October 10, 2009

"No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible."

"They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory. When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors."

Bob Kerrey.

64 comments:

jag said...

No one in Kabul is asking us to leave b/c they know we alone prop them up. Afganistan and victory have always been mutually exclusive concepts.

Theo Boehm said...

When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments.

We take our hats off to you, Mr. Wilson!

A fine, old American tradition.

David said...

There you have it, JAG. The "we can't possibly succeed" attitude in a nutshell. Thanks for providing the evidence.

jag said...

David: you are welcomed...to reality.

daubiere said...

uh oh kerrey is about to feel the firepower of a fully armed and operational moonbat storm...

nutroots only allow democrats invested in defeat!

SMGalbraith said...

Reportedly, support for our presence includes most of the Afghan people and not just the elites in Kabul or urban areas.

Now, whether those polls or surveys are accurate or not can be debated.

There seems to be more than just anecodtal evidence that the Afghan people don't want the Taliban back.

SMGalbraith said...

OTOH, our latest intelligence concludes that Taliban forces have increased from 7,000 in 2006 to about 25,000 today.

So, somebody over there likes their message.

Skyler said...

Bob Kerrey wrote:

Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.

Against all reasonable predictions?. The only thing unreasonable was the idiotic theory of Rumsfeld and Cheney, supported by Bush, was that we could win a war with a low commitment.

My battalion in Al Anbar was responsible for 100 miles of the Euphrates River which at the time was a major focus of the enemy effort. And we were short one company. We got whacked a lot, forty-eight of us were killed by a ruthless, but generally not very good, enemy.

It only took a dozen or so Al Qaeda to march into a city and completely control it by lopping off a few heads and arms of wives and children. We could do little to stop them because we were spread too thin. We were replaced when we went home by 5 full strength battalions. No one should be surprised that suddenly Al Qaeda was no longer effective.

The "surge" isn't some brilliant strategy. It's actually quite simple and is the most basic thing to do since man first started fighting wars. The remarkable thing is that anyone thought it was a radical concept. Use more troops, make more of them warriors instead of "support" and make them be at the same place that the enemy is trying to be.

Thank goodness Bush finally expelled Rumsfeld and started a more sane ideology for fighting the war.

Skyler said...

SMGalbraith wrote,

OTOH, our latest intelligence concludes that Taliban forces have increased from 7,000 in 2006 to about 25,000 today.

So, somebody over there likes their message
.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, SMG. Terrorism works when a handful of people chop off heads and arms of women and children, and coerce people to support them and join them. Once you can put enough people in place to convince them that the terrorists can't kill and torture their families, they stop supporting the terorrists.

ricpic said...

Obama: I'll give you the 40,000 troops you requested General, but only if they make nice.

Father Martin Fox said...

Bob Kerrey just says things like this because he's a wingnut in league with Bush and Cheney and Fox News and the Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy.

Oh, I'll bet he's racist, too.

blake said...

Remember the days when Iraq was unwinnable?

Good times.

SMGalbraith said...

Terrorism works when a handful of people chop off heads and arms of women and children, and coerce people to support them and join them.

Well, the story indicates to me that the support is much more than just coerced or conscripted men; not that there isn't that element.

I.e., "You're not talking about fixed formations that rely solely on full-time combatants. Numbers ebb and flow. Bands of fighters appear and vanish," the official said.

Apparently, it's a loosely knit movement that expands and contracts; to me, that's not indicative of many coerced individuals since they can come and go.

Just a guess here.

Theo Boehm said...

It's interesting that the only time since 1918 we succeeded in achieving clear victory in a war was when the survival of the Soviet Union was at stake.

Now, Russian (not to mention Chinese) interests and our own coincide in Afghanistan. It'll be important to see whether the Russians can overcome whatever Schadenfreude they might have, and perhaps cooperate more.

Emotionally, they'd love to see happen to us what happened to them. Only this time, the instability on their border could possibly have worse consequences.

The Chinese, too, have a huge interest in Afghanistan, as the last untapped source of quite a few raw materials, not to mention their own interest in stability in the Middle East to ensure energy supplies.

Actually, the country with the least consequential dog in this fight is the U.S. 9/11 may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but that will never happen again, what with all the improvements to aerial surveillance and domestic security since.

India also has a huge interest in a stable Afghanistan for many reasons. It doesn't want to stir up Pakistan unnecessarily, but it doesn't want a Talibanized Pakistan, either.

Our interests in stability there are in the nature of a higher order, as befits a status quo, quasi-empire. We're trying to prevent the nightmare scenario of a nuclear war in the Middle East. That has informed pretty much everything we've done for some time.

However, given the American history of fecklessness, not to mention our impending poverty, there is a very good case for letting those with real, immediate, in some cases existential, interests in Afghanistan deal with the problem themselves.

But the one thing I hope our political leadership would like to avoid is yet another exercise of the traditional American foreign policy of abandoning our commitments and calling it virtue.

SMGalbraith said...

Emotionally, they'd love to see happen to us what happened to them. Only this time, the instability on their border could possibly have worse consequences.

One would think that both countries would want to ensure a stable Afghanistan since a radicalized country would clearly spillover into their backyards.

Of course, a stable Middle East is of interest for China (oil) and, to a lesser extent Moscow (radicalized Muslims) but that too hasn't prevented them from trying to bleed us.

Whatever Putin and Hu are thinking, it's extremely short-sighted. I guess they think a weakened US is the best endgame.

Grackle said...

Fortunately this situation is tailor-made for precisely the leadership that a community organizer become law school professor can provide. And a Nobel winner at that! The world should be grateful that the varsity is on the floor.

Chase said...

Afghanistan and victory have always been mutually exclusive concepts.

And why exactly does that mean it will always be that way?

Bob Kerrey is completely and irrefutably correct in his analysis. Hopefully Obama will consider the counsel of those like Kerrey instead of his so far "go-with-the-left-only" strategy.

Kansas City said...

Bob Kerrey, whom I often disagree with and consider a weird guy in some respects, is one of the few American politicians who is willing to say something interesting, honest and contrary to the party line. I can't think of many others - Leiberman on national security, McCain on some random issues, maybe Lindsay Graham. Maybe George McGovern. I can't think of any others among our current or recent politicians.

The worst part of our current politics was demonstrated when the democrats (except for Leiberman) lined up entirely against the Iraq War and George Bush. There certainly were grounds for a legitimate debate about how to proceed in Iraq, but the democratic opposition was premised upon politics and the pursuit of power. An honest assessment by any group of 50 or so persons (the democratic senators) would have produced a split decision, not unanimous opposition.

The fact that our political system could produce such an awful situation on a national security matter is dangerous for the future of our country.

The current situation is slightly better, assuming Obama has the judgment to make the right decisions. He will receive a sufficient amount of democrat and republican suport to pursue the right approach. But if he has bad judgment on Iran and Afghanistan, we are in for dangerous times.

knox said...

Surely Obama is not seriously considering abandoning our effort in Afghanistan. Not after everything he's said about it being so critical?

knox said...

Not saying that sarcastically. I don't think highly of the guy, but if he pulls out, it will surprise and disappoint me.

Kansas City said...

knox,

I think short term, he is going to split the difference and approve a modest troop increase with some type of escape route so he can give up before the next election if need be.

I fear he has bad judgment or no core principles. Looking and listening to him, you would think that he will be okay. But then think of who he picked as VP, who he allegedly is now listening to for counsel.

EDH said...

skyler,

I appreciate your experience and respect your service.

Could the US have fielded enough soldiers on a sustained basis to defeat the domestic Iraqi insurgencies following the invasion?

Was it troop numbers or a change in conditions on the ground at the time the Surge was implemented that made the strategy successful?

Specifically, didn't the opportunity for the Surge ripen only after the brutal tactics of the foreign AQI terrorist made our domestic Iraqi enemies open to negotiation and cooperation?

Had we gone in with a heavy footprint, with enough strength, say, to defeat the foreign AQI fighters, mightn't the domestic insurgents had the latitude to continue their battle against us indefinitely?

Meanwhile, even with a constant casualty rate, with larger troop numbers and exposure, mightn't we have suffered more casualties in the interim and the long-run as a result of that bigger footprint?

In some respects, didn't the brutality of AQI bring the domestic insurgency to the table in ways we never could have with any troop level?

Sad to say it, but isn't a taste of the violent extremism of AQ-types, as the alternative, a key element in our pacification strategy in Iraq and now Afghanistan?

The Drill SGT said...

I'm surprised that, given the topic, the attribution says:

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, is president of The New School.

rather than:

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, won the Medal of Honor as a SEAL in Vietnam

Kerrey may not always be right, but I think he's a stand up honest guy who wants the US to be victorious, unlike some.

paul a'barge said...

Listen to me, Barack Obama could not find his way to the correct gate to catch a bus in the bus station in Topeka, Kansas if the gate number were printed on his ticket.

Hoping that Barack Obama finds his way to victory on his own merits in any endeavor in his entire lifetime (winning the Presidency an exception) is just about as filled with hope as talking with a Japanese blow up doll and expecting it to respond.

EDH said...

skyler said...

Terrorism works when a handful of people chop off heads and arms of women and children, and coerce people to support them and join them. Once you can put enough people in place to convince them that the terrorists can't kill and torture their families, they stop supporting the terorrists.

Yet, does this counterinsurgency strategy work in that part of the world only after the horrible alternative is made real to the locals?

If those elements are eliminated from the get-go, aren't the local tribal population likely to have the latitude to fight you as the occupier interfering with their own quest for domestic hegemony?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Who does Bob Kerrey think he is? Obama has the knowledge of two books he just read to make decisions from. There's no way Bob Kerrey can match the brilliance of the Obama Book Club.

daubiere said...

"

Listen to me, Barack Obama could not find his way to the correct gate to catch a bus in the bus station in Topeka, Kansas if the gate number were printed on his ticket."

what do you mean??! barry is the most super intelligent genius ever to hold the office of president! he may be the smartest most intelligent super genius to have ever been born!! i mean he went to harvard and is a NOBEL LAUREATE, just like albert einstein!!! he is smarter than albert einstein because was einstein ever president of the world??? i dont think so!

jag said...

@ Chase--
The Soviets had over 100,000 troops in Afganistan and still failed.

It's not left wing defeatist talk to admit that Afgani hatred for foreign intruders can't be magically overcome by adding another 40,000 American troops.

Skyler said...

JAG, the soviets were brutal themselves. They didn't give the people a good choice. Between murderers from another country or their own home grown murderers is not much of a choice. It's more than just numbers.

jag said...

For eight years, we've given the Afgan people a choice (and roads and hospitals and schools and beauty pagents) yet all the while the insurgency has spread.

At some point we ask if it's possible to impose our nation's will on Afganistan.

Chase said...

It's not left wing defeatist talk to admit that Afgani hatred for foreign intruders can't be magically overcome by adding another 40,000 American troops.

No magic expected. No one that I am aware of is saying that 40,000 additional American troops will to overcome "Afgani hatred", or even that 40,000 troops will be all that is necessary to achieve "victory".

No. The real question seems to be:

What is "victory" in Afghanistan?
And what do we need to do to achieve it?

Seems apparent that there is no one on the left that has any desire - much less idea - for any form of "victory" there. If all of the left wing complaints - and Obama was at the front of the line in this - about George Bush were sincere: "We need to concentrate on the real war - Afghanistan", then where are the balls to follow through with the talk?

It is left wing insincerity - the lying about true left-wing motives - from left-wingers to say they want to win a war and then show they never intended to do any such thing. I realize that "ends justify the means" is a Bible verse showing the sham ethics of those with left-wing views, but the lack of shame on the left and in Obama himself is beyond disturbing; it borders on criminal.

One can be forgiven for believing that the current President was never truly honest with the American people before he was elected.

JAL said...

Maybe if the Nobel Prize committee had seen fit to recognize an Afghan woman who has hope for the women and children of Afghanistan withe the Nobel Peace Prize, the people in Afghanistan who would like to come out of the dark ages might have had one more small measure of hope (the operative word here, apparently).

You know, like knowing someone else in the world knows and cares.

These things have a way of adding up.

dismw = NP committee
Small minded and mean spirited, the Nobel Committee.

Skyler said...

It got better and then when the Iraqis finally asserted themselves then AQ refocused in Afghanistan. The Taliban and AQ are different but they certainly operate cooperatively.

former law student said...

I'm surprised that, given the topic, the attribution says:

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, is president of The New School.

While I agree that his military experiences give him credibility, giving his current role emphasizes he's not just some old warhorse hanging around a VFW hall, but an active leader in the non-military world. They should also have mentioned his MOS and his medal.

Maybe Charlie Wilson's War should be required viewing for Congress and the administration. Watching it leaves the strong impression that we cannot just swoop down and fly out of Afghanistan, ever again.

former law student said...

...Nobel Prize committee had seen fit to recognize an Afghan woman who has hope for the women and children of Afghanistan withe the Nobel Peace Prize, the people in Afghanistan who would like to come out of the dark ages might have had one more small measure of hope ...

*Nods head vigorously* Sure. That worked so well for the Burmese since Aung San Suu Kyi won it, 18 years ago.

Seneca the Younger said...

Just a guess here.

Exactly.

Seneca the Younger said...

The thing is that the Taliban weren't exactlly popular before.

Now, one might ask oneself why a force that's willing to, on one hand, put people to work growing opium, and on the other hand willing to murder whole families who resist, might find resistance declining.

Or one might imagine that forcible resistance organized by those same people willing to murder entire families was a sign of free choice.

Especially if one were a moron.

blake said...

Jesus, FLS, is your position actually going to be "Nobody else deserved it more"?

Really?

Der Hahn said...

I read it more as 'it aint worth a bucket of warm spit' which could be accurate if the Norweigans continue the trend they seem to have started.

traditionalguy said...

It's the terrain stupid. The Army and Marines will need 100,000 troops and tripple the numbers of air support and re-supply to make any chance of a victory possible over a bloody 10 year period. The "war" in the Afghan/Pakistan mountain valleys is a wrong place to use what is left of our of our power.If it is a necessary war, than we need to bring back the draft of eighteen year olds and give the National Guard units composed of family men a break every year or two from human target duty.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

Drill Sgt: The press think "president of The New School" is much more important than having been a US Senator or a Governor, let alone a Medal of Honor winner.

Skyler said...

Trad guy wrote:

The Army and Marines will need 100,000 troops and tripple the numbers of air support and re-supply to make any chance of a victory possible over a bloody 10 year period.

And you came up with these numbers, how? I think there's a bunch of men over there in that terrain who have spent their lives studying how to do this stuff. They seem to think that 40,000 is the number and they are optimistic of the outcome. They may be off a little, but I'll take their assessment over yours for now.

SH said...

SMGalbraith said...

"So, somebody over there likes their message."

I suspect a majority were forced into service....

Freder Frederson said...

And you came up with these numbers, how? I think there's a bunch of men over there in that terrain who have spent their lives studying how to do this stuff. They seem to think that 40,000 is the number and they are optimistic of the outcome. They may be off a little, but I'll take their assessment over yours for now.

Then again, McChyrstal might just be basing his estimate on the maximum number of troops he thinks are available. We simply don't have that many combat-ready troops available and NATO simply won't supply any more.

That is the tragedy of these wars. For all your paper-thin support, very few of you (Skyler obviously excepted) have been willing to do anything (other than call people like me a traitor) to actually support these wars.

God forbid you actually be expected to pay for them--in fact lets go ahead and lower taxes in the middle of a war. And as for realistically assessing troop and materiel requirements for these wars. Forget about it. We'll just abuse the hell out of the volunteer military by continually deploying them.

ic said...

Strong horse, weak horse, man!

When the Afghans saw that the current administration was going to Vietnamize them, i.e. abandon them, even the half brain deaths would join the Taleban to avoid retributions when the unreliable Americans said bye-bye.

Seems leftists really enjoy teaching us a lesson: send us home with our tails between our legs. Well, the One had said he wasn't looking for victory.

AllenS said...

Very soon now, Obama will repeal DADT. Then he'll send over 40,000 homosexuals to Afghanistan which will win over the hearts and minds of the population, because they will be terrified of what will happen to the men if they are captured. He didn't get the Nobel for nothing, you know.

Porkov said...

Perhaps Bob Kerrey recalls what happened when we left the Cambodians to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps he recalls what sort of life little girls and women had when the Taliban ran Afghanistan. I can't believe that the majority of Americans would wish such fates on anyone. When the patient wants to be resuscitated, euthanasia is not the compassionate option. What will become of us if we allow ourselves to be persuaded to be so callous?

kali said...

I wonder how that increase in Taliban forces tracks with the Iranian money flowing in?

terrye said...

Bob Kerrey is the exception to the rule where Democrats are concerned, he actually prefers victory to defeat.

And I just love all these socalled reality based folks like jag telling us how impossible all this is..when Democrats said for years that Afghanistan was the good war, the necessary war, the war we had to win. Now that one of their own is in the White House, it suddenly becomes a fools errand.

It reminds me of Bill Clinton pushing the Iraqi Liberation Act and saying that Saddam not only had weapons of mass destruction, he would use them. Bill Clinton with Tom Daschle at his side standing in front of the cameras telling America that Saddam was a threat to his own people and the world.

And then of course when it actually came to carrying out the policy set forth by Clinton these same Democrats started talking abut defeat.

Typical.

traditionalguy said...

Porkov...You are correct in your analysis of the highest principal being saving Afghan women and children's lives. However in my career in the legal field when a client identifies with a high moral principle that bad people shall not get away with their evil deeds, there is always one more question they have to answer. Will they pay the high cost of justice...it ain't free baby. We have a tradition of Volunteers lead by a warrior leader(Andrew Jackson and his Tennessee Vols come to mind). But turn the costs up to ten+ years of endless slaughter and we usually conclude that the damn Seminoles can keep their swamp. Viet Nam was a year per tour. All of WW II was three and a half years. We are just begining to fight the youth cadres of Taliban/Iran/Pakistan in year eight after they gave up on their five year effort to beat us in flat, oil rich and educated Iraq. They now see that a great new chance at victory over the Infidel coming from ambushing the American outposts and convoys in a perfect Afghan mountain valley ambush alley. This is not Gualdalcanal or Bastogne where the US surrounded forces held out for 4 months, or 4 days, respectively and won. This is a forever engagement in a place that has no value in victory to non Afghans other than to China and Russia. COUNT THE COSTS.

Crimso said...

"OTOH, our latest intelligence concludes that Taliban forces have increased from 7,000 in 2006 to about 25,000 today.

So, somebody over there likes their message."

Another possibility is that they were somewhere else that became too inhospitable, and so hightailed it to Afghanistan. Any numbers on how many are foreign?

"The worst part of our current politics was demonstrated when the democrats (except for Leiberman) lined up entirely against the Iraq War and George Bush."

Lining up against it wasn't wrong. Doing so after voting for it was.

"The Soviets had over 100,000 troops in Afganistan and still failed."

We are not the Soviets. We have every right and reason to be there, and should have the fury required to make it work no matter what (and yes, that's exactly what I mean; there are no umwinnable wars, only unwinnable strategies). Or has everyone forgotten those people jumping from the WTC and splatting on the pavement (and other people)?

And Freder (with your chickenhawk fallacy) can stick it (isn't your wife a veteran, or am I thinking of someone else? You should know better). Sometimes support can mean as little as seeing it through after voting for it.

jag said...

Afganistan is not worth another eight years of young American blood. Hit AQ with our air power and, if necessary, special ops. The Taliban are not capable of hitting the US. Why are we fixated on them?

Porkov said...

Re. "COUNT THE COSTS" - I presume traditionalguy is considering more than money, and as a matter of fact so am I. What are the costs of abdicating our principles (assuming we have them)? What are the costs of doing something important enough to risk American lives, in a half-hearted fashion. What are the costs of encouraging our enemy to believe that they can depend on us to abdicate if they keep up the pressure for a decade or a generation?

There will be people who do not like the word "enemy." I would like to hear what name they prefer for an extra-national movement that formally declares and commits acts of war against us, and declares that they will continue it for generations if necessary until we are subdued. What is your plan? To surrender, and corrupt them when they occupy us?

Bonne chance.

Freder Frederson said...

And Freder (with your chickenhawk fallacy) can stick it (isn't your wife a veteran, or am I thinking of someone else? You should know better). Sometimes support can mean as little as seeing it through after voting for it.

Cnickenhawk?! You don't have what it takes to be a chickenhawk! Cheney had to apply for each and every one of his deferments and when all his other options were exhausted he was willing to impregnate Lynne to avoid going to Vietnam! I doubt you have the balls to make such sacrifices.

It is easy to vote for something that costs you absolutely nothing. I'm surprised you didn't say "hell I paid a $1.98 for a yellow ribbon magnet for my car, I know all about sacrifice"

Freder Frederson said...

I wonder how that increase in Taliban forces tracks with the Iranian money flowing in?

Hey moron, the Taliban are Sunnis. They hate the Iranians more than we do.

kali said...

Hi, Freder, moron here, guess I got confused by this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/07/eveningnews/main5370148.shtml

terrye said...

jag:

You can just hit AQ from afar, you have to know where they are. And you can not get that information without being there...and if you abandon your friends in the region they will certainly not risk their lives to help you.

jag said...

@ terrye

our 'friends' in the region are corrupt officials who steal elections and use their influence to profit from the drug trade. i would abandon them in a new york minute. no, even faster.

Jeremy said...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-10/can-this-film-save-afghanistan/?cid=hp:mainpromo2

Jeremy said...

Greenwald documentary:

"Rethink Afghanistan"

Says it all.

John Clifford said...

You know, I've never understood why it is that the most powerful country in the history of the planet can't win against a rag-tag bunch of guerrillas. (Or, why this is the prevailing attitude among the pseudointelligentsia.)

The fact is, we did win in Afghanistan to the considerable surprise of the brilliant armchair strategists. We're not fighting the same war we were back in late 2001; the enemy survivors fled into Pakistan.

Our problem is, we never truly finish things. It is indisputable that we won militarily in Vietnam; in 1965 we were fighting Viet Cong irregulars in the cities of the South, by 1972 we were fighting large-scale conventional armies fielded by the North on the borders. We lost strategically, however, when we abdicated the battlefield. Wars are won by the last folks standing over the disputed ground.

Similarly, we won militarily in Iraq back in 2003... but we didn't maintain a hold on Iraq. Instead of trying to be the nice guys, we should have clamped down like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. We did clamp down four years later (the Surge).

If we're going to win in Afghanistan (and we can definitely win), then we have to stop repeating the mistakes of the past and destroy our enemy's will to resist. We have to take and hold ground. We have to reassure the population that we're not going to abandon them to the Taliban, otherwise they will do the rational thing and not go out on a limb to help us. We have to make commitments to the people and we have to honor those commitments, not abandon them like we did in Vietnam. And, we have to hit the Taliban where they live, in Pakistan.

So, the question isn't whether we can win in Afghanistan. The question is, do we have the stones to do what needs to be done to win in Afghanistan? Obama's changing of the rules of engagement indicate that we don't, and the Taliban attacks on us have escalated as they sense weakness in our resolve.

wv: redaing, as in "We better finish the fight in Afghanistan or we'll be redaing it in a few years."

Michael McNeil said...

Another possibility is that they were somewhere else that became too inhospitable, and so hightailed it to Afghanistan. Any numbers on how many are foreign?

Associated Press: “Afghan official: Foreigners bolstering Taliban

“KABUL — Thousands of foreign fighters have poured into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban insurgency, the country's defense minister said Saturday as he called for more international troops. […]

“‘The enemy has changed. Their number has increased,’ Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak told lawmakers in a speech. He said about 4,000 fighters, mostly from Chechnya, North Africa and Pakistan ‘have joined with them and they are involved in the fighting in Afghanistan.’”

former law student said...

4,000 fighters, mostly from Chechnya, North Africa and Pakistan ‘have joined with them and they are involved in the fighting in Afghanistan

A new Coalition of the Willing?

Michael McNeil said...

“4,000 fighters, mostly from Chechnya, North Africa and Pakistan ‘have joined with them and they are involved in the fighting in Afghanistan”

A new Coalition of the Willing?


Not very new. It's the same thing that happened in Iraq, when thousands of foreign fighters flocked there to join Al Qaeda as part of their “central front” in the jihad against America and the West. In Iraq they and Al Qaeda got shot up but good, as well as rejected by the Iraqi people.

Now though in Afghanistan they scent blood, U.S. lack of fortitude and weakness, and they intend to make it happen this time.

And why wouldn't they win? There's nobody with the stubbornness of George W. Bush in the White House now, and the present President's Democratic base is determined to award Afghanistan to them on a silver platter. This time the Democrats will succeed in their efforts to create another Vietnam for America.