"I don't think there should be an ad about that... It's the same thing Hillary Clinton did with the 3 a.m. call. 'You're not ready to be commander-in-chief.' It's also what makes politicians and political leaders act irrationally when it comes to matters of war because they're so afraid to be called wimps, that they make decisions, which are incredible destructive for the country. I'm sure the president would not have escalated in Afghanistan if he was not as concerned, as Democrats are, that Republicans are going to use not escalating against him in a campaign."
April 30, 2012
Arianna Huffington calls Obama's bin Laden ad "despicable."
She said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
84 comments:
Then vote for people who are proven. They won't have to do stupid things to prove themselves on the job.
I have said it before: This guy has no class.
It doesn't seem dispicable to me, just Obama's scattershot cluelessness.
("Maybe this will help...")
Dispicabilty is Huffington posturing for some agenda I'm not curious to discover.
Have you seem the Drudge headline about the SEALs allegedly criticizing Obama for this goofy vaunting? Drudge pulled out the siren even.
Leave it to Obama to fuck up having SEALs kill Bin Laden in a daring raid. The poor guy cannot do anything right. He's cursed any more. I'm beginning to feel sorry for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE1TkIThijo
Come to think of it has anybody ever seen Arianna Huffington and Daffy Duck together in public?
Is Ariana jumping off the Titanic?
Mind you her jump would not be a Titanic one..
Just saying.
Ariana Alert!
This rich lady sees an opportunity for getting hired as a political talking head again. Maybe on CNN?
Capitalism still motivates Dearest Ariana. She has mastered the Art of Being Obnoxious and getting paid to do it.
So Obama is not responsible for getting bin Laden or anything that works under his watch but he is responsible for the economy and all the things that don't work under his watch? Right. Got it. Carry on....
Poor Matt doesn't appear to understand the issue.
As Lem notes, with this, as well as Lovitz' remarks, are we seeing another round of rats jumping ship in the grand tradition of Romer, Orszag, and Summers?
Zero has got very little to crow about and the revelation that the "gutsy call" turned out to be signing off on a proposal outlining possible risks and benefits to the hit, with Panetta and McRaven making the real call, gives him absolutely nothing to which he can point as an accomplishment.
Everything else has blown up in his face, as Seven notes, and trying too hard to place himself in the company of the SEAL Team guys may again be a bridge too far.
If OBL were alive, would BHO be catching flak for it? I think it likely. Still, standing on a corpse to get re-elected smacks of desperation to me.
(Disclaimer: Not seen the ad)
Re: rhhardin:
It doesn't seem dispicable to me, just Obama's scattershot cluelessness.
That sounds right to me. Obama's claim may be silly, but it falls far short of "despicable." Unless she means it as a kind of Daffy Duck hyperbole.
She's pulling the wool cocoon off her eyes! Arianna! Welcome back to the dark side! We have cookies!
Madison -- I, too, have not seen the ad. I agree that it's desperation, though. You don't do it this way. You send out your surrogates for this one. With Bin Laden's death anniversary coming up, it's a perfect time to send people out and say that there's a good chance those fucking bastard terrorists will try something because our SEALs killed Bin Laden. Same message, properly delivered.
The fact is that Obama beat Clinton, who was pretty inept because she was expecting a coronation. And she was right; it was a coronation. Obama has not done one thing well since he beat Clinton -- the Greek columns, the failure after failure after failure.
Obama is going to get mauled in 2012.
Seven Machos wrote: I'm beginning to feel sorry for him.
Yeesh. I hope that's not contagious. He doesn't need any sympathy votes.
Obama isn't giving much credit to "our SEALs." To hear his spin you'd think he personally delivered the death blow. This is pretty standard election year posturing, but it's always distasteful no matter who does it.
Matt,
There are two types of "responsibility" that apply here.
1. Responsibility for the screw-ups of the people under you.
2. Responsibility for the successes of the people under you.
People with class don't need to be told which of the two is appropriate to claim.
I see Obama creating his persona to be the fighter for the oppressed like the Palidin fighters in Chansons du Roland who were the martial heroes defeating the Saracen hordes for the Frankish Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Great ( a/k/a Charlemagne.)
There was a TV Western called Have Gun Will Travel that used this same theme in the 1950s, played by Richard Boone as Paladin.
(This has nothing to do with commenter Palladian who uses a Venetian architectural avatar.)
The look in Obama's staring eyes sans smile and the look in Richard Boones Palidin character's eyes are the same.
AH Matters?
I remember when the Dems were wetting themselves that Bush would use 9/11 for political purposes. I don't remember if Bush did it or not.
Seven is right. This is a job for the surrogates and "independent" expenditures. It says alot about Obama he feels he needs to do this in his campaign. it says he has nothing else to run on.
I do give him credit for ordering the in person assault. That was a gutsy call but still it is pathetic he is blowing his own horn.
Bill -- What about issuing an order to kill the evil mastermind who plotted and carried out the killing of some 3000 Americans (and caused billions in property damage) was gutsy?
I'm not saying it wasn't good. Of course, it was good. It was great. It was right. But it wasn't gutsy.
traditionalguy said...
The look in Obama's staring eyes sans smile and the look in Richard Boones Palidin character's eyes are the same.
Paladin was a cashiered, disgraced Army officer trying to find redemption as a gunfighter to tried to set things right as he saw them.
Zero sound like that?
PS There was fire in Paladin's eye.
Don't see that in Zero's.
I'm sure the president would not have escalated in Afghanistan if he was not as concerned, as Democrats are, that Republicans are going to use not escalating against him in a campaign.
In 2008 McCain advocated consolidating in Iraq. Obama promoted an escalation in Afghanistan to differentiate himself. He wasn't pushed by Republicans. He had a clear win in foreign policy just by standing clear of the Iraq fiasco. Engagement in Afghanistan was his choice. Maybe it was fear of Hillary that pushed him to do it.
There have been over 1200 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan since then. Is a campaign ad worth that price?
I try not to be too cynical. I believe Bush acted on what he thought to be good intelligence and made his decisions on what he believed to be the best course. I try to give Obama the same respect. Certainly there are anti-terrorism experts who pushed an Afghan-focused policy (David Kilcullen, author of The Accidental Guerilla is one example). But I look at where Obama has gotten us and I really wonder what the hell he thought he was doing. Or did he think? Was he thinking or campaigning?
The kill order was not gutsy. The order to go and do it in person and to bring back intelligence and proof of death was gutsy because it had a higher risk of failure than a drone attack.
Henry -- You are exactly right.
Bill -- Fair enough.
Wait.. take two..
"I'm sure the president would not have escalated in Afghanistan if he was not as concerned, as Democrats are, that Republicans are going to use not escalating against him in a campaign."
In short.. The commander in chief has zeroed in like a laser beam on the real enemies of the nation he swore to protect us against.. the evil republicans.
I was watching the game and had only read the headline.. which my optimistic side lead me to believe I was reading.
I think any President who "gave the order" would highlight that in the subsequent campaign. I think if OGL had been captured or killed, his campaign certainly would have mentioned that. Presidents - all of them - take credit for things that go well, regardless of whether the President had anything to do with it. To be fair, they also get blame for a fair amount over which they have no control. It's distasteful on both ends, but I don't see it swinging votes much one way or the other.
"I'm sure the president would not have escalated in Afghanistan if he was not as concerned, as Democrats are, that Republicans are going to use not escalating against him in a campaign."
In other words, it's all the Republicans' fault.
As usual.
Uh, OGL = OBL. I wonder what that sort of typo would make a shrink think?
leslyn is a fountain of outrage, always overflowing.
"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours....” -- Mitt Romney
August 2007
If even Jimmy Carter would...what does it say that Romney (said he) would not?
Did Truman use Hiroshima for his 48 campaign? Certainly was gutsier than killing Bin Laden.
I'm sure the president would not have escalated in Afghanistan if he was not as concerned, as Democrats are, that Republicans are going to use not escalating against him in a campaign.
Does she have any idea how devastating that statement is? Obama is making war in Afganistan to avoid looking wimpy?
I have often wondered whether Obama really ever believed in the Afgan effort, or whether it was just a counterweight to his policy of pulling out of Iraq. I do not know the answer to that, but even the Huffer has doubts now, it seems.
What is your logical premise? That Obama escalated in A-stan because he was planning a campaign ad about it years later?
That is Arianna Huffington's premise -- that Obama escalated in Afghanistan because he feared the 2012 campaign implications of not doing so.
Did Truman want to remind the country that he won the war against Japan by vaporizing people of two cities?
I suspect the percentage of 1948-era Americans who thought nuking Japan had been an awesome idea exceeded the percentage of 2012 Americans who feel that way about offing bin Laden.
Anyway, the point is that Obama courageously... signed a memo. He faced no risk at all, either personally or politically. It was all upside for him. The only people who took risks were the members of our military forces who planned and carried out the operation.
Leslyn -- The United States is still in Iraq. Are you aware of this? We have a beach head there and we have Iran surrounded...thanks to our presence in Afghanistan.
The general lack of worldly understanding among leftists is hilarious.
Rev is absolutely right. Les apparently wants to believe that the Jacksonian bloodlust among Americans to revel in the ass-kicking we inflicted on Japan was somehow not worthy of recalling but the ass-kicking we inflicted on Bin Laden is.
Ask yourself, Les: to whom is this bragging directed? Is it directed to strangely arrogant, know-nothing eggheads such as your foolish self? Or is it directed at blue-collar types in Pennsylvania who are not currently inclined to vote for Obama?
Truman did not do anything different than what Obama did. He did do quite a bit more in terms of foreign policy, in that he set the course for the next 40 years -- much like George W. Bush.
Are you suggesting that the 2012 election will be like the 1948 election? Do you know anything about the 1948 election, besides what you are about to go and look on Wikipedia to see?
we maintain a presence there but are not pressing a war
We won the war. We installed a government and a working democracy that is now friendly to us. Are you aware of this?
Why do you suppose Bush did not want to "nation-build" in Afghanistan? Think hard. It's kind of a trick question.
At any rate, we will be in Afghanistan and Iraq long past the time that Obama is remotely relevant to national politics.
Okay, Les, but you have to leave this forum until you have some elementary knowledge of American foreign policy.
Deal?
Also, I am glad you enjoy my writing but sorry you don't understand it.
As I said earlier, ridiculous.
Yes, I didn't find it convincing the first time you said it, either. Skepticism is not an argument.
Les -- Which of those obviously true statements do you dispute?
Do you think we did not win the war? Do you think we did not install a government? Do you think the government is not a democracy? Do you think that the regime is not friendly to us?
If you think any of those things (and please tell us which ones), you are quite obviously even stupider than I anticipated, and that would be saying something.
Incidentally, I worked on the transition to the installed government, so please bear that on mind as you try to dispute reality.
This is going to be totally, totally awesome!
I get incomparably more knowledge of foreign policy every day than you get reading a blog.
Of course you do, Les. That's why you say it's an illusion that the United States obviously won its war in Iraq, installed a friendly regime, and compelled elections.
You keep on having that incomparable knowledge. After all, you aren't reading this blog. Here. Like me. And you have all that experience in foreign policy.
Too fun.
Perhaps some posters here are giving a little too much credit to "The Hero SEALs" simply because they 'took a risk' similar to the risk level ordinary troops have faced in bad weeks in bad areas of Iraq and Afghanistan (and each and everyone of them would have jumped to be on that mission if the SEALs were one person short). Just as Dems are giving too much credit to Obambi..
The SEALs sort of lucked out...instead of Army Ranger Spec OPS squads or the Marine Recon squads assigned to mission tasking..it was the SEALs time to be the trigger pullers. They did kill Binnie, apparantly on orders not to capture him as a gift for Holder's terrorist lawyer friends, they avoided killing women, childre and Paki bystanders...but they did crash a top secret helicopter and then failed to destroy the black boxes and most secret components.
The real heavy lifting, greatest risks were not with this trigger-puller team, but the hard work and heavy losses the CIA suffered. At least 10 agents were killed in "the hunt for bin Laden". And other spec ops and regular armed forces teams took hundreds of casualties while trying to get bin Laden in the initial months of the Afghan War, then on raids meant to search for him in certain locales or get others they thought would lead to him.
leslyn: [Bush] got distracted by what he wanted to see in Iraq--IMO, because he just had to do his daddy one better....I get incomparably more knowledge of foreign policy every day than you get reading a blog.
This is the "knowledge of foreign policy" you get from your information brokers? That we were in Iraq because Bush had daddy-issues?
You're not even a serious thinker. And your information brokers have been feeding you with a shovel.
"Please Note: Politicizing 9/11 is terrible. But using it as a premise to invade the wrong country is cool."
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Truman's participation in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more or less fait accompli? The big decisions were made before he took office.
BTW
FDR redirected 1/3 of our wartime economy towards building the atomic bomb based on the word of just a handful of scientists that Germany was well along on its work on the A-bomb. Which proved to be false.
A noun, a verb, OBL.
Oh, if only Saturday Night Live were edgy enough to do that joke.
leslyn said...
I get incomparably more knowledge of foreign policy every day than you get reading a blog.
Yes!
Because your comments here demonstrate such a deep understanding of world affairs!
I mean, when I'm looking for valuable foreign policy insight, I think "what would leslyn say"!?!
machine: Please Note: Politicizing 9/11 is terrible. But using it as a premise to invade the wrong country is cool.
This is what passes for "serious thinking" on foreign policy amoung the Left.
"No blood for oil. Bush lied troops died. illegal war in wrong country." If it doesn't fit on a bumpersticker, the Left can't understand it.
Funny too, considering that Al Queda was broken in Iraq, not AfPak.
If Obama whacked Dinner Jacket, I wonder if he'd get another Peace Prize.
I see. Leslyn seems to think since things aren't perfect, they haven't gotten better.
leslyn: I had a dream last night-
Sounds like you stroked that Strawman pretty good. Be sure to clean the sheets before tonight.
And I love how, with your vast "foreign policy knowledge", that was the best rebuttal you could muster.
It's also what makes politicians and political leaders act irrationally when it comes to matters of war because they're so afraid to be called wimps, that they make decisions, which are incredible destructive for the country.
This is from the same woman who said:
Obama needs to,...appeal to the public's lizard brain. That part of our brain that is not rational, that responds to fear. Obama needs to respond to that, too.
Face it:
Engaging with Arianna Huffington (the former sex-and-death Rajneesh cult member and current MSIA NewAge "princess") is like listening to Reille Hunter - and, if you're a guy, just as useful.
She'll say or do anything, as long as you're paying her attention,...
Crack, You nailed Huiffington...as it were.
A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Come on lefties, start telling us how the military are just a bunch of baby killers anyway...
"We were attacked by al Queda. They were in Afghanistan."
Not for long.
Afghanistan, as a nation, no more attacked us than Iraq did. And as a nation, Afghanistan threatened us not at all, no matter how vile the Taliban are. Had our intent been retaliation, a nice big glass crater would have sent a strong message and put no Americans at risk.
"We wasted years there because Bush never pushed the campaign."
Why didn't he? The reason is simply because, although Afghanistan was an emotional choice for a "good" war, it holds no strategic value for us in this conflict. Pushing the campaign in Afghanistan makes no American safer and serves no military purpose. It never did.
A glass crater as a warning would have denied future refuge to people like Bin Laden or groups like Al Qaeda just as well and with far less expense (and likely more success) than attempting to nation-build.
"Instead he got distracted by what he wanted to see in Iraq--IMO, because he just had to do his daddy one better. We had a daddy war going on while we essentially ignored the real threat in A-stan and P-stan."
There was no "real threat" to the nation of the United States in A-stan, and P-stan did not slide into unstability until after Obama was elected because Bush was extremely careful not to destabilize Pakistan.
The "threat" in the region was real, of course it was and is, but the source of the threat is systemic. Iraq was central (but not sufficient) to that threat. It offered a great deal of strategic benefit both directly and indirectly.
But Iraq was never an emotional choice and it's interesting that you interpret Bush's actions as a purely emotional choice.
As if emotion is the only basis on which decisions are made or understood. (Though this explains pretty well the charge that Democrats will make military decisions for fear of being called wimps.)
Certainly getting Bin Laden was emotional rather than a rational decision once he was marginalized and powerless, in hiding, for all we knew and for all the influence he had, he could have been dead for years.
Not that I'm opposed to revenge. There are also good reasons to be relentless and brutal in gaining revenge. Mostly as a matter of deterrence.
But lets not be unclear about it. A cold calculation would not value the assassination of Bin Laden more than a little bit, and might wonder at the potential to create a martyr. (A much bigger issue while emotions are hot, than after a decade has passed for sure.) That would be weighed against being able to send a message that the US will respond to future events in a similarly ruthless manner.
A hot, emotional, calculation might decide that blood for blood was more important than potential martyr creation, might decide that the visceral satisfaction of getting the guy and something like justice was worth the cost.
And might be right.
Taking the emotionally supported targets of Bin Laden personally, and Afghanistan, and then calling them the moral targets is a weird way of determining when war is moral.
It is exceedingly interesting that the Democrats are trying to criticize Romney for not being bloody-minded enough.
"Or has the leadership of Pakistan simply gotten tired of maintaining the front that they're not the terrorist-sheltering assholes they really are?"
The "leadership of Pakistan" has changed since Obama took office.
And any possible reason they used to have for cooperating with us is gone.
What I don't understand (at least without being insulting) is why the supposed sophisticates never seem to understand that other nations have their own internal problems.
Democratic politicians in 2004 made a great deal about American "puppets" but then don't seem to have a clue that it's imperative for leaders in that region not to appear even slightly puppet-like if they're going to maintain power.
Bush seemed to understand that well, and accepted public opposition for whatever private cooperation he could get. Obama, OTOH, has worse relationships than Bush did, threatening Pakistan during his campaign as if that was something he could do without consequences, and having outright hostilities with the leadership in Afghanistan.
The leadership of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are the ones who would suffer and die in a civil conflict. Maybe that doesn't seem important to us when we look at how little they do about the Taliban hiding in their hills. But I can't at all say that if I were the one having to chose blood for my own people, that I wouldn't favor doing whatever I could to try *not* to enter open conflict with regional powers in my own country.
I swear sometimes that for Americans, brown children dying just doesn't happen if an American isn't there to be blamed.
"When, when, when, did I ever say that? Never. Never about Afghanistan as a nation, never about taking a war to the country. Never."
You criticized Bush for not advancing the war in Afghanistan... the *real* threat.
How, please!, is Afghanistan a threat? Bin Laden sheltered there, but how is the nation a threat, or even the Taliban?
They didn't attack us *either*. They wouldn't attack us in the future.
If you can explain to me how Afghanistan is a threat, I guarantee that everything you say about Afghanistan will apply equally or better to Iraq.
"@Synova: You talk as if bin Laden was a lone, insignificant actor. He was not."
Of course he was not.
In 2001.
He was the mastermind, the charismatic leader of a large and dangerous organization, a real and significant threat.
He was hounded into obscurity. He became powerless and completely marginalized. Hiding or dead, we didn't even really know. Our government may have known, but he wasn't even making ripples in the water any longer.
So for practical purposes he was as good as dead already. He was made powerless. We *was* at that point, insignificant.
Not that we shouldn't have killed him. Absolutely we should have.
"....our real goals after 9/11."
And those goals were....?
1) Remove Al Qeada as a threat.
2) Remove Afghanistan as a place of refuge.
Now Murtha, bless him, may have thought we could accomplish that staging out of Okinawa, but I think he had a case of brain rot.
leslyn said...
@Seven Machos and Fen:
I had a dream last night. Sunni's and al Qaeda weren't still bombing people across Iraq. The Sunni's and Shias were participating amicably in a bipartisan government. No one of either faith-party had been arrested or driven out of government by the other side. Al-Maliki wasn't consolidating power to the Shias, and the government wasn't shaky. The Baathists were still hiding.
And everyone in Iraq loved us and showered our troops with flowers, so that they could move about without fear and didn't have to remain in strongholds. And no U.S. troops were continuing to be KIA in Iraq.
So. Things were much better under Saddam Hussein? We should of just left him alone? He posed no immediate or future threat to the United States?
BTW
Our troops found 500 TONS of yellowcake previously unaccounted for by the IAEA inspectors.
Wonder what you can do with 500 tons of Uranium Oxide?
Leslyn: Hey Fen. I love how you have no rebuttal at all.
Rebuttal to what? Your non-rebuttal of my claim that Al Queda was broken in Iraq?
C'mon man, you're the one with self-professed "knowledge of foreign policy". And the best you could come up with was some wet dream you had about how things in Iraq aren't perfect.
has the leadership of Pakistan simply gotten tired of maintaining the front that they're not the terrorist-sheltering assholes they really are?
Ah yes, you've been thumping your chest about how Obama invaded Pakistan to get Osama. Tell me, if as a result of this American "invasion" the Paki governemnt falls and Paki nukes fall into the hands of the Jihad, you're response will be...?
Ooops? Sorry, I got my degree off the back of a cereal box?
Rusty: Wonder what you can do with 500 tons of Uranium Oxide?
Lets wait while Leslyn, our resident foreign policy "expert", googles Uranium Oxide...
Or, you know... we could just pretend an EMP attack must have detonated over Leslyn's ISP.
I'm sure thats it.
Fen said...
Rusty: Wonder what you can do with 500 tons of Uranium Oxide?
Lets wait while Leslyn, our resident foreign policy "expert", googles Uranium Oxide...
As far as expertise goes, my money is on Seven.
I know the arguments she'll come back with and to tell you the truth I'm a bit tired if the lefty boilerplate.
leslyn said...
"So. Things were much better under Saddam Hussein? We should of just left him alone? He posed no immediate or future threat to the United States?" NO IMMEDIATE THREAT. You know that. Bush never pretended any differently.
And you already know that we aren't the world's police force.
Irag and Afghanistan were two different military actions. One harbored the immediate threat to our security, the other did not.
Vis a Vis Iraq;
Perhaps you can tell me. On Dec.7 1941 the United States was brutally attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. On Dec. 8 the United States Congress declared war on Japan. Why was it that the first nation we invaded in WW2 never declared war on us and posed no immediate threat?
Rusty,
Why was it that the first nation we invaded in WW2 never declared war on us and posed no immediate threat?
Foul! Foul! An illegal attempt at making a liberal think! Take one step forward, two steps back. Third down:
The liberal has the ball,...
So much has been said about this comment by Huffington. I think that she herself is brewing up some agenda. People will figure it out in the long run.
Leslyn: And you already know that we aren't the world's police force.
Who keeps the world's shipping lanes open? Mermaids?
Irag and Afghanistan were two different military actions. One harbored the immediate threat to our security, the other did not.
Please define the immediate threat to our security posed by Afganistan...
"They harbored and gave support to terrorist organizations"
No, that was also Iraq. Try again please.
"They attempted to assasinate Bush"
No. Again, that was Iraq.
"They were in violation of the cease-fire from the last war, as well as 14 UN Resolutions of the course of 12 years".
Again, not Afganistan but Iraq.
"They outsourced their WMD program to Libya"
Again, that was Iraq.
"They harbored terrorists after they attacked the World Trade Center."
Again, Iraq (1993), not Afganistan.
"And you already know that we aren't the world's police force."
True.
Yet we ought to have some better decision process involved in identifying "good wars" than how justified our vengeance is.
"Irag and Afghanistan were two different military actions. One harbored the immediate threat to our security, the other did not."
I think... that insisting that *this* thing is separate from *that* thing is why liberals are almost always wrong about foreign policy. Come to think of it, it's undoubtedly true about social/domestic policy as well.
Everything makes changes to everything else, once it's mucked with. There is no "separate". Nothing happens in a vacuum, not even in a vacuum.
The Crack Emcee said...
Rusty,
The liberal has the ball,...
I suppose taking your ball and going home is also a tactic.
Leslyn asked me: What is your logical premise?
Leslyn writes: The deaths from the Iraq fuckup are what sicken me.
Leslyn, What is your moral premise?
Assassinating a single military opponent is not a strategy. What is the strategy? Can you tell me? Can Obama? Do you have any awareness of the situation on the ground?. Do some reading. Focus on stories from 2012.
Here's a quote from the article I linked above:
The withdrawal plan marks the beginning of the end of a troop-intensive approach to the insurgency
The militants are thought to be only about 20,000 strong. Estimates of how many are battle-hardened also vary. But despite their relatively low numbers - and despite the increasing size of the foreign troop presence - the militants have steadily extended their influence and rendered vast tracts of Afghanistan insecure.
It has become increasingly clear to Nato that it cannot win militarily.
This is a fairly typical assessment.
So tell me, what has Obama accomplished? What have the 1200+ U.S. casualties accomplished? What have the steady increases in Afghan civilian deaths accomplished?
What does your sickened soul have to say?
...is why liberals are almost always wrong about foreign policy.
That, and they must have never played Wack-A-Mole.
Leslyn: "...lets invade Afganistan as the terrorists flee to Pakistan... then we'll invade Pakistan as the terrorists flee to Iran... then we'll invade Iran as the terrorists flee to Iraq... Hey! Who just nuked Israel?.. oh well, lets invade Iraq as the terrorists flee to Somolia ...damnt! WHY isn't this working? It looked so easy on HuffPo..."
Bush: "uhm... how about we just attract them all to Iraq and break them there? Flypaper?
Leslyn: "Thats stupid!.. Now, where was I? Iraq or Somolia?..."
To clarify -- 1200+ U.S. casualties are those under Obama's watch.
Total coalition casualties from 2001 total some 2800+, 1800+ are U.S.
The chart at the link is useful.
Post a Comment