Tag Archives: Afghanistan

Either we’re about to pull out, or else there’s an election coming


David Davis

So, Gordon Brown has just popped in for a brew with the lads, over on the front, eh? Bet they’re pleased.

The effing bastard will either win the election, or there’ll be a hung-one. You just watch. He’s a wicked socialist scumbag schemer and shyster and snake-oil-salesman, just like his mate Stalin, and you see if I’m right or not. If he gets in again, you just see if he doesn’t end up having people murdered in dank cellars, in the “Ministry” of something or other. Read my friend Richard Blake’s novel “The Terror of Constantinople”, which is prophetic.

Bet each reader of this 1p that Gordon wins, and that the election will have been rigged. You can pay the Libertarian Alliance by paypal when you lose.

Advertisements

Why the Tories WILL lose the next election


David Davis

Janet Daley on political conviction and liberalism. We libertarians will sadly be proved right that the Tories, if they were to win which is looking increasingly improbable, will come in for mega-scumbaggings from us all.

Perhaps it will be better for Gordon Brown to win. The Chindo-Australian bankers WILL foreclose on the UK, there WILL be a meltdown within a year, and a resolution will be sought. The tragedy is that the wrong things will be “cut” – such as 100% of defence, and also too much money will be left with the Police, of which we will be promised “more of” on the “beat”.

How many Vietnams do the Enemy Class want to inflict?


On us, the West?

David Davis

I was always afraid this was going to happen, and now it has. We ultimately lost in Vietnam because our morale was sapped by the fathers and mothers of today’s Enemy Class at home. Even in short preventive cauterisations and dictatorectomies, such as Gulf-I and Gulf-II ought to have been, the well-orchestrated and articulate chorus of negativity, based as it was and is on our supposed non-socialist failings as a society rather than on how much better we are than our enemies, took centre-stage.

Today, we don’t even have for this the excuse of Enemy Foreign Powers paying people in our midst to say these things. Organisations like the Grauniad and the BBC would willingly badmouth Western Civilisation for nothing. Sometimes I despair.

As a libertarian, I’m not supposed to be in favour of wars, I suppose. I’m not, but in the end, if enemies of liberty ask for war, we ought to give it to them.

LabourNazis “knew Chinooks must not be ordered for delivery now”…


…but “only for 2017”….otherwise we might win (and that would never do.) They could also delay the body-armour, for just long enough to demoralise the Army fully.

David Davis

(2017? Good, no earlier please, and as a bonus, after pulling out we can cancel the order! The benefits of this strategy are endless!)

Can’t we even rent some? If all that’s missing is helicopters, then Gordon should just print some money…

My quote of the day: from Charles Moore in the DT, on Afghanistan


David Davis

I have called this one _MY_ quote, because I know that a majority of libertarians, especially in Britain, think we ought not to be militarily involved in Afghanistan – or anywhere else for that matter. Therefore I will not annoy and insult these people by calling it the “Libertarian Alliance Quote of the Day” (although it ought to be.) I take responsibility for it instead of the august think-tank for which I have the privilege to be allowed to blog.

These libertarians, and others, know that I have never failed to support war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and that I say [regularly] that the West _must_ take war, if need be everywhere that is required, to all those who cheerfully, frankly and materially oppose individual liberty anywhere. The people the West is trying to resist are not “insurgents”. They are not even “terrorists”, which is why the notion of “The War On Terror” is so glib, shallow and meaningless – these people are willing soldiers for a cause, they really believe what they are saying and they mean to destroy us: they are the willing agents of purposeful and committed deconstructors of everything they think we stand for and love.

Here’s Charles Moore:-

If we truly want to win the war in Afghanistan, we need to challenge its opponents much more fiercely. Politicians such as Nick Clegg, who congratulate themselves on asking the necessary, awkward questions, need to be interrogated about what they actually want. Do they want the first defeat of the most powerful military alliance in history at the hands of a small band of fanatics armed with little more than rifles and IEDs?

Do they have any conception of what such a defeat would mean for the world order, for the stability of countries in the region, or for civil peace in every European city? Do they not understand that this fight will be seen all over the world not as a battle for control of some jagged mountains, but between values, and that, if our values do not win, they will lose?

Please read old Charlie Moore on the whole thing: he puts some sharp perspectives on war, its roles – good or bad they may be – in intercivilisational conflict, and where we ought to go from here. I already said a couple of days ago that the alternatives are only (and ever) victory or defeat, and what it will mean. He’s probably read Sir John Keegan. I doubt most of our present politicians have even heard of the bugger.

Taliban “claim responsibility”…now we know [that they know] that they are winning.


David Davis

Libertarians don’t do wars. Not really. We all go about in a sort of drug-like RothbardoHayekian Haze, claiming never to want to initiate force or fraud, because of course that’s what States do, right? Of course they do, and of course it’s why we’re broadly all more or less in favour of small, controllable-by-Law, states, (some of us are in favour of no states at all, but not me, I have decided) which only do things like basic law-and-order, courts that anyone can apply to, impartial judges, possibly a small, efficient and uncorruptible Police Force of authorised civilians, and the like. And of course no ID cards or “passports” or any crap of that sort.

We also as a group are broadly against Britain’s involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, since it can be argued that Britain has “no vital foreign policy interest” in what may or may not go on in those places. As I have never tired of repeating, I do not agree, and never have done, that Britain has no business being there as an armed force. I am a Jihadist turned upside down: I take the view that it is the Jihad obligation, the absolute foreign-policy-duty no less, of liberal Classical States to actively destroy un-liberal scumbags, wherever they may be, if the nominal “State” on whose writ they scamper is unable so to do. If this was done, socialism, and also pre-capitalist death-cults which periodically use sex anda sort of yearning neo-pastoralism to infect rational civilisations, would simply melt away and disappear. But that’s the subject of another debate. What I mean to briefly dissect today is a change in the type of signals the “Taliban”, whatever that says it might be, is sending. The exceptional glaring tautology in what I have just said, namely the presence of British soldiers doing what I have described, at the bidding of a scumbag GramscoFabiaNazi administration at home here, is a result of the British State going GFN, and not a refutation of my premise.

In my long experience, terrorists, and other warlike agents of counter-revolution and people’s progress, tend to “claim responsibility” for dastardly deeds when they are ready to start dictating terms to what they see as the losing side. It’s a case of “we did this and we can do it some more: do you want that, and ultimate defeat, or shall we talk?” In the inverted scenario, such as, say, the Dambusters Raid, the Allies claimed responsibility globally from the rooftops, which wasn’t mechanically necessary I admit since there were crashed Lancasters scattered from Holland to the Ruhr, but it was a moral point being made, in front of an audience of spectators,  just like what this Taliban-man has just done.

The problem of wars is that there are only two ways out: victory or defeat. No “third way”, sorry Tony-B. If either Britain, or “The West” or indeed any individual ally involved in Afghanistan (Spain! Take Note, although you left earlier when some buggers who you tried later to say were Basques blew up all your trains) leaves before the Fat Lady Sings, it will be counted as a defeat, with all the malign foreign policy and (at home) inter-racial, and inter-precapitalist-barbarian-survival-guidetype issues that will flow from that.

Our own government today is the main difficulty, for this Taliban fellow knows it is on his side in the end, and wants him to win for Gramscian reasons. They’ve done a deal. “I’m Gordon…I’ll tell you what – I want to deconstruct and demoralise my Queen’s Armed Forces, so I can re-staff them with the right sort of Officers and persons so that I can then dissolve the People and elect another in their place. This is because  these forces are currently mostly viscerally opposed to me and my “getting on with my job”, and may refuse to “regulate” their own people back home here later. So I’ll send you periodic batches of good ones, which you can then kill a lot of, because I’ll deliberately make sure that you can, by only allowing them really really crap gear. When you think you’ve killed enough, and when enough of the present officers and squaddies have resigned in disgust, we’ll talk about me bowing to public opinion and “bringing the boys home”, and also about you getting hold of Afghanistan, and any industrial cities in the UK that you want your religious and legal writ to run in. And the monetary contribution you could reasonably make, to The Political Arm Of The British People, will be £…………………”

Talk about the German Army in 1918 being “stabbed in the back”!

Time I said something about Afghanistan.


David Davis

Hitherto, as you all know, I have never failed to disagree with libertarians such as Sean Gabb, in regard to British Foreign Policy. In particular this refers to our prosecution of wars in iraq, Aghanistan, and elsewhere, since the arrival of the national-socialist-imperialist Government of New Labour.

Watching the Fall of the Twin Towers, nearly nine years ago now, I was convinced that it was right of Blair, be he even a GramscoFabianof the First Order, to immediately stand at the side of the, indeed  _our_ First Child, the USA. Whatever “evidence” of WMDs or mobil ice-cream-van-launchers, or weaponised dustbins ready to receive non-recyclable-waste in under 45 minutes or whatever, he was right to support the removal and encompassed subsequent death of the wicked muderer Saddam Hussein. If Blair had said “Britain must go into Iraq purely to kill Saddam Hussein –  a horrible Untermensch which killed its first human victim on purpose with a provided gun while being aged eleven –  and then we shall either go home or stay to kill more of his willing supporters and relations who have profited by him”, I would have supported that, and indeed it was one of the few right and good decisions Blair took in his life.

He did not need to lie about WMDs to convince me of a good and right mission for the Forces of an upright and moral nation. He should have trusted the People, and simply listened. In those days we would have supported him. I did anyway, even though he was – and is – a scumbag socialist. Go back to the headlines of 2002 and 2003 and 2004 even, and just read them.

But he did the unthinkable. On being found to have lied, he therefore shot us in the foot in full view of our enemies by going ahead on what most people decided were false-pretences. Without doing the obviously needed thing, and changing to what the real motive for the war ought to have been all along. It was almost too late, but not quite.If he had come clean immediately, half our enemies’ support would have melted away – it would almost have been enough to go on. And it would have been _public_ which is what’d have mattered. The next rubbish might then not have come about…..

Our enemies are primitve in some ways but clever and modern in others. They, like dogs, can smell fear and the stench of death. It is fatal to smell of fear and death. They know when the heart of a combatant is not in it: they know when the people at home are not “behind their boys”. This is invariably fatal, and it loses wars, always and everywhere. Look at Vietnam for an even more expensive object-lesson: the feeligns of the heart of the American People, as projected to the Enemy by the American media, gave off a certain smell. it may not have been the right smell in the end, but it did the trick and we duly lost, as was demanded.

Blair didn’t look: he is “post-modern”, whatever that means, but I think I have decided.

Sean Gabb said we have no vital national interest in these places, unless I have totally misunderstood. Although he is my very good and old friend, he is here quite wrong in my opinion: we, the British, and also British Libertarians as a an interested subset, do have such things. It is not in our interest, as liberals and libertarians, whether the prevailing state or us as a group, to for long allow a crowd of media-friendly, powerful and charismatic, sexy, mountebanks – with zillions of cheap guns, bombs, money, friendship with unfriendly regimes such as the USSR, and access to limitlessly-industrial amounts of modern plastic explosives, detonators and charge-shapers –  to promote the idea that liberalism and non-invasive-individual-liberty of conscience, worship, thought, deed and word are a wrong thing for Man. It is our Jihadist duty to go after these buggers to the ends of the earth if need be. if we do not, then we set a bad example for those who would follow liberty.

Strong horse, weak horse. The late Osama Bin Laden will continue to remain fully dead throughout 2009 and 2010, but he did speak the truth on that one. We are not dealing all the time with samizdata readers here: those whom we hope to awake from their darkness in the fullness of time still, in a lot of cases, only know about mis-sold-nags and dust and disease.

This is a First World Army, trying to fight Third-World-Guerillas – admittedly in difficult terrain, but this is 2009. The problem of Afghanistan can only be:

(1) either that the wrong kind of campaign is being fought…we are trying to be even too reliant on vehicles and mobility in force, and should deploy more special forces at night on foot (but we don’t have more than five…)

or

(2) that the politicos in charge of “paying for it” don’t want it to succeed. They, which is to say: Gordon Brown and the Enemy Class, want us to “lose”. This, to them, is a morale-destroying-weapon to do with our very civilisation and sense of ourselves, both of which they hate. that oculd secondarily explain the lack of “kit”: the more dead young boys that are flown back, the better for the Enemy Class. (I always said they were evil droids, didn’t I!)

Given that Jeff randall is probably right about the mobility of anti-liberal, anti-Western-Canon terrorism, it probably does not matter in the end if we stayed in Afghanistan for “30 or 40 years” (perish the thought!) or if we left today.

I am not sure that Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, who [with the exception of many dedicated Danish Doctors and Nurses] deploy sadly almost all the forces that really matter, really really deeply want The West to win in Afghanistan, if indeed “winning” here now means anything substantive. It is a hallmark of a civilised people that they grieve quite a lot and voluntarily, and now in public, see Wooton Bassett (poor sods) over even what would a mere 90 years ago have been regarded as a paltry death-toll for even just one day of fighting. That we should now regard eight deaths in one day of fighting as politically and morally unacceptable, says a lot for us still as a people, and points optimistically to some kind of recovery of moral fibre and nerve, although I cannot yet define what.

It is too late now to “leave Afghanistan” without it looking to our enemies abroad, which are many but largely impotent, and the Enemy Class at home which is few but all-powerful,  like a major defeat. To both kinds of enemy, imagery is terribly important for they are both primitive and pre-capitalist-neopastoralist, in their different ways. Both kinds of enemy will interpret our leaving as a major strategic victory for them.

What will happen?

Israel will feel weaker and more isolated, and may have to develop Nuclear Weapons.

The government if the USSR will feel more able to lift more firms’ wallets  – both foreign and domestic – more openly.

OPEC, with USSR money, will be able to orchestrate demos at British “Unis”, by “students” who will shout that “Afghanistan was all about oil” while burning effigies of “George W Halliburton”.

Some institutional destruction will be able to be accomplished too, such as various Lieut-Colonels, of the remaining old British Army Regiments that survive, being arrested for “war crimes”.

The ID card programme will be accelerated, since “The War On Terror” “knows no borders”. Cameron will expedite this as fast as Brown would have done, and anyway all the Enemy-Classes’ political dinner-partners, all of whom “design” on “Apple Macs”, will need the bloody money, and quick, or they lose their cottages to RBS “Money-Sense”.

But, all in all, would we all be worse off if we left Afghanistan? Perhaps not. I do not know, do you?

« Older Entries