Quotes of the day
posted at 10:35 pm on October 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
“[N]ow, after nearly a month of deliberations by Mr. Obama over whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, frustrations and anxiety are on the rise within the military…
“‘The extremists are sensing weakness and indecision within the U.S. government, which plays into their hands,’ said Mr. Tradewell’s statement on behalf of [the Veterans of Foreign Wars], which represents 1.5 million former soldiers…
“A retired general who served in Iraq said that the military had listened, ‘perhaps naïvely,’ to Mr. Obama’s campaign promises that the Afghan war was critical. ‘What’s changed, and are we having the rug pulled out from under us?’ he asked…
“Another source of tension within the military is the view that a delay is endangering the 68,000 American troops now in Afghanistan. ‘McChrystal has troops out there who are risking their lives more than they need to, partly because we have not filled in the gaps and we have not created a safe zone in southern and eastern Afghanistan,’ said Michael O’Hanlon, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution.”
***
“But, in recent years, Taliban leaders have drawn especially close to Al Qaeda… Today, at the leadership level, the Taliban and Al Qaeda function more or less as a single entity. The signs of this are everywhere. For instance, IED attacks in Afghanistan have increased dramatically since 2004. What happened? As a Taliban member told Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau of Newsweek, ‘The Arabs taught us how to make an IED by mixing nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel and how to pack plastic explosives and to connect them to detonators and remote-control devices like mobile phones. We learned how to do this blindfolded so we could safely plant IEDs in the dark.’ Another explained that ‘Arab and Iraqi mujahedin began visiting us, transferring the latest IED technology and suicide-bomber tactics they had learned in the Iraqi resistance.’ Small numbers of Al Qaeda instructors embedded with much larger Taliban units have functioned something like U.S. Special Forces do–as trainers and force multipliers…
“[T]he last time the Taliban controlled a state, it was not so interested in realpolitik; after September 11, the group made clear that it was prepared to lose everything (and it did) rather than betray bin Laden. Since then, the Taliban’s leadership has grown more closely aligned with Al Qaeda’s worldwide goals — not less. Today, the Taliban seems to view itself as the vanguard of a global movement that is waging God-sanctioned holy war against the infidels. Foreign policy realists want to gamble that this group, once back in power, will suddenly transform into an ultra-rational clique of Henry Kissingers. Anything could happen, I guess. But, given everything we know about the Taliban, is that really a wise wager to make?…
“It can be a peaceful nation again. And, if America is to keep Al Qaeda at bay, it must be.”
***
“The Taliban haven’t changed. Last year, men on motorcycles used water pistols to squirt acid in the faces of girls going to school. This year, the Taliban have taken to spraying poison in the courtyards of girls schools. What Biden is essentially proposing is to concede more and more of Afghanistan to such people while relying more heavily on U.S. air power to kill Al Qaeda terrorists. Since air strikes are far more likely to kill innocent civilians than are U.S GIs, Biden’s vision is — for Afghan women in particular — a vision of hell. On the ground, you live in beast-like submission, and from the air, chunks of your village are periodically set aflame.
“Somewhere, Donald Rumsfeld is chuckling.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
See above.
La.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2009 at 1:32 AM
To say that Islam is a religion is very misleading.
It is of the very essence of a totalitarian ideology that it enforces its right to regulate the totality of life. The Koran, the Hadith, the fatwas represent one continuous endeavor in this respect: they aim at controlling every single aspect of life. The ideology of Islam is premised not just on the belief that believers are eternally separate from, and eternally superior to non-believers. It is premised on eternal hostility between the two. Fanaticism, terrorism and aggression are the inevitable results of this worldview. Accordingly, the ideology makes it well-nigh impossible for Muslims to live peaceably in societies in which Muslims are just one of several communities. Indeed, it makes it impossible for an Islamic state to live peaceably in a world where there are non-Islamic states.
- Arun Shourie
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 1:34 AM
Can someone please tell me what we are doing in that dump, trying to reform those animals?
JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2009 at 1:39 AM
But Islam, that which McChrystal must not spake, is not a failed ideology. They are doing quite well at advancing. In Europe and even in America. That’s the problem. We are “fighting them over there” when they are already “over here”.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 1:40 AM
More and more problems related to this are starting to show themselves:
Armed Social Work and Rules of Engagement in Garmsir Afghanistan
BY Herschel Smith
1 week, 1 day ago
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/10/11/armed-social-work-and-rules-of-engagement-in-garmsir-afghanistan/
]
Killing 1000 terrorist is a loss if you lose 2 civilians.
So we lost WWI and WWII if we went by these standards.
For the love of God…when did killing the enemy in war become “irrelevant”.
McChrystal, Troop Levels and Rules of Engagement
BY Herschel Smith
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/09/27/mcchrystal-troop-levels-and-rules-of-engagement/
“We have a lot of other things on the table” that are more important than addressing troop levels and the resources necessary to complete this mission…..are you f$#king kidding me with this.
What are these “other” things that trump the obvious stonewalling by the White House in making a decision.
What kind of war do we fight that air power is not a main component?
Basically it is “send the Soldiers in to the fire because we don’t want to kill any innocent goats or people supporting the jihadist”
At least somebody seems to get it:
MB4, I know you being a Vietnam Veteran (and from reading your posting) have probably forgotten more about war than I and most people know but I just don’t see how the current ROE can be successful under these conditions.
Of course we need to win over the population (this will never happen.It seems to me the best we can hope for is a working relationship to destroy a common enemy then turn it over to their Army/Police force) but not at the expense of “unnecessary” risk of Soldiers lives.
Air support in smart bombing a safe house may have caused some civilian casualties but the idea now that we can’t do anything if civilians are present or if we do,our Soldiers have to take on much higher percentage of risk to spare people aiding and supporting the enemy does not seem justified to me.
This population much the same as Iraq understands one main thing, the strong survive.
All the goodwill and back slapping are not going to mean a dam# thing if the population don’t think we are strong enough to defeat the Taliban/al-qaeda threat and maintain security to hopefully pass off to their leadership in the future.
I know I am not there but setting our Soldiers up for a serious marked increase for casualties to spare people who aid and support the enemy makes no sense to me.
It defies logic that we can wage war with an enemy that hides amongst the population without incurring civilian casualties.
Our military is the strongest fighting force.
We have the means and ability to annihilate the enemy.
If civilians want to live,they either need to not support the enemy or join with the coalition in ridding their country of the jihadist.
Baxter Greene on October 20, 2009 at 1:40 AM
I think we came to a fork in the road and took it.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Great, but you entirely missed the point. Islam is bad, OK.
So your strategy is to fight Islam with guns? Even your own statements back me up; Islam isn’t a person, organization, or country!
Your premise for escalation in Afghanistan is not making sense for the purpose. Eradicate an ideology by shooting at it.
Please tell me that you are alluding to something different.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 1:42 AM
You forgot to say: ‘of peace’.
It is a religion plus an ideology, with a healthy dose of political guidance interwoven throughout. To deny that Islam is political in nature is to deny reality.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2009 at 1:42 AM
It’s not our job to nation-build or to “win hearts and minds” in Afghanistan. But if that’s our goal, here’s how: Force the Afghan (Taliban) men to shape the **** up or they lose their women.
Announce that any Afghan woman who is being beaten, abused, oppressed, denied education, or generally being mistreated, may go to any US soldier and request immediate asylum in the United States. She may take her female children and young male children with her. Her husband or any male children 18 or older may *not* come with her.
The US Army will patrol any area where there are reports of women and girls being abused and interview Afghan women separately from their husbands to allow them the opportunity to seek asylum.
In the US, she and her children will be provided with basic education and be placed on a citizenship track.
Of course, we’d likely end up with an enormous wave of immigrant Afghan women and children, there’s be all kinds of problems and unintended consequences, and this would never fly politically anyway.
It’s just that I’d love to see how quickly the Taliban men shape up when they realize that all their women are leaving…
ZenDraken on October 20, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Or Obama’s plan to create a civilian national security force, that is, in his words, “As well funded and equipped as the US military”?
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Well
well
what ?
macncheez on October 20, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Neither do I.
Absolute insanity. Dereliction of duty at best and arguably treason.
I am just starting to read your material, in between some other things, but already it seems even worse than I thought.
Check out http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/ if you haven’t already.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Some people may think that I am a conspiracy nut, but it sure seems strange that most of the gas stations, even in small towns, are owned by middle easterners.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Once again, missing the point!!!
You can’t send the military to fight a religion/ideology!!!!!
That makes no sense, whatsoever. People here don’t like Islam? Fine, then convince people that the ideology/religion is flawed and go from there.
In the meantime, let’s focus on a actual victory in Afghanistan. This means getting our troops out of there and getting a stable government in place in Afghanistan. Statements like “we will not submit” is not enough. We have been saying that for the last 8 years after 9/11.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM
I have never advocated escalation in Afghanistan. I have been advocating getting out or mostly getting out. You must have missed my last 2,000 posts. I do most certainly think that as long as our troops are there they should be able to defend themselves and the best defense is offense.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM
The future of Minneapolis
Bwhahahahahha
macncheez on October 20, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Those ROE cannot produce success in any war
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 1:58 AM
What would that constitute and in what year do you see it happening under current “strategy”?
If we wait until there is a “stable government” in Afghanistan our troops will be there for a hundred years, maybe a thousand with Islam left in place.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 1:59 AM
You kill the enemy until they have no will to fight. Remember the NAZI ideology and that of Japan. You either have the will to beat the enemy or they will beat you.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Yes, as I have said before, we are “fighting them over there” (more like trying to win their “Hearts and Minds” and Unicorns and Flowers) when they are already over here, just waiting to be ready to advance Islam so more right here.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:05 AM
Why isn’t something like this, word for word, in an ad all over the television to expose Obama’s foolishness? Hit him over the head with something like this and he might actually do the right thing in Afghanistan because the American people will demand it.
Daemonocracy on October 20, 2009 at 2:08 AM
How can we expect a “stable government” when we don’t even have one in our country? How hypocritcal of Team Obama to ask for a recount of votes from the Afghanistan election–before he can make up his mind to committ.
Of course, he can’t committ to anything before he goes to pick up his Peace Prize…Can you see the headlines–”President is handed Peace Prize as he ramps up War effort”?
lovingmyUSA on October 20, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Once again, missing the point!!!
You can’t send the military to fight a religion/ideology!!!!!ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Did you hear the one about World War II?
Idiot.
I say that carefully and purposefully, idiot.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2009 at 2:09 AM
But you are implying something extremely weird. Going after Islam is not some winning idea.
As for “the best defense is offense”, I am pretty sure that is what our military is doing. The problem is that we are facing a resilient, creative, and resourceful enemy. As good as all of our technology, training, etc. is, we are facing people that are highly motivated and driven. Whether it is by Islam or their current success they have the best upperhand right now; confidence, a sense of righteousness, and purpose.
Their goal is simple, getting the US out of Afghanistan.
Our goals?
* Maybe getting out, maybe staying (after all this time, Bush hasn’t figured out what he wanted to do. Obama is going along the same path of trying to find a “middle road”)
* Building up the people there (How, we haven’t decided yet)
* Establishing a stable government (which we cannot decide if we want to install one or let people decide)
* Etc. Etc.
We have no outline for success, whatsoever. Even the people posting online here cannot decide. My metrics for success?
* Getting Al Qaeda
* Removing the Taliban from Power
* Have a semi-democratic government in place
* Getting the hell out of there.
I’ll admit, achieving these goals are hard but it’s much better when we know what we are trying to achieve.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 2:10 AM
LOL.
World War II was about stopping three countries. Germany, Italy, and Japan.
THAT’S IT.
We weren’t fighting ‘facism’ or trying to install freedom everywhere during World War II because if we were all of the countries of Africa and Eastern Europe would be free.
We wanted to stop those three countries. Period.
You seem to have a hard time separate patriotic slogans from actual objectives.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 2:13 AM
He seems to place no value whatsoever on the lives of his own troops. The only other possibility is that he is a total moron.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Islam is a religion of peace. Islam doesn’t kill people, MUSLIMS do that
macncheez on October 20, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Having served in the Army years and years ago, I can guess that when a general requests more troops while conducting anti-guerrilla warfare, it usually means that when troops move from Point A to Point B, recently evacuated Point A is immediately reoccupied ny the guerrillas. Therefore you need a reserve sufficient to remain at Point B while Point A is beimg attacked-or something similar. When Point C is attacked,some troops remain in both Points A and B and so on. Eventually the enemy runs out of maneuvering room.Obviously such a strategy would not work in the whole country but would probably be successful in a restricted area. Even Obama should be able to figure that out. Unless Obama wants us to deliberately fail.
MaiDee on October 20, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Answered the first part above. The winning strategy is refocusing our efforts on just Al Qaeda for now. We are spread out too much (figuratively speaking) and that allowed the fragments of the Taliban to get back in the game.
I say pull out of most regions and then focus on intelligence gathering and knocking out Al Qaeda. The Taliban will need to be slowly disarmed and rejected by the people since there is no real head of the Taliban they are just a collection of tribes. Better to approach them organically as well instead of viewing them as some big organization.
You keep bringing up Islam. The military cannot find that. Getting people to move away from an ideology/religion cannot be done by the gun.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 2:23 AM
They are going after the whole world. I don’t think we should ignore that, nor think we can befriend them.
No they are not allowed to. I have already commented/linking in that refard many times.
And didn’t you see Baxter Greene on October 20, 2009 at 1:40 AM ?
For example -
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:24 AM
You are talking about a president who obviously never played “Battleship”, and definitely didn’t have a GI Joe growing up…
lovingmyUSA on October 20, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Tell that to Germany.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Uhhh, great for movies but again, your boiling down to more troops and bombs. The Russians tried this grand approach you are alluding to here to no avail.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 2:28 AM
The Islamization of Yale
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:31 AM
ckoeber on ….
You’re exposing yourself.
Thanks, ahead blah blah blah.
Idiot.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2009 at 2:32 AM
There is a huge amount of Muslims in Indonesia, Europe, and right here in the United States.
What are you suggesting we do?
I don’t understand your plan for taking care of Islam. Please be specific. Guns? Bombs? Trying to convince people? What?
What you are alluding to is insanity. When we need Afghanistan we want to leave for good. Even if we succeed in wiping out the Taliban if a sizable amount of the civilian population (even around 1000 people) die in the process that would be a disaster. Nothing short of more rallying cries against the US and therefore more hatred and guns turned our way.
Do you think that civilian deaths will not have an effect on the people? Your “take the gloves off” approach will end up getting more people killed on our side.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Why in the world did Obama want to be President? He obviously doesn’t like to make decisions. And he is appallingly bad at making good ones.
And Biden? Why in the world would anyone listen to his opinion he hasn’t been right about anything for the past 30 years!
petunia on October 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Afghanistan is a good example of this.
642-870 AD is when Arab invaders converted Afghans to Islam,and it was not a “voluntary course”:
“In the 7th centruy a new save of invaders broke into Afghanistan from the west, brandishing not just swords but a book called the Koran.The latter’s influence would soon spread throughout Afghanistan, whose fearsome warrior culture would be buttressed by fervent belief in the “one true God”.
Toward the turn of the millennium, a group of Turkic warriros who had become fierce vonverts to Islam founded a kingdom in the Afghan city of Ghazni. In 998 a man named Mamud took the throne and embarked on a campaign of conquest. He turned toward Indai, terrorizing and FORCIBLY converting the population while plundering Buddhist and Hindu temples. The modern state of Pakistan, which split from India due to it’s adherence to Islam, stems from these Ghaznavid penetrations across the Indus River.
Barely a century passed before another indigenous Afghan kingdom, this one based at Ghor in the midst of the Hindu Kush, arose to sack the city of Ghazni. It, in turn, succumbed to the great power of Khwarezm, and empire centered on Samarkand above the Oxus. Under Shah Muhammad II, Khwarezm became the most powerful Islamic state in the world at the dawn of the 13th century, absorbing Afghanistan into it’s rapidly expanding empire.”
Indomitable Afghanistan
Stephen Tanner
(via Military History)
I have seen little to no evidence that Islam wishes to “coexist” with other religions.Where it has been able to conquer and force the population to adhere to the Koran, it has done it.
The nations like France, Britain,and the US have minority populations but teach that Islam is the only way.
The difference with the “0nly way” philosophy of say Christians from Muslims is that Christians do not and are not killing people because they don’t adhere to the Bible.
Most Islamic nations have little to no major influence of other religions such as Christianity or Judaism.Mostly because they are persecuted in majority Islamic nations unlike the tolerance shown to Islam in Western nations.
Islam is very much a way of life and most of the lifestyles in Islamic nations is centered around what their religion dictates with little to no tolerance of other cultures.
Afghanistan is a good example of this.
Islam was not introduced on a voluntary level.
You either converted or you were killed.
Baxter Greene on October 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Well it could be done “at the point of a gun” but it would be too costly in Afghanistan and that is why I have never advocated “Islamic Nation Building”, and certainly not in Afghanistan. I have commented to this in hundreds of posts, seems like thousands.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Yeah, coming from Mr. “we will not submit”.
When asked what does that mean in terms of actual strategy, course of action, etc., he starts calling me an idiot.
Awesome. Where did you learn to make loud noises and throw shit from?
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Thank you for your input.
It is eye opening and factual as usual.
Good night.
Baxter Greene on October 20, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Once again, Germany was far simpler. We just wanted to stop Hitler. That’s it.
As of right now, if we ask ten commanders what is the goal in Afghanistan we get ten different answers. That needs to change.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 2:40 AM
And I raise you this
After UC Irvine, this one will be even more dangerous
macncheez on October 20, 2009 at 2:42 AM
Russia did not try it hard enough. We had the will in WW2 against the best equipped and best military powers of all time.
We cannot and should not fight a war unless we do everything in our power to win. We need to get rid of the officers like Cabaniss and strive for more officers like Patton and Sherman.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 2:43 AM
It explains itself, for those who are not blind or brainwashed.
So…
To break it down for you…
Keep on sticking your fingers in your ears.
La.
That sand between your synapses must be a bitch.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2009 at 2:45 AM
What you are alluding to is dhimmitude.
I would be content leaving now, except maybe for a couple of bases.
If 1,000 Afghans died in the process, killing all the Taliban (which would not happen, of course) would be worth it. War ain’t the Peace Corp, nor is it a Convent.
In case you didn’t get the memo, they don’t like us anyway, and don’t fear us much either.
Again, I would be content leaving the $hit hole called Afghanistan, but as long as our troops are there I want the ROE to be working for them, not against them.
Now I want to read some of the stuff that Baxter left earlier.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:47 AM
http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/
No American should tolerate such a serious dereliction of duty such as this by our leadership.
Our Soldiers deserve better than this.
We are supposed to learn from our mistakes…no more “hamburger hill” bullsh!t.
Absolutely sickening.
Baxter Greene on October 20, 2009 at 2:51 AM
Yup. While we are trying to put out fires over there with Hearts and Minds and Unicorns and Flowers, and ROE that basically says F you to our troops they are over here vandalizing our own houses and planning to burn them down if they get the chance.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:54 AM
I linked to that guy before. Baldilocks commented that he was the one who’s KIA son’s body was shown by, I think CNN?, against his parents wishes. He has been sounding the ROE alarm even before his son was killed in Afghanistan however.
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 2:57 AM
Tell that to the guys that were fighting the Germans in the hedge rows and the Japanese in the jungles.
You are correct about having a goal, but, the goal should be the annihilation of the enemy.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 2:59 AM
That is the exact reason that my son and grandson have not re-uped.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM
Guess who else is pumping money into UC Berkeley
Scroll down to see Mr and Mrs DiFi ( yeah, the one in DC) with MullahCarter
macncheez on October 20, 2009 at 3:04 AM
MB4 I am glad there was a [successful] campaign to unban you from HA. You are not shy and unafraid to delve into tough issues. Plus you must stay up all night lol.
As usual, there are no simple answers to our involvement in Afghanistan or even on health care. As American citizens, it is our right and duty to raise questions and vociferously defend our positions.
I salute YOU.
PS Thank you for your service.
GnuBreed on October 20, 2009 at 3:07 AM
How many civilians do you think were killed in WW2? How many more civilian do you think would have been killed, if we had not done as much to end the war and it would have gone on for a few more years? War is hell and the more hellish you can make for the enemy, the shorter the war.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 3:11 AM
Even in Afghanistan some Afghans have said that American troops were being too restrained. Diana West had a post on that which I linked to maybe a couple of weeks ago, but I doubt that I could readily find it now.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
- William Tecumseh Sherman
If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.
- William Tecumseh Sherman
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 3:31 AM
Not even going to get into the absolute disgust I feel in the politicizing of our Soldiers who are on the front lines by the Obama administration .
These last few posts and links coming from the people who have protected this country and provided us with our Freedoms says it all:
Statement from :
John J. Bernard
1stSgt USMC ret @ Let them fight link provided by MB4
They are not asking for a bailout…
…not asking for someone to pay their bills for them….
…not asking for special consideration or any breaks based on their ethnicity,gender,or social status…..
….all they are asking for is the resources and leadership they were promised when they were sent off to battle.
If it’s to f$#king much to supply our fighting men and women with what they need to complete the mission that our elected leadership on the hill overwhelmingly voted to send them over to do,then bring them home and be prepared to face the anger and disgust of the American citizens for our Congress’s (not our military’s) failure in the Afghan war and failure to support our troops.
Baxter Greene on October 20, 2009 at 3:42 AM
A Marine Corps Sergeant Major Speaks
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 3:47 AM
I just saw the latest Newsweek cover.
The one where they opine on how “serious” a VP Joe Biden is.
And how he’s a “force to be reckoned with.”
……
I got nothin’, folks.
(Well, actually, I do.
Our troops deserve so much better.)
Hawkins1701 on October 20, 2009 at 4:13 AM
COIN [Obama/McChrystal policy in Afghanistan] may be a legitimate strategy in a limited sense when the “insurgents” are seen as outsiders [If hypothetically the "insurgents" were say Shiite Iranians in Sunni Afghanistan].– or at least trouble makers with a foreign ideology [If hypothetically the trouble makers" were Afghans working for say Shiite Iranians] – by the native population in a fixed geographic region. However, the insurgency we face is not limited to Afghanistan. It is a global movement. Civilian casualties must be avoided whenever possible – not at all costs. There is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents. However, if a COIN strategy is to succeed, our political and military leadership must demonstrate the willingness to adjust the tactics used in the battlespace in order to allow our troops to kill the enemy.
That having been said, their blood has been thinned by time and centuries of misery. The current crop of Afghanistan’s “Warriors” is almost exclusive to the opposition. The true believers are fighters – cowards too, but fighters nonetheless. By contrast, the bulk of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are not fighters, nor are they “true believers”. They are simply cowards – frauds – corrupt to the core by any standard and an apostate to their own faith. They are slovenly, drug-addicted, dimwitted, and totally unreliable at any level. Like the Taliban, they are brutal to their own countrymen. They thrive on their petty powers and refuse to shoulder any burden or responsibility. Does this sound too harsh? Not for the Marines and Soldiers who have been killed by the treachery of ANA and ANP who have purposely led them into ambush.
According to the great military minds of our time, these ANA/ANP forces can be trained and formed to fight their own war. At what cost? How many American lives? How many taxpayer dollars? It would take decades if it were simply a matter of sophistication and military training. However, the obstacle is the way and philosophy of life in the Islamic world.
- Jim Sauer (retired Marine Corps Sergeant Major and combat veteran with over thirty years of service (including post-retirement work in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel))
MB4 on October 20, 2009 at 4:15 AM
Magnificent.
Thank you for posting.
Hawkins1701 on October 20, 2009 at 4:28 AM
They will screw around until they lose this war. The morons. Bush has not been out of office for a year and this idiot has set back national security policy for a decade. Way to go Barack, you big whiner. Coward.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Indeed.
Fact of the matter is that the filthy lying coward in the White House has dithered too long and troops are being killed while he sits around having long philisophical discussions about the merits of COIN or CT. More accurately the smart people around him are having those discussions while he doodles with crayon on the placemat in front of him.
Our troops deserve better than a part-time CINC. The filthy lying coward should have made strategic decisions about two months ago but seems more interested in sneaking out for ice cream than in doing his job. Shameful.
highhopes on October 20, 2009 at 7:20 AM
MB4:
I respect your opinion very much. I really do. But if we abandon Afghanistan now, because we do not like the religion of the people who live there…we will be back again and the loss of life will only be greater. The backwardness will only be greater, the extremism, the illiteracy, all of it will only be exacerbated.
This is not about dhimmitude, it is about national security.
Terrye on October 20, 2009 at 7:20 AM
Is it the religion or the culture that has spawned from that religion we are fighting? It’s centuries of tribal warfare and alliances we are up against, not Islam itself. The only thing that is certain is that the filthy lying coward needs to let the troops do their job or get them out of there. The current strategy is not effective and that will not change with more dithering and avoidance.
highhopes on October 20, 2009 at 7:32 AM
America and Canada has been security,and as well as
protection,especially the women and children!
If,the US and Canada pulled out,on the whim of declaring
a manufactured Retreat with Honour mindset of Team Liberal,
only as a political ploy to shore up,its Anti-War Moonbats
faction,playing to these groups politically!!
The sacrifice and blood,sweat,and tears not just only on
the American and Canadian soldiers and their family’s,but
those Afghanistan people that have been Liberated from
the Barbaric Butchers the Taliban!!
President Obama,must make a critical decision soon,on the
plight of the Afghanistan people,Canada’s reasurrance that the US is committed,and allow the US Military all means and
ordanace at their disposal to end this,
and soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on October 20, 2009 at 8:15 AM
I would not so far as to say animals, however I understand your point. To that point, I would argue we will never be able to move a country from the 7th century into the 21st century. It will never happen. The Afgans seem to have no problem living the way they have for the last 1300 years or so. We need to leave the country. And when the Taliban return along with AQ; well that’s what B-52′s are for. Bring them out of mothballs.
PatriotRider on October 20, 2009 at 8:45 AM
The expectation that one can expect a rational foreign policy from a man so lacking in foresight that he advocated that Iraq be conceded to al Qaeda and Iran is itself irrational.
Basilsbest on October 20, 2009 at 9:07 AM
This is what Obama is having trouble with; FIGHTING WITH ANOTHER GOD!
Cybergeezer on October 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM
That’s it; Quit fanning the turd, and let the flies land; Then exterminate.
Cybergeezer on October 20, 2009 at 9:15 AM
The presumption that al Qaeda and the Taliban will confine themselves to easily identifiable camps which can be targeted without the wholesale killing of innocents is the kind of idiocy I would expect from the moron who wanted to partition Iraq against the will of Iraqis.
Unfortunately there are no easy solutions, but the fact that 70% of the Afghan population is under 17 provides an opportunity for transformation.
What you propose, even if it were possible, would be a temporary solution which would kill the innocent and create more anti-American terrorists. The difference is that their anti-Americanism would be justified.
There is something seriously wrong with the intelligence and morality of people who think it’s wrong to protect the innocent by waterboarding the top 3 al Qaeda leaders but but quite okay to kill the innocent in bombing raids.
Basilsbest on October 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM
In order for someone to win, someone must lose. The only quagmire: winning is racist.
mike_NC9 on October 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Interesting thread. I fear for our troops.
MB4, great comments. Appreciate the insight and info, and the quotes, too!
Thank you for your service! I never knew you served until this thread.
bridgetown on October 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM
In 7th century Afghanistan President Karzai has stated that the run off election is appropriate and will strengthen democracy in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in 21st century America, the Undocumented President isn’t even challenged by the opinion makers to release his papers or appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Acorn, a government funded organization devoted to election fraud.
They may be centuries apart but one country is going forward and the other backwards.
Basilsbest on October 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM
By the time Obama is finished America will be too weak to go back.
This is unquestionably true.
Basilsbest on October 20, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Basilsbest on October 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM
So; We’ll just make sure it’s a racially neutral, family friendly WAR!
Cybergeezer on October 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM
p.s.; And oh, yes; Animal and earth friendly, also!
Cybergeezer on October 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM
It is a religion plus an ideology, with a healthy dose of political guidance interwoven throughout. To deny that Islam is political in nature is to deny reality.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2009 at 1:42 AM
When he wasn’t merrily pedophiling away, we must recall that Mohammed was a general commanding armies in the field.
religion of peace my ass
max1 on October 20, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Seems to me that the logical decision for the commanders on the ground would be to reduce the size of the area they’re defending. That keeps the troops safe without raising troop levels. It’s that simple. If you need X number of troops per mile, and you have Y number of troops, you can defend Z number of miles.
You can’t secure territory if you’re not IN the territory. So either provide troops to cover it all, or reduce the territory you’re covering.
hawksruleva on October 20, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Moral relativism. This is war, not your social hour.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Where did the picture come from for this post?
dip it in cider on October 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Video – Obama’s New Rules of Engagement: Lower Morale, Higher Casualties in Afghan War
The term “handcuffed” is openly used to describe the situation our troops are in which I found surprising given the source.
Yakko77 on October 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Who said it wasn’t a war? It’s not a war that can be won from the air. And no, I don’t agree with the current ROE. You and cybergeezer should read what’s in a comment, not what you imagine to be in it.
Basilsbest on October 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Dip it? Soak it!
Cybergeezer on October 20, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Basilsbest on October 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Hey! I replied with a copied quote from your comment! Argue amongst yourselves.
Cybergeezer on October 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I will believe Islam, an entire totalitarian system founded by a warrior, is a religion of peace when I see some evidence for it.
DrMagnolias on October 20, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I’m assuming Michael Yon but I’m just guessing.
Yakko77 on October 20, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2