In reply to WhatAreTheCivilianApplications

It’s about a newspaper pundit, a would be Technocrat, wringing his hands over Afghanistan, as if the British and the Soviets abandoning their Colonial Projects were not the starkest kind of objects lessons? Not to speak of Reagan’s presenting the Mujahedeen as resembling ‘The Founding Fathers’!

But, sir, your pièce de résistance: ‘ Thick argument. “If you feel so strongly hospitals should exist, you become a hospital porter” e.g. argument by specious analogy. The strategy used by Antonin Scalia in such cases as Shelby County v. Holder. See page 734, here:

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=wmborj&httpsredir=1&referer=

Regards,

StephenKMackSD

https://www.ft.com/content/68283a90-0b40-43fa-9554-0b2ef76f23b5?commentID=dcc47af3-3316-4000-9128-d60b0996671d

*************************************

My reply to Paul A. Myers

Mr. Myers thank you for your revelatory lessons, that history teaches to those willing to listen! But note that Nicholas Gilani finds your historical precise so inconvenient , the last sentence of his final comment, to your reply is unmistakable: 

‘The proper strategy is to create two zones of control for the two major ethnic groups, the Persian speaking Tajiks and the Shiite Hazara on the one hand; and the Sunni Pathans, on the other. This needs to be underwritten by Iran and Pakistan, respectively. This arrangement would then in turn be back-stopped by Russia, China and the US along with India.’

Is there ever a shortage of Arm-Chair Generals, like Mr. Gilani , or Mr. Rachman in a slightly etiolated version of such?  Mr. Gilani offers what resembles the position of a  Neo-Con Imperialist: ‘two zones of control for the two major ethnic groups,’ . In sum. the Afghans are to remain under the tutelage of others who know best? 


Regards,


StephenKMackSD

https://www.ft.com/content/68283a90-0b40-43fa-9554-0b2ef76f23b5?commentID=fdf49283-81f0-410d-97ea-d9aee2c54191 

   

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.