Afghanistan: To Be or Not to Be

October 29, 2009


President Obama has been equivocating on what action to take in Afghanistan for over a month now. His original policy, which he announced to great fanfare over six months ago, seemed bold and straightforward enough. BBC News reported on the new policy announcement back in March of this year:

“We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the US, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists,” said Mr Obama. “The safety of people around the world is at stake.”

This seemed consistent with what he has been saying for several years. In August of 2007 in a speech at the Wilson Center, then-Senator Obama said the following:

“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won… Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared.”

And yet, and yet… Just last month the President, during his foray into Sunday morning television, signaled that he’s beginning to waffle:

“We are in the process of working through that strategy.  The first question is . . . are we pursuing the right strategy?”

The problem is that the President, by his indecision, is endangering our troops who are already massively imperiled. He is signaling to our enemies that America is irresolute and weak. The loss of American lives in Afghanistan in October alone tells us that the Taliban is getting stronger, emboldened by our lack of leadership.

President Obama, it’s time to decide. Are we going to be victorious in Afghanistan? If so, give Gen. McChrystal the 40,000 troops and whatever else he requests, and allow our military to get the job done.

If you’re not going to do that, then bring all our troops home now. Don’t nickel and dime our troops to death. Get them out of harm’s way immediately and let Afghanistan go back to being run by gangs of murderous medieval thugs. Allow it to become again a breeding ground and haven for terrorists who may already be planning another wave of 9/11 attacks on us and others.

Abandon our efforts there, and in 2013, if another attack comes, President Palin or President Giuliani or President Jindal (and make no mistake, if you abandon Afghanistan, you will not be re-elected) will once again take this fight to the enemy, and then we will win.

And you’ll be history.

Stoutcat


Pres. Obama: Please Stop Saying “Klaatu Barada Nikto”

March 9, 2009


The news is now out that President Obama “Hints at talks with Taliban“.

Now, for those of you not familiar with the phrase in the title of this post, it was the crucial code that would stop “Gort” the robot from retaliating should his master (stern but benevolent E.T. “Klaatu”) come to harm via the earthlings… Of course, in the 1951 classic, harm does comes to Klaatu, and it’s only the heroine’s utterance of “Klaatu barada nikto” that saved the day from robot Gort. Ultimately it was Klaatu, Gort, and their advanced civilization that brings our world to its senses and all ends well.

The problem is that in the real world of cult terrorists, there is no talking with those robots – they’re not civilized. We can utter no “Klaatu barada nikto.” Neville Chamberlain tried the phrase in 1938 and it didn’t work out so well. For decades the U.N. has been screaming the nonsensical peace mantra, and that too has failed miserably.

Look, our grandfathers understood this when they faced genocidal cult cultures in Germany and Japan, and did what they had to do… Brutal, but effective. Put another way, you don’t try to play “Nice” with the stuff of rabies.

Mr. President, Sir… If you think that you’re going to be able to “negotiate” with “moderate” elements of the Taliban, you’re going to be more embarrassing than a $16 plastic helicopter at a formal gift-giving. But then again, maybe if you painted “Klaatu barada nikto” on the side of the toy helo and gave it to them…

Alan Speakman


UPDATE: Mullah Omar Still Dead

October 27, 2008

 

Regarding the post below, it’s looking more and more like the initial BBC report was correct: the recent airstrike in north-west Pakistan took out the highest-ranking taliban leader Mohammed Omar. Currently reporting (after our early-morning scoop, of course) are the Jawa Report, Infidels Are Cool, and HotAir.

How great would it be if we could take out Bin Laden this week, too?

Stoutcat


Mohammad Omar/Mullah Omar Dead?

October 27, 2008

 

If the head of what used to be the Taliban is dead via the machinations of the U.S. military operating in Pakistan, this BBC report is huge…

So much has been written about this man. Depending on who you listen to, he was anything from a moronic vicious thug (NY Times), to “…the spiritual leader of the Taliban, the host and ally of terror chief Osama bin Laden.” (Vanity Fair). I tend to trust the latter description.

But if this is true, the world just changed. We all have heard reports of U.S. operations in Pakistan (and today even in Syria.) Finally, the United States of America is willing to go anywhere, anytime, to eradicate dangerous vermin.

Let Omar’s words be proof of his ridiculous reasoning…

In a Voice of America interview on Sept. 21, Omar said: “God says he will never be satisfied with the infidels. In terms of worldly affairs, America is very strong. Even if it were twice as strong or twice that, it could not be strong enough to defeat us. We are confident that no one can harm us if God is with us.” CS Monitor

Sorry if this post is rushed… But I wanted to get it out there. Besides, I think I’ll have another beer in celebration.

Alan Speakman