5 replies to this topic

[Buddy Kidd]

Has U.S. Come Full Circle In Afghanistan?

The Taliban is poised to retake Afghanistan under the administration's cut-and-run policies. Instead of burying this dangerous enemy, it's repeating the mistakes that led up to 9/11.

In fact, Washington is steadily retreating full circle back to the defensive posture it took toward Afghanistan in 1996.

Then, the Clinton administration coddled the thuggish regime and let it seize power. In no time it hosted al-Qaida's leaders, who were able to open major terror camps around the country, where they eventually trained the 9/11 hijackers.

Consider these new developments:

• Former Clinton official Marc Gossman, now Obama's Afghan envoy, has held secret meetings with a top aide to Taliban chief Mullah Omar to negotiate a "peace" deal.
• To appease the Taliban, the White House reportedly has agreed to transfer at least five Taliban prisoners — including one responsible for the deaths of several Americans — from Gitmo to Qatar, where the Taliban has set up a political office.
• Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Wednesday announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan next year, speeding up the 2014 timetable for withdrawal originally set by the White House.
• The administration, in a curious departure from its aggressive strategy to decapitate the al-Qaida leadership, refuses to carry out a single drone, air or ground strike against Omar or the rest of the Taliban leadership confirmed hiding in plain sight in Quetta, Pakistan.

These moves don't just embolden the Taliban. They encourage the Pakistani generals who are secretly running their insurgency and trying to reinstall the Taliban next door.

A recent classified NATO report obtained this week by the British press reveals that Pakistan has been directing the Taliban's battle to regain power in Afghanistan.

Based on about 27,000 separate interrogations of more than 4,000 captured insurgents, it says that Pakistani officials meet regularly with Taliban leaders.

It also says that Islamabad is "intimately involved" with the effort to topple the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"The Taliban are Islamabad," one detainee reportedly told NATO interrogators.

The report further states that Taliban insurgents have gained support among the Afghan masses and are biding their time until the U.S. and coalition forces pull out.

"Many Afghans are already bracing themselves for an eventual return of the Taliban," the report said. "Once (NATO) is no longer a factor, Taliban consider their victory inevitable."

Why are there any negotiations at all with a sworn enemy of the U.S. in the middle of a hot war?

Surely we didn't sacrifice trillions of dollars from the national treasury and thousands of our sons and daughters ousting and fighting a terrorist regime just to go back to square one. (Buck thinks we should)

But this a different commander in chief from a different party. And he's running the war while running for re-election.

Obama has to appease the Taliban in large part to appease his antiwar base.

Polls show Democrats do not see a point to the war on terror and want him to pull all troops out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, on the other hand, wisely wants to keep fighting the Taliban until it is defeated. He has slammed Obama's strategy of battling the insurgents while also engaging them in peace talks as a sign of weakness.
Romney has it right. Obama is fooling himself if he thinks ending combat and making concessions with the Taliban will mean the end of war.

As it did before 9/11, this enemy will simply go back to targeting the U.S. and its interests around the world. And the region will fester into an even worse threat to global security.

LINK

[buckshot]

Back to your old crap of editing your posts to put my user name in. Keep it up Buddy, and you will no longer have me trying to get some action going on your forum.

[Buddy Kidd]

Would you care to deny it Buck?

[buckshot]

Back to your old crap of editing your posts to put my user name in. Keep it up Buddy, and you will no longer have me trying to get some action going on your forum.

Edited by buckshot, 03 February 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[buckshot]

Buddy Kidd, on 03 February 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Has U.S. Come Full Circle In Afghanistan?

The Taliban is poised to retake Afghanistan under the administration's cut-and-run policies. Instead of burying this dangerous enemy, it's repeating the mistakes that led up to 9/11.

In fact, Washington is steadily retreating full circle back to the defensive posture it took toward Afghanistan in 1996.

Then, the Clinton administration coddled the thuggish regime and let it seize power. In no time it hosted al-Qaida's leaders, who were able to open major terror camps around the country, where they eventually trained the 9/11 hijackers.

Consider these new developments:

• Former Clinton official Marc Gossman, now Obama's Afghan envoy, has held secret meetings with a top aide to Taliban chief Mullah Omar to negotiate a "peace" deal.
• To appease the Taliban, the White House reportedly has agreed to transfer at least five Taliban prisoners — including one responsible for the deaths of several Americans — from Gitmo to Qatar, where the Taliban has set up a political office.
• Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Wednesday announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan next year, speeding up the 2014 timetable for withdrawal originally set by the White House.
• The administration, in a curious departure from its aggressive strategy to decapitate the al-Qaida leadership, refuses to carry out a single drone, air or ground strike against Omar or the rest of the Taliban leadership confirmed hiding in plain sight in Quetta, Pakistan.

These moves don't just embolden the Taliban. They encourage the Pakistani generals who are secretly running their insurgency and trying to reinstall the Taliban next door.

A recent classified NATO report obtained this week by the British press reveals that Pakistan has been directing the Taliban's battle to regain power in Afghanistan.

Based on about 27,000 separate interrogations of more than 4,000 captured insurgents, it says that Pakistani officials meet regularly with Taliban leaders.

It also says that Islamabad is "intimately involved" with the effort to topple the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"The Taliban are Islamabad," one detainee reportedly told NATO interrogators.

The report further states that Taliban insurgents have gained support among the Afghan masses and are biding their time until the U.S. and coalition forces pull out.

"Many Afghans are already bracing themselves for an eventual return of the Taliban," the report said. "Once (NATO) is no longer a factor, Taliban consider their victory inevitable."

Why are there any negotiations at all with a sworn enemy of the U.S. in the middle of a hot war?

Surely we didn't sacrifice trillions of dollars from the national treasury and thousands of our sons and daughters ousting and fighting a terrorist regime just to go back to square one.
But this a different commander in chief from a different party. And he's running the war while running for re-election.

Obama has to appease the Taliban in large part to appease his antiwar base.

Polls show Democrats do not see a point to the war on terror and want him to pull all troops out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, on the other hand, wisely wants to keep fighting the Taliban until it is defeated. He has slammed Obama's strategy of battling the insurgents while also engaging them in peace talks as a sign of weakness.
Romney has it right. Obama is fooling himself if he thinks ending combat and making concessions with the Taliban will mean the end of war.

As it did before 9/11, this enemy will simply go back to targeting the U.S. and its interests around the world. And the region will fester into an even worse threat to global security. LINK

Edited by buckshot, 03 February 2012 - 02:32 PM.

[Buddy Kidd]

Whats the matter Buck? Can't you come up with one of your liberal/socialist talking points which refutes the material presented in the article?