NYT: Afghan surge failed to achieve objective of forcing Taliban into a deal

posted at 2:01 pm on October 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We’re not hearing much about Afghanistan in this election, which seems odd after having two straight presidential elections focus mostly on war and strategies for the projection of American power.  In part, this silence comes from a loose consensus that Barack Obama took the right path in late 2009 in putting more resources into the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater, and in part because there doesn’t seem to be many other options, at least not politically, other than to cross our fingers and hope it works out.

That strategy, along with the surge, has petered out, according to the New York Times:

With the surge of American troops over and the Taliban still a potent threat, American generals and civilian officials acknowledge that they have all but written off what was once one of the cornerstones of their strategy to end the war here: battering the Taliban into a peace deal.

The once ambitious American plans for ending the war are now being replaced by the far more modest goal of setting the stage for the Afghans to work out a deal among themselves in the years after most Western forces depart, and to ensure Pakistan is on board with any eventual settlement. Military and diplomatic officials here and in Washington said that despite attempts to engage directly with Taliban leaders this year, they now expect that any significant progress will come only after 2014, once the bulk of NATO troops have left.

“I don’t see it happening in the next couple years,” said a senior coalition officer. He and a number of other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the effort to open talks.

The surge strategy worked in Iraq, although Obama opposed it vociferously as a Senator and presidential candidate.  The conditions on the ground were different, and it was a much different war, too.  The Afghanistan war between the Taliban and the NATO-backed democratic government is much more of a tribal conflict between the Pashtuns and everyone else in the country, and since the Pashtuns make up nearly 40% of the Afghan population, any such tribal conflict won’t end in a total-victory scenario.

The other major difference was that George Bush didn’t put a timetable for withdrawal on the table until after the surge had succeeded.  Obama decided at the same time as his surge that we would exit Afghanistan by 2014, based on a timetable for training native security forces.  That created two complications, the first of which was that the training left American forces highly vulnerable to infiltrators; we have lost dozens in such attacks.  The second, which was entirely predictable and well-predicted at the time, was that the timetable would convince the Taliban to conserve their forces and wait out the US.

And that’s exactly what has happened:

With the end of this year’s fighting season, the Taliban have weathered the biggest push the American-led coalition is going to make against them. A third of all American forces left by this month, and more of the 68,000 remaining may leave next year, with the goal that only a residual force of trainers and special operations troops will remain by the end of 2014.

Nor does this exactly build confidence, either:

U.S. and coalition commanders are no closer to knowing how deep the Taliban has penetrated Afghanistan’s security forces despite increased efforts to flush out infiltrators who are carrying out attacks against Americans.

“As for what percentage of the insider threat is related to infiltration or radicalization, I mean, it’s really difficult to determine,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said Thursday.

“I’m sure a certain percentage of it is. And we’re treating it … as a threat,” he told reporters during a briefing at the Pentagon.

Taliban double agents, posing as members of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), are responsible for executing some of the deadly “insider” attacks that have killed 51 coalition troops, mostly from the United States.

In the most recent incident, Afghan forces on Saturday killed an international service member, later identified as an American, in an apparent insider attack in eastern Afghanistan, according to the Associated Press. A NATO contractor and two Afghan soldiers also died.

Why hasn’t this become a bigger issue in the election?  After 11 years in Afghanistan, there is no political support for another surge.  Neither is there any appetite for a faster withdrawal — at least not yet.  In this case, there’s simply nothing left to say, except that we’re going to have to prepare ourselves for a huge civil war in Afghanistan in 2014 between the Pashtuns and the rest of Afghanistan, and just hope that they lose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

QUAGMIRE!

CurtZHP on October 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM

lol, when was that EVER an objective? The idea was to KILL them, not drive them to a negotiating table.

rayra on October 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The only reason to be in that shithole was to kill Bin Hidin, and as many more flea-bitten, al-qaeda, ferals as possible, in the process.

For Afghanistan, moving piles of rubble around constitutes urban renewal. And that will never change.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

OT: Fox News is reporting that the feds just purchased the Thompson prison in Illinois.

To what end?

BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

What I’m still curious about is why the Democrat Media made a huge deal of the 2,000th US death in Iraq, but were totally silent about the 2,000th US death in Afghanistan, which was announced just a couple of days ago.

I had to read about it in the Huffington Post.

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Obama lost Iraq, when he could have won a long-term agreement, similar to German/Japan. He declined it purposely.

Obama will lose Afghanistan, on purpose.

Obama does not have anyone’s interest at heart, except his very own.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Human sacrifice 21st Century American style.

It would seem the Aztec High Priests of the 15th century have been reincarnated and are now in full reign at the building some still call the Pentagon.

America’s Generals are now very much like the Aztec High Priests of many centuries ago. The main difference, and it’s a relatively small one, is that instead of continually sacrificing what they regarded as their excess and disposable human property to the Sun God to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, America’s Generals keep trying to sacrifice America’s Constitution, and do sacrifice more and more of the lives and limbs of America’s troops, whom they regard as their excess and disposable human property, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of America’s rapidly shrinking treasure, which although itself is of much lesser importance is still no small matter, to the gods they reverently call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, and maybe even get an extra star and another few assorted colorful baubles for which to adorn themselves.

Is our military fighting for anything most Americans would regard as at all decent in Afghanistan? Certainly not our Army, nor our Marines. America’s Generals have repeatedly ordered them to respect the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” and if American troops get shot to death by what their Generals call their Partners in Peace, then the Generals conclude that America’s derelict and sacrilegious troops must not have respected the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” nearly enough and order them to take still more religious and cultural “sensitivity” training so they can better respect the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan, maybe even enough where they can start joining in the practicing of that Noble Muslim Culture themselves, which would no doubt delight the Generals to no end.

There of course is never any “sensitivity” training ever even recommended for what America’s Generals call “The Noble People Of Afghanistan” so they might better understand and appreciate Western and American culture. But then as America’s Generals clearly must regard the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan as being far superior to Western and American culture, they would surely regard any such thing as, well, absolutely unthinkable, and blasphemous, and upon hearing any such suggestion would no doubt order even more “sensitivity” training.

* Mainstream Noble People of Afghanistan Muslim Culture includes child rape of both young girls and young boys, torturing dogs including puppies, total enslavement of women, stoning women to death for being raped, and death to apostates, which itself covers a whole lot, just to very briefly mention a few of the highlights.

VorDaj on October 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Del Dolemonte on October 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Simple – the old media went from attack dogs to Obama lap dogs.

All of them should suffocate from what they eat, Obama’s sh*t, mistaking it for Beluga caviar.

Schadenfreude on October 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

OT: Fox News is reporting that the feds just purchased the Thompson prison in Illinois.

To what end?

BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

better question: with what?

Rio Linda Refugee on October 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Own it dear leader the good war in chief

cmsinaz on October 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

It’s time to divide up Afcrapistan into 3 parts,
shia, sunni and pakis.

burrata on October 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

OT: Fox News is reporting that the feds just purchased the Thompson prison in Illinois.

To what end?

BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I told CNN not to report on Benghazi

faraway on October 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Taliban 1
United States 0

Just like Vietnam, a needless defeat. Bad strategy by an incompetent civilian administration cancels superb tactical performance by the military.

spiritof61 on October 2, 2012 at 2:13 PM

The fighting in Afghanistan will end the moment Americans abandon that shithole. Taliban will take over, execute a few secular leaders – not that I will shed a tear for either of them – and busy themselves with prayer and opium growing. Then we somehow elect a President who has both balls and brains (gender notwithstanding) who nukes them from the orbit.

Archivarix on October 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM

It´s TIME. Bring ´em HOME. Let Karzai HAVE HIS SHITHOLE and please excuse my shameless plug

james hooker on October 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

OT: Fox News is reporting that the feds just purchased the Thompson prison in Illinois.

To what end?

BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Because with an obama victory gitmo will close and all those lovelies that he doesn’t release will be here on our shore. That and a second term means obama can pretty much do whatever he wants for 4 more years. No constraints because he can’t run again.. yet…

sandee on October 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

That the people of America care so very very little about America’s troops as to collectively allow our government to keep them in Afcrapistan, losing life and limb and being forced by their sick in the head generals, who care not one wit about them, to bow and scrape to Muslims and Islam, with almost suicidal ROE on top of it all, so as not to hurt the ‘feelings’ of Muslims, our “Partners in Peace” as our islamophile/’Noble People Of Afghanistan” generals call them, in what can truthfully only be described as a Trillion Dollar Bridge To Nowhere, paved with the lives and limbs of America’s troops, is a national disgrace.

VorDaj on October 2, 2012 at 2:18 PM

lol, when was that EVER an objective? The idea was to KILL them, not drive them to a negotiating table.

rayra on October 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

It’s always the objective of the appeasing leftists. “Let’s sit down and have a beer, oh you don’t drink? How about choom? No? Poppies? Maybe we can go stone some women or mutilate some clits?”

Yep, these Islamists are savages, and can only be killed.

kirkill on October 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Just another result of “Smart Diplomacy” where The Empty Suit turned positive results into abject failure.

GarandFan on October 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM

How could we win in such hopeless Islamic lands? If more troops were put in there would be just more treacherous backstabbing from Islamist infiltrators and sudden jihad syndrome zombies looking to expiate their sin of helping the filthy infidel, and to sex orgies in paradise. It’s a losing deal, Islam is such a well designed & effective mind poison for the ignorant & stupid men.
But it’s a real shame about all those oppressed Afghan women hoping to breathe free.

Chessplayer on October 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The Obama foreign policy is collapsing everywhere and Romney seems content with just sniping at it here and there and not making it part of the comprehensive case against Obama.

Mark1971 on October 2, 2012 at 2:21 PM

OT: Fox News is reporting that the feds just purchased the Thompson prison in Illinois.

To what end?

BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

better question: with what?

Rio Linda Refugee on October 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Even better question: why should we care about this?

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Truth, lies and Afghanistan
How military leaders have let us down
By LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.

VorDaj on October 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Nothing that a few well placed mushroom seeds won’t fix.

D-fusit on October 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Iraq was won, all Obama had to do is not screw it up. But he botched it. With Afghanistan, he gave the generals less than the minimum number of troops they needed for the surge, put strangling rules of engagement on them, and yanked them out before they could accomplish anything. Now our troops are sitting ducks over there with no strategy. Pull them all out NOW. Obama is not serious about winning.

Jack_Burton on October 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Even better question: why should we care about this?

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Because they’re going to transfer Gitmo prisoners there? And it appears that Congress was bypassed once again?

JPeterman on October 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

NYT: Afghan surge failed to achieve objective of forcing Taliban into a deal

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again:

Ever notice how many headlines about the 0bama administration over the last 4 years include the word FAIL?

And it isn’t just FOX news doing it anymore.

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Because they’re going to transfer Gitmo prisoners there? And it appears that Congress was bypassed once again?

JPeterman on October 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I don’t think they’ll be able to transfer Gitmo prisoners there. 0bama would have to win a second term for that to happen.

They’re going to just have to create more laws that us “regular joes” don’t even know exist so that when we unknowingly break them, they can pack the prison with us so the prison staff has something to do.

It’s all in the name of “creating jobs,” you know. Dick Durbin said so.

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Even better question: why should we care about this?

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Because they’re going to transfer Gitmo prisoners there? And it appears that Congress was bypassed once again?

Nah, Obama will send off the guests of GITMO back to their homelands, each receiving a personally signed letter of apology, framable autographed 8 x 10 color glossy of himself, and a parting gift of a 6 figure check to make up for the inconveniences suffered during the past several years. Hmm, maybe the jail was purchased so it can be used after Obama’s re-election for housing key members of our notorious domestic terror organization.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Why hasn’t this become a bigger issue in the election? After 11 years in Afghanistan, there is no political support for another surge. Neither is there any appetite for a faster withdrawal — at least not yet.

The rat-eared coward undermined the whole thing when he tied it to a timeline. I don’t see why we shouldn’t expedite withdrawal when blue on green killing makes it problematic what exactly our troops are doing over there right now. Morale has got to be bad.

Happy Nomad on October 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Obama will send off the guests of GITMO back to their homelands, each receiving a personally signed letter of apology….

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

No autopen signatures for terrorists, eh?

Happy Nomad on October 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Afcrapistan is a Trillion Dollar Bridge To Nowhere paved with the lives and limbs of American troops. Anyone who still thinks there is anything to “win” in Afcrapistan belongs in a mental institution.

VorDaj on October 2, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Ever notice how many headlines about the 0bama administration over the last 4 years include the word FAIL?

And it isn’t just FOX news doing it anymore.

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Ever notice how not one of these failures is Obama’s fault? He makes some noise about being “responsible” as POTUS and then goes on to blame GWB, Congress, or something.

Happy Nomad on October 2, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Even better question: why should we care about this?

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Because Obama wanted to close Gitmo and send all the detainees to Thompson (a facility IL built but never really needed).

Happy Nomad on October 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM

james hooker on October 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Shameless plug listened to! I like your sound, and if I may say, you sound great!!

In parts you sound very much like Leonard Cohen :-)

Scrumpy on October 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM

No autopen signatures for terrorists, eh?

Not terrorists, misunderstood patriots and freedom fighters. Only the very best for them.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Ever notice how not one of these failures is Obama’s fault? He makes some noise about being “responsible” as POTUS and then goes on to blame GWB, Congress, or something.

Happy Nomad on October 2, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Just so.
And in the ultimate end of this cycle, the circle of friends is VERY small.

Jabberwock on October 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Nah, Obama will send off the guests of GITMO back to their homelands, each receiving a personally signed letter of apology, framable autographed 8 x 10 color glossy of himself, and a parting gift of a 6 figure check to make up for the inconveniences suffered during the past several years. Hmm, maybe the jail was purchased so it can be used after Obama’s re-election for housing key members of our notorious domestic terror organization.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Obama
will give US citizenship to all jihadies in Gitmo , and their ” families”
because he needs them here , to train his ” civilian” army, to intimidate and kill his enemies.

burrata on October 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM

And in the ultimate end of this cycle, the circle of friends is VERY small.

Ultimately, the only friend a narcissist really has is himself.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

It’s time to divide up Afcrapistan into 3 parts,
shia, sunni and pakis.

burrata on October 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Then throw in some weapons so they fight each other, then nuke the winner.

Thomas More on October 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

will give US citizenship to all jihadies in Gitmo , and their ” families”
because he needs them here , to train his ” civilian” army, to intimidate and kill his enemies.

Nah, he doesn’t need them….there are already plenty of jihadists within our domestic muslim communities able to do that job.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Ultimately, the only friend a narcissist really has is himself.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Obama is more of a sociopath than a narcissist.

Happy Nomad on October 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

A weak horse seldom deserves no respect.

A weak horse should be slaughtered and used for food and fertilizer.

A weak horse is a burden on society.

Since the United States is the weak horse out in Afghanistan, does anyone actually believe that we can influence anything within that God-forsaken country?

Karzai is closer to the Taliban than most are willing to admit.

The Taliban is the strong horse, these days.

We are not.

Essential survival mode for Karzai, now.

Conducting warfare by broadcasting our rules, our movements, what we will do and won’t do, and when we will stop doing it, command by committee, management by crisis, and then watching the polls to see which way the wind is blowing…yep, that there’s a recipe for military (and diplomatic) success.

Our “commander in chief” is not worthy of command of anything.

Putz.

coldwarrior on October 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

burrata on October 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Divide it into three parts…a nice large gravel pit; an even larger gravel pit, and a huge hole in the ground.

Eventually, simple life forms will appear, again…once the radiation drops to tolerable levels.

coldwarrior on October 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Well duh! When you pre-announce the withdrawal date of the surge forces what do you expect?

Wigglesworth on October 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

A weak horse seldom deserves no respect.

Musta been channeling Rodney Dangerfield, there.

s/b…seldom deserves respect.

coldwarrior on October 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

These animals have been at war with civilization for fourteen centuries and our ignorant, delusional and feckless leaders are just now grasping the idea that the animals won’t stop shedding blood?

Their bloody history lies before us. When they are not murdering us, the infidels, they turn to executing and murdering each other over fine points of theology, petty crimes, and perceived slights.

The constant is bloodshed. Just effing mind-boggling.

novaculus on October 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

“projection of American power”…if we worried more about what goes on here at home, we’d be in a lot better shape…

PatriotRider on October 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Obama is more of a sociopath than a narcissist.

Which means he does’t even have himself as a friend.

Dangerous man, he is.

hawkeye54 on October 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

That’s what happens when you think your smarter and know more about war than your Generals! For future reference, When a your top General says he needs 40,000 troups, don’t try to bargain him down to 30,000 troops! The Failure-in-chief can chalk up another failure to his credit!
For thos following, How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The “Surge” in Afghanistan wasn’t designed to work. It was designed to give Obama political cover, because it was the “Good War”. It was all about giving Obama time to get through his first term without suffering any political consequences. That is all.

OxyCon on October 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

We’re not hearing much about Afghanistan in this election, which seems odd after having two straight presidential elections focus mostly on war and strategies for the projection of American power.

What? The last election was hardly a focus mostly on war and strategies and projection of American power.

It was mostly about the economy and health insurance, Ed. (Not counting the actual mostly focus on “Obama, Mmmm, mmm, mmm” “si se puede” and “Hope and Change”.) Obama, with his media surrogates firmly in his pockets, defined the focus and with a few nods to him ending the war in Iraq and acknowledging that Afghanistan existed, that was pretty much it on “war and strategies for the projection of American power”.

So it’s not odd at all that we’re not hearing much about the evolving debacle there. Besides, and apologies to our troops there continuing the valiant fight their stuck in, there are much more serious issues with the current domestic enemies, here at home, who just so happen be in the ones in charge.

Dusty on October 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM

…when the Talibeasts get done with the Afghanistan women…we should send our compassionate trolls to comfort them…if some of them keep their body parts an stay alive.

KOOLAID2 on October 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I sometimes wonder if President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize has burned his face off its carrying case sort of like how the Ark of the Covenant burned that seal off its box in the hold of that freighter.

JeremiahJohnson on October 2, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Victory! We got everybody out by “date-certain”. Forward to the Rear!

rhombus on October 2, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Any theater-specific strategy in the absence of a comprehensive global strategy to defeat Islam is largely futile.

WhatSlushfund on October 2, 2012 at 3:45 PM

OT: Fox News is reporting that the feds just purchased the Thompson prison in Illinois.

To what end?

BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

The feds get some real estate in Illinois to use as they wish and Gov. Quinn gets little mad money to help stop slow the pension hemorrhaging.

better question: with what?

Rio Linda Refugee on October 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Taxpayer money (from the “rich”). It’s a shell game. A way of passing some money to Illinois under the radar.

Even better question: why should we care about this?

UltimateBob on October 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

If you’re a taxpayer, you just bought yourself a nice little prison in Illinois. But, it’s just our money. It’s not like we can’t print more…

Fallon on October 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM

We should have gone to war with both Afghanistan AND Pakistan. Give the bad guys nowhere to run and smash them to bits.

ThePrez on October 2, 2012 at 4:30 PM

The prison purchase is a bailout to Illinois; if Obama closes down Gitmo he will put them there, but it’s mainly to shore up his bankrupt state.

PattyJ on October 2, 2012 at 4:37 PM

No autopen signatures for terrorists, eh?

Happy Nomad on October 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Certainly not! Nothing but the real mccoy for the Noble Warriors of Islam.
Those are barry’s peeps, ya know.

Solaratov on October 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Leave. Afghanistan. Now.
Right Now.

Old Fritz on October 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

A deal? With the toleebon? The most virulent branch of the islamic barbarism? If they continue to refuse to recognize the enemy at least they should be able to get over the delusion that there’s dealing with them. I mean if they insist on cosistency.

curved space on October 2, 2012 at 6:13 PM

But, of course, we didn’t actually have a surge. We had a sideways double-fake with a little bit of prancing and bloviating.

Our forces kicked tail within the small perimeters they started in, in Helmand province. We knocked off a few terrorists. But in any case, it’s all Bush’s fault.

J.E. Dyer on October 2, 2012 at 8:36 PM