NPR link for the IQ2 debate on Afghanistan

Iq2us_logo
I understand that you can listen to it here in wither unedited or broadcast forms.  pl

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113735039

This entry was posted in Administration. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to NPR link for the IQ2 debate on Afghanistan

  1. WILL says:

    basically you can
    1) stream it or
    2) download it to you hard drive for convenient listening later

  2. David J. says:

    Here is a link to the Frontline documentary on Afghanistan.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/
    There is a scene where the US marine starts to lose his temper with the people he is trying to protect that makes you wince. Talking through a translator who spoke neither the local dialect nor English all that well — “I’m asking you for the fifth time” — the marine’s posture is impatient throughout and increasingly exasperated. He eventually resorts to an outright threat. The villagers’ not unreasonable response: What do want us to do? You have tanks and planes. If you can’t beat the Taliban, how do you expect us to?

  3. Richard Armstrong says:

    For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
    But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
    An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
    An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!
    Bring the troops home from Vietnam, er rather Afghanistan.

  4. WILL says:

    in law school we had mock trials w/ lay juries. the jurors signed a consent form b/ really had no idea that it included that once they retreated to the jury room they had consented that we would be eaves-dropping on them via closed-circuit tv.
    in their deliberations some of the things they look at: the defense attorney was better dressed, was cuter, spoke more forcefully, had better eye contact. Presentation is everything. you just can’t be low volume. even if you are flat-xss wrong, you have to be totally convinced about it, & convincing. even if your logic is flat-xss backwards. It’s all theater in oral presentation. It’s all stage craft!
    The Col. is devastating in print b/ he seems to be low key in person. Persuading by the force of ideas & intellect rather than razzle dazzle and bullcrap. Of course his aim was not to win b/ to inform. Maybe the other guys’ aim was to win.
    that’s why nagl, coll, and that third guy won.

  5. confusedponderer says:

    I found the debate interesting. Sadly, the format didn’t allow to delve into substance in a meaningful way.
    I was surprised about Ralph Peters, who I so far have always considered egregious. I consider reconsidering the ‘always’.
    David J., thanks for the link to the NPR report.

  6. Patrick Lang says:

    will
    “at the United States Military Academy, where he was twice selected as best classroom teacher of the year.” Wiki on me.
    I was not at all interested in “winning.” I find this subject so serious that I just couldn’t bring myself to “show off.”
    IMO the whole event was designed to be a PR event reinforcing support for the neocon venture in Afghanistan. Even the audience was stacked. The moderator introduced me in a very minimal way. No significant job that I had ever held was mentioned. You will notice that my military rank was never mentioned although that of Peters and Nagl was.
    I was determinied to tell the larger audience of the American people that I do not trust them and have not done so for 40 years. The audience at least had the grace to resent that.
    The participants:
    Peters was a pleasant surprise. The moderator loves him and plugged his latest ridiculous book. He wouldn’t mention for me that I was a Director of the HR Guggenheim Foundation or anything else.
    Clemons is a creature of th Washington Foundation world. I thought for a while that he would individually thank everyone in the audience.
    Coll is a diffident man of considerable intellect.
    Nagl reminds me of John Paul Vann, but much better educated.
    Shinn is an engineering professor who is also a Bush-side Republican pol.
    There. I have decided not to do anything like this again and that should take care of it.
    We were supposed to lose and we did. pl

  7. confusedponderer says:

    I found it remarkable when the matter came to the Afghans, the object of America’s efforts.
    The Afghans hope … they want us to stay … girls are allowed to study and go to school … in criticising their performance you denigrate their sacrifice … etc pp. That’s not arguments, but emotional appeals.
    PR? Clearly.

  8. Bobo says:

    Yes, a PR stunt to the fullest. I watched, read and listened but watching was the most interesting. The individuals body language came out fully revealing a lot. PL bested them all in this area. As to the moderator he did a poor job especially with the lack of equal time. The question to me determined the outcome not the excellent input by the group of esteemed individuals.
    What I saw there and have seen in other areas raises a question in my mind that I would appreciate comment from others. “There seems a perception in the middle & upper ranks of the military that they want to put Vietnam behind them where Afghanistan & COIN is their opportunity and they want to do this while disregarding the many lessons of Vietnam.” Any validity to this observation??

  9. confusedponderer says:

    The first thing I remembered of the debate this morning was that weird bit, iirc by Nagl, about increased Afghan Forces (after conceding that Afghanistan’s GDP doesn’t suffice to fund them) being a great thing – because the Afghans are great fighters and could make fantastic peacekeepers … I guess it only does make sense if one thinks of the Long War and is looking for a source for American Ghurkas.

  10. josephdietrich says:

    Interesting debate.

    1. Was amused and somewhat bemused by Nagl brandishing the COIN manual as if he were the only one who brought the “Good Book” to a Bible study. Immediately brought to my mind the image of blind faith.
    2. Heard lots of anecdotes, which I suppose is typical for rhetorical purposes.
    3. Was impressed with Ralph Peters as a speaker/debater.
    4. The moderator could have been better.
    5. Overall, thought the motion was too broad. It allowed far too much open for re-interpretation.
    6. Overall, considering the loaded nature of the question (“will America succeed“) and the middling margin of victory, I felt Col. Lang and et al did well.
  11. Mike says:

    You had ridiculous co-locutors. If they had meant this as a serious debate, you side would have ben you, Col., Bacevich, and perhaps Pape (devastating op-ed yesterday from him), or some other actual expert on the region or on insurgencies (as contra the CO-insurgency dreamers).

  12. wally123 says:

    The debate was excerpted in Newsweek. The Col. was well represented.

    Yes, COIN does work, but what is going to be different in Afghan than in Vietnam! ”
    After 50,000 dead and all that sunk cost in Vietnam, the American people thru their reps in Congress said SCREW it. Why would Afghan be different?

Comments are closed.