Absolutist Ethics Needs to be Replaced by Provisional Ethics

If you ask too many ethicists about fundamental rules for their ethics, at the top they usually list "reverence for all life" without qualification.  But obviously, a glance at the real world shows that such a prescription isn't being practiced anywhere. Even the U.S., which has more religious believers than any other advanced industrial nation executes more convicted killers than just about any place except China, Iran and Russia.  Can you have "reverence for life" when you're offing killers? Oh yes, this constitutes an exception! He was a killer, after all! Yeah, well now so are you!

Wars, especially those of the choice variety like Vietnam and Iraq are similar, and in  fact they scraped the bottom of the moral-ethical barrel because so many innocents were slaughtered as well - such as at My Lai, e.g.


There, Lt. William Calley and his troop of "following orders" butchers killed 507 innocents including 173 children and 76 infants. Calley alone murdered 102 in all. And what was the response in the aftermath? Hell, 100,000 letters a day from birdbrain, morally bankrupt 'Muricans poured into the White House praising Calley and his butchers. Some daft morons even concocted a stupid song entitled "'The Battle Hymn of Lieutenant William Calley' which sold a million copies in one week, if you can believe it. So it appears the much vaunted "reverence for life" went right out the damned window so long as that life was only comprised of "gooks".

The point is that no one really practices absolutist morality, they (even the Churches) only pay lip service to it. For example, the RC Church riffs on sexual "sins" like fornication and masturbation then - for years- turned a blind eye to priestly predators sexually abusing kids.  So at one time or other everyone is in on this stupid game.

The next thing is, adherence to absolutist ethics and morality is causing thousands to die each year for no good reason other than some abstract notion of a "higher good" or misplaced "reverence for life'. A classic illustration recently noted in the New York Times is the case of those needing kidney transplants.  Currently, something like ten times more people need kidney transplants than the number of available kidneys. The result is thousands of unnecessary deaths each year which could have been prevented if we permitted kidney purchase markets like in Iran. There are no "waiting lists" or deaths in Iran at all from kidney failure (due to lack of transplants), as the Times observed.

But oh no! Our hifalutin' morality based on squeamishness prohibits the selling or trading of organs from human donors. (Never mind the medical -industrial complex is making gazillions each year harvesting organs - including eyes, skin - from deceased organ donors for whatever purposes it wants.)  What is so funny and hypocritical here is how the Neoliberal capitalists continually preach the benefits of markets über alles but won't allow them for organs. (And when I say "allow", I mean regulated markets - such as for pot here in Colo.)

Then there is the ISIS bunch, which just recently beheaded journalist James Foley in a despicable video. Do these vermin have a right to life? FUCK NO! As I said in an earlier blog post, they are the perfect candidates for the designated use of a nerve gas like sarin. Wipe 'em all out like roaches, fuck any "reverence for life" for these assholes. Of course, when I broached this to wifey, with her fine sensibilities, she was horrified: "That's horrible! You can't use that on them! You sound like your brothers!"  Really?

Well, I'm not exactly  fond of being compared with two hardcore conservos, but in this case, well....it's true (assuming they do agree that sarin is the solution to ISIS).  But again, WHY NOT? Because our "American values" preclude such action because then "we'd be like Saddam". So what? If it's effective in eliminating the scum ISIS rabble we DO it! And as I will show, there are no special "American values" unless they can be translated into positive actions to save the innocent! 

"The ends never justifies the means"? We had no problem with that ethical principle when we dropped those A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago. We certainly believed the ends:  saving thousands of American lives, justified the means - A -Bombs. So why not similarly accept  that the ends: eliminating the ISIS refuse, justifies the means: Sarin?  How are bodies having eyes popping out in bubbles and skin burned off to reveal skeletons any different from convulsions, bubbles frothing the mouth and jerking a bit before croaking? I don't get it, but maybe it's just me. They're just as dead in either case, so what's the big deal?  Besides, at least with a sarin attack on ISIS we're going after REAL bad guys, not innocent civilians as with the A-bombs dropped on two Japanese population centers! (Even Bill Maher  - treading over the edge of political incorrectness on one of his 'Real Time' shows, asked why it's any different shooting a guy than to gas him, say in an execution. He's just as dead, one way or the other.)

The point is that eliminating the ISIS bugs would preserve tens of thousands of lives just like allowing a market for kidneys would.

Kai Neilsson describes examples of provisional ethics in his brilliant Ethics Without God. As one extreme example he considers four spelunkers who are exploring a deep cave, 1,500' below the surface. A rock fall closes the cave at one end while one member - a very obese guy - has found himself trapped in the only other available opening. The group has two choices: all die of oxygen deprivation or find some means whereby most can escape.

Absolutist ethics rules that all must die rather than any one sacrifice his or her life for the benefit of the others. Provisional ethics, meanwhile, argues that the optimum outcome is for most of the party to survive- however that is achieved. In Neilsson's example, one of the spelunker's happens to have a small stick of dynamite and a match and inserts it into the obese guy's boot to detonate him - thereby opening the only available path so the remaining three can escape. Yes, there's a risk of another cave in, but it's the only shot the group has and it works, since all more prosaic efforts to dislodge the obese man were for naught.

In the same way we beheld a real world application of provisional ethics in the case of a nun doctor who was summarily excommunicated from the RC Church 2 years ago because she saved a pregnant mom and permitted her fetus to die. The issue was that the mom's blood pressure was increasing malignantly and would have surely killed her if she'd been forced into labor. The nun had two choices: save the fetus and let the mom die, or spare the mom and let the fetus die (without any birth). The nun reasoned the fetus was nascent human life but the mom was full fledged human life- manifested as an autonomous thinking and fully conscious person. Therefore, the mom had the greater claim to life. Meanwhile, absolutist ethics would have argued that an effort to save both ought to have been made, despite the fact that medically both would have died.

Now it is also important to note that adopting a provisionalist ethics doesn't mean "anything goes". Two examples here:

1) Abortion: According to ethical provisionalism, abortion cannot be ethical in ALL circumstances for all conditions. Thus, since research has found that fetal brain waves appear past 6 months, NO abortions should normally be allowed in the third trimester. The only (provisional) exceptions would be: a) the health of the mother (e.g. if she were to have the child she'd die), or b) case of incest or rape - wherein having the child would create extreme mental trauma for the victim. (By that I mean possible psychosis or severe depression, including attempted suicide).

2) War: In the judicious application of moral provisionalism, NO war would be permitted to be launched by the U.S.A. unless an actual DECLARATION of WAR by congress is made. This would give congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional rights, and impart moral and ethical authority in rendering a war truly just. In this light, we'd have no more Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans or other adventures finagled outside the parameters of congressional validation. For too long wars have been waged “through the back door” at great financial and moral cost to the U.S. - which inflicts a disproportionate injustice.

This will also have another effect, in reclaiming the separation of powers! Given how congress has abdicated its war making powers over the past 50 years or so, it's little wonder the executive is so powerful now. Conservatives who rail against excess executive power (as in the case of Obama) should therefore welcome a return to congressional declaration of war as opposed to going along with assorted executive-driven,  fig leaf  "resolutions" (like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution for Vietnam, and the Iraq War Resolution under Dumbya Bush.)

If they argue against formal declarations of war, they can't be taken seriously in any other complaints to do with Presidents (especially Democrats) usurping their congressional authority, say via executive actions. If they abdicate it for wars, they merit no authority for immigration, health care or anything else. None! They've demonstrated that they don't wish to circumscribe executive power! (Of course, one reason for not authorizing declarations of war is cowardice. Congress, for the past 50 years, has been made up of too many yellow bellies who don't wish to have any votes for war in the congressional record. Let the Prez take the blame! But, an abdication of power is still an abdication and it means they can't complain in other spheres just because they're too cowardly in one!

It is clear that we need to alter our ethical perceptions ASAP because changing conditions in the world won't wait. Retaining an absolutist ethics, which is both irrational and unsustainable (especially after Peak Oil hits) is a losing wicket.

Can We Prevent Another Holocaust From Happening?

                                                                                          


Photo taken outside the Mauthausen Concentration Camp by Russian soldiers in May, 1945.

"Evil takes place when human bonds are broken, when concrete relationships crumble for the sake of abstract identifications. When we divide the world into sheep and goats, into good and evil, the 'sheep' - the self-proclaimed good- have a tendency to subject the goats to the worst imaginable treatment. In doing so, the sheep's group identity is made stronger, something that forms the basis of new and better identification of 'goats'."  - Lars Sevendsen, 'A Philosophy of Evil'


Today, Holocaust Memorial Day, it behooves all of us to consider what if anything can be done to prevent an abomination like the Holocaust from ever occurring again. Lars Svendsen's book is a good place to start, because it shows the potential for idealistic evil occurs within us all. Idealistic evil is that form which emerges when people stop thinking of others as human like themselves and instead put them into abstract brackets. The Nazis did it when they relegated the Jews in Europe to pests, e.g. rats, even making films to depict them that way. The Hutus in Rwanda did it to the Tutsis - of which they slaughtered over 800,000 -- by comparing them to "cockroaches." Despite the fact no outside observer could ever find the slightest difference between members of the Hutu and Tutsi tribe, the 'sheep' in this case (the Hutus),  did bracket their opposition as predatory 'takers' and traitors. Unleashing a genocide was merely the next step.

In his trenchant book, Svendsen examines  the doings of Rudolph  Höss  (commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp), Adolf Eichmann and Lt. William Calley - comparing why they did the horrific things they did and noting in each case the common denominator was a failure to be conscious of their deeds or their significance- hence to take any responsibility for them.

For example, Höss, an SS-Obersturmbannführer,  in his autobiography - said he was not to blame and he was merely "following orders". Besides, he insisted, he did not actually herd the Jews into the gas chambers or throw in the Zyklon B gas crystals. He had effectively detached himself from the evil he spawned. Adolf Eichmann in his trial, after being captured by Israeli agents, made similar claims and offered that he was merely a mid-level bureaucrat  - again just following orders- assembling names of Jews into documents for transport. How could he be to blame?

Ditto with Lt. William Calley, who while he didn't participate in a holocaust on the scale of the extermination of the Jews, did participate in a mindless massacre of innocents. As Svendsen observes (p. 177):

"Take another famous example,  namely the massacre at My Lai on March 16, 1968. Lieutenant William L. Calley was commanding officer, and therefore was principally responsible for the massacre which lasted around an hour and a half.  In that time, 507 innocent people were murdered- among them 173 children and 76 infants. Calley alone killed 102 people. The official report read: '128 enemy resisters killed in battle'. For one thing it wasn't 128 killed but 507. For another they weren't 'killed in battle' but slaughtered while helpless. They weren't  'enemy resisters' in the sense of soldiers but ordinary civilians."

 The scene at My Lai, Vietnam after William L. Calley and his troops slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians.

As Svendsen goes on to note (ibid.):

"In his own mind, Calley was simply following orders and doing what was expected of a good soldier. He couldn't believe his ears when he was accused of mass murder."


In other words, Calley was exactly like Adolf Eichmann in the sense that his "orders" trumped any charge he could have done anything wrong. Thoughts of what he was doing when he ordered the massacre of unarmed villagers went out the window as they did with Eichmann as he assembled 1,000 or 1 million more names for his transports to the gas chambers. Or  Rudolph Höss when he ordered his S.S. commandos to herd 1,000 more Jews into the gas chambers at Birkenau ("Auschwitz 2" the actual  death camp) . As in the case of Eichmann and Calley, Höss' orders from the 3rd Reich High Command trumped any need for him to really THINK of what the hell he was doing.  In each case, whether for Eichmann, Calley or Höss, conscious thought was the first casualty as the killers or killing masterminds were turned into automatons.

Svendsen's point is that none of these evils would have occurred, firstly, had the Jews not been reduced to vermin, and the Vietnamese not been reduced to "gooks". Because each group had been abstractly de-humanized they became 'goats' and hence fodder for extermination, whether in the mass form of the Nazi gas chambers, or in Calley's form of troops slaughtering an imaginary enemy (but real innocents) with their M16s.  As Svendsen noted, "they have said it was wrong to kill but they were in a war."

So war made it all right not to think about what you were doing, whether pulling a gas chamber lever or emptying your clip into a 6 month old  "enemy" infant.

The saddest element, as Svendsen adds, was the respective populations of the nations themselves were largely ignorant or in denial of the heinous deeds. The "good Germans" protested that THEY weren't the ones that committed the crimes, and they didn't know where the death camps were. Also, how could you expect them to help hide the Jews when the Gestapo had its eyes and ears all over?

In the case of Calley's supporters, Svendsen writes (p. 179):

"When Calley was condemned, the White House received 100,000 letters in one day alone, supporting William Calley.  'The Battle Hymn of Lieutenant William Calley'  sold a million copies in a week.  TIME conducted an extensive survey in 1970 where two thirds of Americans said they were not emotionally moved by the massacre, while eighty percent said it was wrong to indict him."


This itself is enough to make a sentient person vomit, including the fact not one of Calley's men saw that they'd done anything amiss. Again, "just following my orders". That one's own countrymen could be so desensitized to the evil committed (and in their country's name) as to be emotionally unaffected and to go so far as to support the perpetrator boggles the mind! But of course if those bodies were merely regarded as "gooks' you could understand why so many in the polls wouldn't give a damn. Hell, it wasn't THEIR kids or wives - say slaughtered by the Chinese. Besides they'd been brainwashed to believe ALL the "gooks" were the enemy (Viet Cong.) 

Svendsen's clear point is that so long as other people, other groups, mean nothing to us - in terms of putting them in abstract categories to hate - we will give no thought to their elimination. When we become unthinking supporters of idealistic evil, we become just as bad as those who perpetrated the evil, whether Rudolph Höss as he had 1.8 million gassed at Auschwitz, or Lt William Calley, as his band of warriors slaughtered 507 innocents at My Lai. 

So long as specious popular support remains for these types of criminal mass murderers and their actions the potential for future holocausts exists.  It means, or implies, a blind spot to moral failure and evil exists within us all which can be charged at any time, say if the right fanatic gets into power and manages to pull the right cords. What Svendsen argues for - and I do as well - is that we must move beyond the nature of being mere puppets or automatons to become conscious of our acts and with whom we align. We also have to applaud those (like Snowden) who refused to follow orders, given that it is exactly the "order"  template that has repeatedly spawned the worst atrocities in the past 75 years-  whether on the small scale (My Lai) or the large (Auschwitz).

A sad commentary on just how little we have really evolved.

Mikey 'Marine' Blasts CBS' AMAZING RACE Episode

Scene at My Lai, with some of the hundreds of villagers slain, in 1968 by Lt. William Calley and his troops.

I guess in a way it no longer boggles my mind that my loose screw youngest bro (formerly ‘Pastor Mike’), who is so detached from reality he can’t recall his own history (or that of his brothers) is now lashing out against an ‘Amazing Race’ episode shown last week. To see his venomous rant  you’d think CBS had committed a capital crime.  Worse, is how he misrepresents it, with all the bluster, indignation and faux macho shtick you'd expect from a guy who got paddled every time he wet his bed at the 'Bluebird Nursery' when he was two (maybe another reason he's so deranged now!)


Anyway, wifey and I saw the episode, where the contestants were flown to Hanoi, Vietnam – site of some of the worst bombing at the hands of the mass murderers LBJ and Richard Nixon. On the show we also saw the B-52 memorial, which the citizens of the nation rightly kept on display to show Amerikkan aggression and the penalty for it. Again, let us bear in mind – unlike the paranoid delusionals- that the Vietnam conflict was started on a pretext, i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident wherein the Turner Joy and Maddox were allegedly attacked without provocation in the summer of 1964. The claim of baby killer LBJ was that the attack(s) were initiated by the North Vietnamese.

But in 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2:

“At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first”

and regarding August 4:

“It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2”


In other words, the U.S. aggressors used it as a pretext to demand the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and launch a war that killed nearly 58,000. Like other pretext wars (e.g. Iraq, see the excellent MSNBC special ‘Hubris’) Vietnam never should have occurred. It was once again a case of congress abdicating responsibility as opposed to actually declaring a war. (And bear in mind I would actually not have been excepted - for poor vision - had it been an ACTUAL declared war, as opposed to a setup bogus ‘war’ to serve the banksters and oilmen. My 1-Y designation only permitted military service in a REAL DECLARED war, in other words)

Anyway,  Mikey blabbers: (Anyone curious to see how low a human brain can go in its dreck and overt racism, bigotry and LIES - e.g. that I "got a student deferment"  - and "cried that I didn't want to go to Vietnam"-  can see it here on full display (But be forewarned!):  http://www.mstahlstraighttalk.blogspot.com


"My friends, having served...PROUDLY, in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Vietnam war (as did my two middle brothers, one serving in the U.S. Navy, and the other in the U.S. Air Force), as well as hundreds of thousands of other men and women, and where over 60,000 Americans lost their lives, as well as hundreds of thousands coming back home with missing limbs, cancer from Agent Orange, and other disabilities that CAN'T be seen (e.g., PTSD), I personally, must thank Bob Beckel for giving CBS a well-deserved ass-chewing over them showing on their latest episode of the Amazing Race, where the contestants were flown to Hanoi, Vietnam and told to memorize a pro-communist song and search for clues in the wreckage of a B-52 bomber (shown above) that was shot down and American soldiers were killed. Beckel says that CBS should apologize to Vietnam Veterans everywhere, otherwise they risk becoming known as the “Communist Bastard Sympathizers!”


Lost in his reckless rant, and in Beckel’s perceptions, is that the song was not a “communist” song but a nationalist song celebrating the Socialism that has enabled North Vietnam to rebuild after the savage American attacks on their homeland. To be specific, the Amazing Race contestants were NOT asked to memorize the song but to match Vietnamese symbols (displayed via symbols by a chorus of singers) to characters displayed separately. In truth, NONE of those contestants had clue one what they were actually seeing, their task was one of matching symbols seen at different times accurately! That this is lost on both Bob Beckel and Mikey, discloses both are hysterical (as well as ahistorical)  idiots.

Only a fool, moron (or latter day CPAC-GOOpr) would fail to process the Americans lost the war once they lost the hearts and minds of the people of Vietnam. This was accomplished by their massive Agent Orange bombing, the use of napalm with its indiscriminate destruction of crops and people, as well as their mass murdering of women and children – such as that shown from My Lai, compliments of the monster Calley.


For those for whom this is ancient history, My Lai was the name of Vietnamese hamlet where up to 500 innocents were butchered, most of them elderly, women and babies (see photo). On top of that sexual atrocities were perpetrated on the victims, many of the people were tortured before being killed, and "souvenir gook ears" were sliced off and stowed away. Twenty -six soldiers were originally brought up on charges, but only one: Lt. William Calley, was convicted. He was supposedly sentenced to life but served only three years of the original sentence, and most of that under 'house arrest". So much for Vietnamese lives being extended much value!


As in the case of Afghanistan, lost once massive numbers of civilians were killed as collateral damage, including from drones blasting wedding parties, the Americans lost whatever meager chance they had in ‘Nam with the Calley massacre combined with their destruction of the people’s food crops. That so many morons still can’t see this maybe also explains why Americans score near the bottom of citizenship tests recently given to the people of many nations. (See http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/joshua-holland/48666/are-americans-too-stupid-for-democracy )

Holland cites a 2009 study in The European Journal of Communications, and observes:

“Overall,” the scholars wrote, “the Scandinavians emerged as the best informed, averaging 62–67 percent correct responses, the British were relatively close behind with 59 percent, and the Americans lagging in the rear with 40 percent.”

Hmmmmm......why am I not surprised?

Sadly, it appears that not even the passage of time (and the resources of the web)  can bring sobriety or sense to perceptions of our wars of choice.  But this is exactly why at least some bloggers need to remind people of the truth. How the Vietnam War really started, why and how it was lost, and why in the future we need congress to do due diligence and formally declare wars instead of allowing presidents with too much power to instigate them on pretexts or outright lies. Mikey can whine all he wants about “Libtard pansies, and sissies” but in the end truth matters, at least to those with I.Q.s over moron level!

Mike bemoans and wonders how he and I "came from the same loins" - and eulogizes my dad (rightly, for his WWII service) but neglects to mention how dad basically disowned him as Mike became ever more vitriolic in his blogs toward my parents' Catholic faith (note how he smears my Mom's rosary).

(Btw, aside to DHS, FBI and Secret Service: You may want to investigate the content in the above link- for Mike's blog -and especially all the savage attacks on Obama. Perhaps with a view to taking this guy's VA disability pension away  and giving it to a returning vet that actually earned it (unlike doing KP duty for two yrs. in the Marines and two yrs. in the Army) This move will give him less time for pernicious, reckless as well as racist attacks from his keyboard! And as we know, especially with the recent mayhem actually CAUSED by right wingers, you can never be too careful with these scumballs!)

The End Of the Rope: NOW is the Time to LEAVE Afghanistan!

The latest news that a U.S. Army Sergeant went haywire and gunned fown 7 Afghan adults and 9 kids, is the final message that it's time for this nation to pack up, and move its ass out of that country. There is no further good that can come from staying the course in this foolish occupation, and only mountainous loads of instability (and debt, deficits) to reap. Of course, many of those with geopolitical savvy predicted as much even five years ago. This is what we call "batting on a losing wicket".

This insane and vile slaughter (which btw, not even 1 million offerings of "condolences" or apologies will make up for, any more than for My Lai in 'Nam back in '69) is merely the latest in a string of gross actions showing total disrespect for the people and country being occupied (I do not now or ever will call it a "war" because wars are PAID FOR in taxes, via allocated budgets. This never was, neither were its abominable "supplementals").

Earlier we had seen the atrocious and inexcusable burning of the Afghans' holiest book, The Qu'ran. Do you think if a mammoth Chinese Army were occupying the U.S. and burned 100 bibles they'd ease off with some apology? Oh no, at the very least all red-blooded Christian 'Muricans would call for the Chinese heathen responsible to be hung by the neck until dead.

Then there was the case of the video that showed U.S. Marines urinating on dead militia men, adding to the sense that these foreign occupiers don't have one fucking clue of where they are, what they're doing or what their stupid fucking objective is. What we can be sure of now, after the latest atrocities, is that whatever cause existed is now over...finito ...as surely as the American cause in Viet Nam once the My Lai massacre occurred. (Actually, the cause in 'Nam was lost after the Tet Offensive in January, 1968, but it took another 40,000 lives and multiple ass whippings by the Viet Cong and North Viet Regulars to finally concede it and cut losses).

The truth is the U.S. had no business going into this country at all (It was 19 Saudis that perpetrated 9/11). And even if "wipin' out them terr'ists" was at some point justified, it no longer was after al Qaeda spread out and especiallly after bin Laden was killed. After bin Laden's killing, we ought to have said 'Enough! Mission Accomplished' and Occupation over'.

We had by then already lost maybe half the hearts and minds through an accumulation of small scale missteps and stupidity like drone killings of wedding parties, and accidentally killing kids. Now, with the string of recent atrocities, we've probably lose 99% of heart and minds, which makes ANY success unattainable ....I don't care how many apologies are offered, and I am not even sure that hanging the guy that did it would have any effect. (As the Army ought to have hung William Calley after a court martial instead of giving him a slap on the wrist).

At least a hanging would show an equal respect for American and Afghan lives. Offering apologies and "condolences" merely shows that deep down inside you rank any American life as hundreds of time more than any Afghan's.

The Russians also saw this coming, and over the past three years - especially after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - offered multiple warnings if we didn't heed their experience. Most of these warnings came from the former Soviet generals who’d led the invasion of Afghanistan (by the Soviet 40th Army) in December, 1979. A number of these generals have gone on the record in the past few years, in major international organs such as The Financial Times, The Economist and other major newspapers, emphasizing the sheer futility of an extended Afghan occupation and the inability to maintain any lasting superiority. (Even if the Soviet experience didn't grab the U.S. attention, that of the British Empire should have ..nearly a century before!)

Just as the U.S. (at the Korengal Valley - from which they retreated after a year) the Soviets’ greater firepower secured only temporary victories but they were unable to hold on and consolidate them. The mujahadeen, like the current Taliban, merely had to wait them out then re-occupy. Eventually, the military overstretch didn't work and the funds to support the occupation ran out as the then Soviet Union was run into the ground. What ought to have been a cautionary lesson for any other superpower with pretensions to military exceptionalism.

Much of the Sovet Afghan experience has been well documented in the book Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89, by Rodric Braithwaite, Profile Books, 2011.

As we know, the Russkies paid the price by the extreme costs of that occupation, by seeing their national economy go into the crapper. The same thing is happening to ours as our domestic needs go unattended and immense costs, deficits build up.....with enormous national debt facing us even as we piss $10 billion a month away in Afghanistan.

There is no, I repeat ...NO ..face lost in realistically seeing a situation as diminishing returns with no further upside. As for winning or losing, it's irrelevant since it doesn't apply to occupations anyway, only wars. This never was a "war", never mind the occasional shellings, mortars or whatever. My dad, fighting in 9 major battles in the Pacific during WW II, THAT was a war! With equal forces mobilized on each side, and defined battle lines, battleships firing from a distance, suicidal Kamikaze air attacks and trenches dug in for months and casualties in the tens of thousands per WEEK.

Even now, as I read my dad's war diary I am appalled at the ferocity of the Japanese and how comparing the Taliban to them is like comparing Pop Warner football teams to the NFL's most ferocious hitters.

Finally, as I said, WWII was paid for - by strict rationing and also what would be regarded today as punitive taxes - taxes that went on long after the war to support the Marshall Plan to rebuild a devastated Europe.

It is time, as I said, to have done with this sad and sordid episode in our history and move on - to rebuild our own country. As for Afghanistan, whether we stay another day or another ten years will not make one fucking dime's worth of difference because in the end, the country will still fall back into Taliban hands.

Our stupid, reckless and misguided actions have essentially assured it and all we can do now is make the blowback worse by remaining.