Happens with anything on his agenda: Freedom-Hater-care, play-like energy sources, amnesty for illegal aliens, you name it. Reality's a bitch.
The United States will keep up to 1,000 more soldiers than previously planned in Afghanistan into next year, outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Saturday, in a recognition of the still formidable challenge from Taliban insurgents.
Hagel, confirming a change in the U.S. drawdown schedule first reported by Reuters in November, said the additional forces were needed because delays in signing security pacts had impacted plans to raise troops from other countries.
However, he also said that a particularly violent surge of Taliban attacks in Kabul in the last two weeks was a reminder of the continued need for a foreign presence.
"The recent wave of Taliban attacks has made it clear that the international community must not waver in its support for a stable, secure and prosperous Afghanistan," said Hagel, who arrived in Kabul unannounced on Saturday morning.
The NATO-led combat mission in Afghanistan officially ends in two weeks with a sharp reduction in western forces, but troops that stay behind will still provide "combat enabler" support to Afghan soldiers, Hagel said.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Seems that reality has intruded on the regime's unicorns-and-rainbows vision
The Most Equal Comrade's timetable has come squarely up against factors even a lightworker can't control:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But he should resist the advice of military commanders, who are again pushing for broader involvement. They were unable to defeat the Taliban when more than 100,000 American troops were in the country; there is no reason to think that a very limited American force will be more effective now.
ReplyDeleteOne lesson learned over the last 13 years is this: No amount of foreign assistance — not tens of thousands of troops, billions of dollars or unlimited amounts of military equipment — will make any real difference if the Afghans cannot or will not pull together a functioning, relatively uncorrupt and competent government, and take primary responsibility for themselves and their country.
Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/backsliding-in-afghanistan.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
Well, then, what is the strategy to keep the Taliban from materially aiding, abetting and aligning with the larger worldwide jihad: ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Hamas? They're not just going to run roughshod over Afghanistan and let that be that. This is a world wide network with a common aim.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we fight yet another peoples' fight? Oh, right, to your ilk Israel is us, probably more important than our national treasures--in both dollars and our youth.
ReplyDeleteIt's not other people's fight. They intend to murder you in your bed and enslave your wife and daughter.
ReplyDeleteWow!
ReplyDeleteThe threat inflation that led to the bomber and missile “gaps” of the 1950s remains a cherished Washington tradition. In memos written after September 11, then–Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged his staff to “keep elevating the threat” and demanded “bumper sticker statements” to gin up public enthusiasm for the global war on terror. The key, he wrote, was to “make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists.” What worked during the Cold War still works today: to get Americans on board with your military policy, scare the hell out of them.
ReplyDeleteRead more at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-of-defense-inc/308342/3/
In the wake of 9/11, when the George W. Bush administration committed the United States to a global war on terror, it was blithely confident that the U.S. military could win such a conflict handily. Events in Iraq and Afghanistan have since demolished such expectations. The irrefutable lesson of the past decade is this: we know how to start wars, but don’t know how to end them. During the well-armed Eisenhower era, American weapons were largely silent. Today, engagement in actual hostilities has become the new normal, exacting a steep price. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost at least $1 trillion—with the meter still running. Some observers estimate that total costs will eventually reach $2 trillion or even $3 trillion.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, military Keynesianism has proved to be a bust. In contrast to the 1950s, military extravagance is depleting rather than adding to the nation’s wealth. In the Eisenhower era, the United States, a creditor nation, produced at home the essentials defining the American way of life—everything from oil to cars to televisions. Today, we import far more than we export, with ever-increasing debt as one result. Furthermore, in the 1950s, we were mostly at peace; today we are mostly at war—and, as a result, more of the resources provided to the military go abroad and stay there.
Read more at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-of-defense-inc/308342/3/
Oh, so there is no worldwide jihad threat. Thanks for clearing that up, Dr. Paul.
ReplyDelete