Posts Tagged ‘Taliban’

h1

Joe Biden Blunders

October 8, 2009

Joe Biden, V.P. Blunders

Joe Biden was picked for Obama’s VP for his war experience?

JB knows nothing about war. ALWAYS WRONG

“Wrong on every war he’s had a hand in”

“Wrong time and again”

“Biden’s Idea…won’t work”

“Recommended fighting ONLY Al-Qaida and not the Taliban” IBD

“Opposed the Vietnam War”

“Knows little about war”

“A warlord can be a Taliban, an al-Qaida, an opium trafficker or all of the above”

“Biden’s idea, as McChrystal put it bluntly, won’t work”

IBD: “Terrorists don’t wear badges and nobody calls the cops”

OBAMA-BADGES

Biden Butts In

IBD: 6 Oct. 2009

Warfare: As the commander in Afghanistan tries to get President Obama’s attention on troops, it’s political players like Vice President Biden who have his ear. Yet the military has a record of success. Biden has only blunders.

By sending in 21,000 more troops and adding $44 billion to the war budget, the president erased doubts early in his term that the goal in Afghanistan was victory. Even more impressive, he appointed Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a successful Iraq War commander who excels in unconventional warfare, to lead the fight.

But the doubts have returned. McChrystal has merited just two encounters with Obama since taking over in June, and an Aug. 30 proposal seeking 40,000 more troops in a civilian-protection strategy has found the president unable to act. Amid the dithering, 10 U.S. soldiers were mowed down in Afghanistan over the weekend, precisely because they were outgunned and undermanned.

Obama’s reluctance to face the war and the commitment it requires has given an opening to Biden, who knows little about war but a lot about politics. Last week, Obama met with Biden and various Pentagon heavies in a long sit-down in which Biden recommended fighting only al-Qaida and not the Taliban.

This might be an acceptable strategy if the battlefield were some place like Copenhagen. But Afghanistan is a failed state where terrorists don’t wear badges (see above picture) and nobody calls the cops.

McChrystal’s long war experience has shown that protecting and defending civilians are critical to developing a state that can take on terrorists. In the fluid swamp of a failed state, loyalties can overlap. A warlord can be a Taliban, an al-Qaida member, an opium trafficker or all of the above. Biden’s idea, as McChrystal put it bluntly, “won’t work.”

His sentiment echoed comments made two weeks earlier by Gen.David Petraeus, the Central Command chief.

Both McChrystal and Petraeus have long records of military success. Biden, by contrast, has been wrong on every war he’s had a hand in.

He opposed the surge in Iraq, insisting instead on dividing Iraq into three warring fiefdoms with unequal distributions of oil.

He also opposed the Vietnam War, an opposition that led to defeat, a bloodbath of our Vietnamese friends and diminished U.S. global influence.

In addition, Biden played a role in the flawed 1999 design of Plan Colombia, which at first tried to separate a few of failed-state Colombia’s multiple enemies — in this case, drug dealers. But the strategy enabled FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, to grow strong in narcotrafficking as other players dropped off.

Iraq, Vietnam and Colombia all have implications for the war in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s record speaks for itself, while Biden has been wrong time and again. Yet it’s McChrystal who gets criticized for taking his recommendations public.

Obama must decide soon whether this is about winning at politics or at war. Biden’s easy way out represents the former, McChrystal’s reasoned recommendations the latter.

In the end, military victory will be the best politics of all.

h1

Cartoon: De-Evolution of Pakistan

August 3, 2009

h1

In Search Of Moderate Islamofascists

March 10, 2009

In Search Of Moderate Islamofascists

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Afghanistan: President Obama says negotiation is the key to success in the land that gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden. How would that have sounded to American ears in the weeks right after 9/11?

In an interview published in Sunday’s New York Times, the president said, “Part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq.”

From that, he construed: “There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region.”

Jon Boone, Kabul correspondent for Britain’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper, noted in a story on Monday skeptical of the president’s overture, that “until recently U.S. officials worried that the American public would not stomach such overtures.”

Have Americans forgotten the images of September 11? Have we forgotten the non-negotiable demands we made of the Taliban just nine days after the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on our soil?

Recall that former President Bush, before a special joint session of Congress, said:

“Tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al-Qaida who hide in your land” and “close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.”

He added that “the Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate.”

Now, however, as Boone was told by Haroun Mir, former adviser to Mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, things are all going the Taliban’s way. They are at the edge of Kabul” and have no incentive to switch sides in the present situation.

Indeed, Taliban spokesman Qari Yusuf Ahmadi reacted to President Obama’s suggestion by calling it a sign that Americans, after so many years fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan are now “tired and worried.”

Taliban forces right now seem to be uniting and strengthening themselves. Three rival strands of the Pakistani Taliban — those of warlords Gul Bahadur, Baitullah Mehsud, suspected of being behind the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and Maulvi Nazir — have joined together as the Council of United Holy Warriors in anticipation of the coming arrival of 17,000 new armored troops and Marines this year.

Afghan Taliban head Mullah Omar recently urged the Pakistani Taliban to refocus their jihad on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and is in no mood for deals with the Great Satan or its friends in the current Afghan government.

Omar is notorious for his inflexibility. Speaking to Reuters, Pakistani analyst Rahimullah Yousufzai noted: “The Taliban are very rigid in their demands. They actually don’t want to talk unless there is some guarantee that Western forces will leave.”

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai knows this, having failed to engage Taliban moderates despite years of trying.

President Obama is demonstrating a misunderstanding of why the Bush surge turned things around in Iraq. In September 2007, as he questioned Gen. David Petraeus and then-Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker during Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, then-Sen. Obama remarked: “It is not clear to me that the primary success that you’ve shown in Anbar has anything to do with the surge.”

In fact, the “Anbar Awakening,” in which U.S. military successfully persuaded local Iraqi leaders to rebel against the terrorists in an al-Qaida-dominated region written off as beyond hope, would never have succeeded without an assertive U.S. military presence, which was then enhanced by the surge.

Whomever the Obama administration is considering “reaching out to” will likely be the Taliban equivalent of a Goebbels or a Goering. Imagine dealing with them after committing ourselves to a total defeat of Hitler.

After the uncompromising demands we made of the Taliban in September 2001, such a change only would be viewed by Islamofascists worldwide as more proof of the infidels’ lack of nerve.