tweeted this image of themselves dressed in trophy American combat gear and raising their flag, in a parody of one of the major memes beloved of American patriots. Who says these mujahadeen don’t have a sense of humor? I wish I could see the look on Annie Applebaum’s face when she saw this!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Speaking of which: Much as I despise the Taliban, I couldn’t help but chuckle with Schadenfreude at their excellent trolling of Joe Biden.

        They were trolling Biden? Or maybe the US of A represented by Bush43, Obama, Trump, Biden over the years?

        I am always aware, how to put it, my inability to grasp something like the collective American psyche/soul, I surely miss on the ground experience. Anyway:

        I mean, nation-building does work sometimes. …

        Here is a plan suggested by (liberal) TTG supported by (conservative) Pat Lang, Both earlier SF forces. Pat Lang’s critique over the decades, to the extent I understood, seemed to be connected with tactics. Or that COIN in the larger GWOT made sense to some extent, but as Vietnam, Americans wouldn’t support it long term. Way too expensive.


      2. Biden is all the stands between us and the likes of Appelbaum and Trump. He actually has had the guts so far to say, the war was a mess, it was lost, staying one second longer would have accomplished worse than nothing.


  5. Forgot to add on to a point the professor makes in his above piece. Only a loon would agree that the Soviet Union was freer than present day Russia. During the Cold War, the USSR showed a preference for democratic India, with the US doing likewise with undemocratic Pakistan.

    There was also the US recognition of the Pol Pot regime over the pro-Vietnamese/pro-Soviet Cambodian government.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Interesting with agreeable points. It downplays the Soviet intervention to support the deposing an Afghan head of state who was deemed as untrustworthy.

        Following the US led intervention there, a CBS 60 Minutes staffer was indignant over an Afghan telling him that the Soviet presence was better than America’s.


  6. Dear EXCEPTIONAL FIVE (the rest of the “west” better stay out of this for their own good). You bombed and bombed and lost every war since 1945. We, the rest (not your “international community” of five eyes and around thirty blind slaves) are getting enough of your shit. Here is the promise – if you continue then we will bomb you back. Only once – it will be enough – trust me.


  7. I’m curious if this will lead to removal of the sitting president, just like ending of the Vietnam war led to the removal of Richard Nixon. The same sort of way, under some laughable, unrelated pretext.

    Losing a war can’t be forgiven. Someone on top, someone important, must be made an example of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s an excellent question, Mao. But if I had to bet money, I would say no, everybody gets to keep their jobs this time. Including Biden. Unless he just keels over and dies of Alzheimers.
      The difference with Nixon is that the Liberal establishment hated Nixon; but Joe Biden IS the liberal establishment. Also, they will blame Trump for the fiasco.


      1. Biden has long been noted for his malappropisms. But I think as his victory over Trump has shown, getting the stimulus passed, revamping the US vaccine rollout and exceeding his own 100 day vaccination target, and Putin himself saying that he walked away impressed by Biden ‘an experienced statesman’ – Biden may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is certainly no fool.


      2. A President Harris!? egads, that woman is a monster, one only has to watch that video of her during the primary debates. Somebody asked her how she could reconcile throwing people of color into prison for 15 years for smoking marijuana, when she admitted she herself smoked pot in college. Her response was to giggle uncontrollably. She’s a sociopath. Of course they are all sociopaths, so what’s the difference?


  8. The Atlantic’s current editor is a former Israeli prison guard, so it’s no surprise that neocon loons like Applebaum get a platform there. I’ve always maintained that the Western liberal ‘intelligentsia’ is the most racist crowd one can imagine.

    Regarding Afghanistan, I think the US and its European satraps will pull a complete 180 and start supporting the Taliban, provided the talibs agree to be used against China. A British general has already called them simple country boys with honor. Once this policy change happens, the ‘free’ MSM will immediately tone down the rhetoric about democracy, LGBT/women’s rights and all that jazz. NATOistan after all has no problem whatsoever with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, or all the other Arab despotic regimes.


    1. That’s a perceptive prediction, Akos. Supporting that prediction is the fact that one of the Taliban’s main leaders spent his exile in Qatar. Doha also playing a major role in the behind-the-scenes negotiations which helped to bring Taliban to power. And Qatar, if I am not mistaken, is an ally of Saudi Arabia and the United States?


      1. And Qatar, if I am not mistaken, is an ally of Saudi Arabia and the United States?

        Apparently the Qatar Diplomatic Crisis completely escaped you.

        During the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis, the United States President Donald Trump claimed credit for engineering the diplomatic crisis in a series of tweets.[5] On 6 June, Trump began by tweeting: “During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!”[6][5] An hour and a half later, he remarked on Twitter that it was “good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference [sic] was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!”[7][8][9]

        Qatar didn’t quite accept orders concerning Iran, Also Turkey-Qatar relations generally & e,g, the Muslim Brotherhood factor.


      2. The Taliban might make a deal with the US. I mean, Vietnam seems to be warming up to the US and willing to join its anti-China crusade, despite the yanks killing 3 million Vietnamese with utter cruelty; napalm, agent orange, death squads come to mind. Serbia is also eager to please the West despite the illegal 78-day NATO bombing of the country.


      3. Akos: About the Vietnam-China relationship. From what I understand, it is not a very good relationship. In fact, Vietnam (as a geopolitical entity) probably hates China more than they hate the U.S. That is sad to me, but I think it is a realistic fact. Such hatred goes back many generations, and for many reasons, I only understand a fraction of that history, but it has to do with Chinese Han attempt to hegemony in that part of the world, rolling over other peoples.

        Also, from what I understand, Chinese behaved very badly to Vietnamese after the war was over, supported Khmer Rouge against them. Such things are not easily forgiven nor forgotten.

        These two countries are neighbors, sometimes one hates one’s neighbor more than one hates the cruel but enigmatic enemy from across the ocean. Seems to me, like China is the one who needs to make amends.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I don’t have any expertise on China-Vietnam. It’s only my personal observation drawn from listening to Vietnamese that lots of them hate China more than they hate the yanks. The Vietnamese I talked to were all riled up about the Chinese military’s actions on some coral reefs in the South China Sea, but we’re OK with US and UK 19th century gunboat diplomacy.

        I think it’s always a mistake to turn one’s country into the beach head of an outside power against your neighbor. You see this crap in wider Europe a lot. Poland, the Baltic midgets, Romania, Ukraine, Georgia are all enthusiastic pawns in NATO’s malignant machinations against Russia. Ultimately, these countries must come to terms with Russia, because that’s the only solution that guarantees regional stability and development. Why would you want to waste your scarce resources on fighting the West’s wars with Russia and China?

        Same applies to Vietnam-China. It won’t be easy though, because the Western world will do its utmost to stir up animosity between these two. That’s what European ‘civilization’ always does in faraway lands it wants to keep down.


  9. What sickens me most about watching this whole debate in the supposedly liberal commentariat is how many people are reacting to this defeat in Afghanistan by acting just like how German elites did after WWI. This is not a new argument, Andrew Bacevich makes the argument that American elites have Vietnam acted much like German elites after WWI. Only I think given how visceral and immediate, and indeed vicious, this reaction is we have not yet seen just how truly crazed supposed liberals can get. It also demonstrates, this latest craziness, why Lenin never could contain his sneering disdain for ‘bourgeois liberalism’ because underneath its patina of warm, nice, fuzzy values that no decent person could argue with was a hard, vicious nastiness and utter grotesque hypocrisy. Appelbaum only bemoans Trump and the current regime of Poland as they are ‘a bit out of control’ if they were more ‘in control’ well then they would be absolutely fine. She was fine with cheering on such governments when they practiced lustration. Now that they turn on her and people like her … I provide an elipsis because, like Michael McFaul, she’s not stupid, she’s not ignorant. But she does demand that the world conform to exactly what she wants … or else.


  10. Applebaum. Hmm, is she the one who sent out a twit looking for an English translation of the Russian President’s article on the Russian and Ukrainian peoples? Some egspert”! Meanwhile, Iulia Latinina opines on Echo Moskva: “For example, the Americans exported democracy to Japan, General MacArthur was engaged in the export, and the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the most powerful instrument for introducing democracy.”
    What is it with “liberals”?


    1. Well, you know, there is this Russian from the early 90-es: “Democracy is the form of the government in which the democrats are in charge”. By the way of analogy, liberalism is the view that everyone should be allowed to have their own views, as long as those views are liberal.

      And the thing about so called Russian “liberals” and “democrats” is that apparently they were once told those two jokes, but weren’t told those were jokes, so… yeah.


  11. The original mission was to go in and take bin Laden, which could have been done by a Special Forces unit – and that ended up being the case ten years later. Before that, the Taliban offered to cooperate in turning him over, first to a neutral third party, and then to the US itself, and the US establishment turned down both offers. Either the Special Forces action or the negotiated agreement would have achieved the publicly-stated objective, if in the former case, the Special Forces had been able to prevent OBL from running over to Pakistan. When the mission at Tora Bora very predictably failed, having effectively telegraphed its intent, in great big red neon flashing letters to OBL, that should have been the end of it – sure, another in a long line of intelligence failures for which people were promoted and given raises, instead of being canned. Instead, the US invades and tries to install a “liberal democracy” with a parliamentary legislature, not realizing that for nation building to take place, you’ve got to have the foundations in place. That might have been done if the US brought back a Loya Jirga, which would have created a stable structure. Instead, they installed a rather corrupt puppet, and things went straight to hell, as anyone with any knowledge of the place could easily have told the US government. “You can tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much” seems to be what applies here.

    A big part of the trouble is that the process of intelligence collection and analysis in the US has been politicized in favor of neoliberal policies, so the people who need to rely on those agencies for impartial analysis in order to set policy have been repeatedly misled and even lied to. The latest – and most disastrous – lie was that the Afghan National Army existed at all, or had any loyalty to the Karzai or Ghani governments. It was no surprise to me to see that “Army” fold up like a cheap tent in a hurricane following the US statement about ending support. That little disaster came from the neoliberals at the State Department, who screwed Biden like they did to Trump and threatened to do to any President who defied them. That was followed up by the neoliberals running the Pentagon, who closed Bagram Air Force Base, by slipping away in the dead of night, leaving arms, ammunition, aircraft, and other supplies to whomever wanted them – and the Taliban gladly stepped in… And that thoroughly sabotaged the evacuation effort, leading to the current debacle at the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. Those Pentagon neoliberal bureaucrats screwed every American citizen left in the country, every troop stranded there, and quite a few others – and they screwed Biden, too. And then the “intel community” did its part, too, mouthing some ridiculous nonsense about there being 90 days before the Taliban could possibly come in. They were only off by 83 days. Ooops, another “intelligence failure”.

    What Trump should have done, on his first day in office, at one minute after he assumed office, was to conduct a Joe Stalin-style purge of the Pentagon, the “intel community”, and the State Department. Biden should do the same, unless he wants to get driven right out of office and wind up in some godforsaken nursing home, doped up and drooling into his shoes until he finally gets shuffled off into Eternity – and a lot of other Americans and others around the world end up in the same location, albeit not so peacefully. The neoliberals infesting the government need to be purged either by effective leadership or by revolution, or like any other parasite, will hollow out and eventually destroy the host. – from – note NSFW language in original…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s