Afghan Catastrophe Under Obama


After meetings with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Friday, President Obama said this weekend that the U.S. is speeding up the schedules for pulling American forces out of Afghanistan and for ending most unilateral combat operations. Tragically, that’s too late for Joseph Griffin.

Just before Christmas, an Afghan policewoman slipped through “security checks” with a hidden pistol and shot the 49-year-old American adviser from Mansfield, Georgia at the Kabul police headquarters in the first green-on-blue slaying by a woman. Joseph Griffin was a U.S. military veteran who had served in various U.S.-based law enforcement positions over the years as well as in support of global training and mentoring programs. He was under contract to the NATO military command to advise the Afghan police force in Kabul.

After the murder, the Deputy Police Chief at first said, laughably, that it had yet to be determined whether the killing was intentional or accidental. Subsequent investigation revealed that Sgt. Nargas, a native Iranian with “no known links to militants,” moved to Afghanistan ten years ago after her Iranian husband obtained fake documents enabling her to live and work there. She joined the police five years ago and had a clean record. But after attending a “training course” in Egypt, Afghan authorities were alerted to what they called her “unstable” behavior. During her interrogation, she revealed that she had plans to kill either the Kabul governor or the city police chief, but when she realized that the security would be too difficult to penetrate, she turned her weapon on “a foreigner.”

And so Joseph Griffin became yet another sacrificial lamb in our pathetic, Sisyphean strategy to win Afghan hearts-and-minds; to train their half-hearted, incompetent local security forces to try to stand up to the Taliban without us; and to create a functioning nation-state out of a tribal patchwork in the most God-forsaken rockpile on the planet.

Last year alone, dozens of such lethal insider attacks by Taliban sympathizers posing as government security forces or soldiers have increasingly plagued coalition forces in Afghanistan. The Obama administration would sooner be stoned to death than speak of Islam in a negative context and admit that it has anything to do with the locals’ resistance to our efforts there. They won’t concede that “jihad” might explain why an Iranian woman falsely obtained work there and received mysterious “special training” in Egypt just prior to her attack. So naturally our senior military officials have placed the blame for the green-on-blue murders on everything from the strain of Ramadan fasting, to summer heat, and most recently, to our troops’ own “ignorance of, or lack of empathy for Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms.”

Thus, if our soldiers don’t demonstrate sufficient cultural sensitivity to, as Diana West lists, pederasty, dog torture, desertion, and drug use, as well as refrain from making derogatory comments about the Taliban (wasn’t there a time when we were supposed to be killing the Taliban?), we can expect to be targeted for it by the very barbarians we’re supposed to be civilizing, and then be blamed for our own murders. Perhaps the Obama administration should just take the logical next step in multicultural respect and require that our troops and advisors in Afghanistan convert to Islam.

By contrast, the Afghans aren’t expected to demonstrate any respect or cultural sensitivity in return, not to mention gratitude that we’re spending $8 billion per month and continuing to sacrifice lives on their behalf.

Afghanistan is still considered by the left to be Bush’s mess. As the war grew to become the longest in United States history, the opposition raged against Bush about it – until Obama replaced him. Seventy-two percent of our casualties there have occurred on Obama’s watch, but the left is more disturbed by civilian deaths from Obama’s drone attacks than those figures and the green-on-blue murders of our soldiers in Afghanistan; our own government doesn’t even talk about those deaths except to write them off as a “necessary risk.” Journalist Diana West notes that the official silence about the ongoing murders is a travesty and should be considered the scandal of 2013.

NATO responded to Joseph Griffin’s murder with the claim that “temporary, prudent measures” might be put into place to lessen exposure of their personnel to such assaults – but the training of Afghan police would not be stopped. That’s too bad, because it is precisely that practice which is exposing our people to ambush by assassins.

How about this for a prudent measure, and a permanent one at that? Abandon the country to its own willful barbarism. There is a reason Afghanistan is called the “graveyard of empires” – forces as formidable as Alexander the Great’s army and the Soviet Union failed to conquer its expansive wasteland. Our mission there should only ever have been to find bin Laden and eradicate the Taliban to the last man; we turned up empty on the former, and if we’re not going to follow through with the latter, then the least we can do is quit setting up our own soldiers and advisers for eradication at the hands of the Taliban and friends.

DynCorp International said of its employee, the murdered Joseph Griffin: “Joe spent his career helping people all over the world, most recently working to help the Afghan people secure a better future.” Tragically, our futile strategy there is proving to be an obscene waste of money and of the lives of good Americans like Joe Griffin. “Have we achieved everything that some might have imagined us achieving in the best of scenarios?” Obama asked rhetorically last weekend. “Probably not. This is a human enterprise and you fall short of the ideal.” What a bloodless way to describe it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Mary Sue

    Obama, like Carter before him, encompasses the very embodiment of incompetence.

    • davarino

      Mary, I'm afraid incompetence is not the right word. He is very competently aiding and abeting the enemy

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Mary, I'm afraid incompetence is not the right word. He is very competently aiding and abeting the enemy"

        There are huge portions of both to go around.

    • wsk

      MarySue, I respectfully disagree. The low-eared man-child messiah is anything but incompetent. In fact, he may be one of the most successful presidents in American history in terms of accomplishing his goals. He enabled the govt' to take over 1/7 th of the US economy (Obamacare), he turned over the largest industrial company (GM) to his socialist brothers (the UAW). Green Energy, unaccountable czars and soon he will use presidential edict to take awy our 2 nd Amendment rights,. Traitorous? Oh. yes. Incompetent, most assuredly, no.
      Welcome to the new Amerika. Welcome to the new normal.

  • bob

    Joseph Griffin was no sacrificial lamb , like every private professional contractor who goes to a war zone , he was not an aid worker or doctor . If you want the dollars you take the risk.
    Every soldier who serves today is a volunteer who chooses to take up arms, lets not start comparing them to drafted conscripts from the Vietnam war who had no choice in the matter.

    • davarino

      Wow, deep "caring" for the troops when Bush was in office, which meant daily updates in the news of the number of casualties. But during Obama's stint, nothing, no constant drum beat of the numbers in the news. Is that because now the deaths of the soldiers are actually their fault now? The soldiers dont matter any more, because they dont serve your purpose? Amazing the hypocracy.

      • trickyblain

        Despite Tapson's misleading numbers, many, many more troops (and civilians) died under Bush's first term alone. The current administration — amidst the howling and sniveling of the right — ended this in Iraq, and is doing the same in Afghanistan.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Despite Tapson's misleading numbers, many, many more troops (and civilians) died under Bush's first term alone. The current administration — amidst the howling and sniveling of the right — ended this in Iraq, and is doing the same in Afghanistan."

          Oversimplifying is the only game you have? Context is your enemy. By your measure, Bush would be successful if he acted like Clinton and limited his offensive military tactics to cruise missile launches and occasional AF sorties to protect Muslims. The rest can be achieved through appeasement, right?

          • trickyblain

            The context? You're talking to me about context while letting Tapson slide? He states that 72 percent of Afghan war casualties have been under the Obama administration. If Tapson had your reverence for context, he would also point out that there was a surge and a much bigger focus on Afghanistan under Obama than there was under Bush. To your point, more troops + more operations + an enemy that has been allowed to regroup over 6 years of "priority Iraq" = more casualties.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The context? You're talking to me about context while letting Tapson slide? He states that 72 percent of Afghan war casualties have been under the Obama administration. If Tapson had your reverence for context, he would also point out that there was a surge and a much bigger focus on Afghanistan under Obama than there was under Bush. To your point, more troops + more operations + an enemy that has been allowed to regroup over 6 years of "priority Iraq" = more casualties."

            The casualties didn't come from the surge. They came from the changes to tactics and rules of engagement. And other idiotic policy changes, like training our enemy.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "If you want the dollars you take the risk."

      The risk of an enemy 5th columnist winning the US presidency?

    • Joan Rogers

      very well said

    • Sun Tzu

      People take risks for jobs they believe in & that they are trained for, but at the same time they want compensation & do not want their lives wasted. Examples would be pilot, stuntman firefighter, policeman, soldier, astronaut & so many others.

      There is a difference from being exposed to an increased risk of danger & having threat of danger being carelessly increased more because of a naive, blase attitude & policies of a dilettante president.

      "If you have to use our live, use them don't misuse them."

      You commit troops to a conflict. You know a percentage are going to die. That is just the way it is. But there are acceptable percentage & unacceptable percentages. I think at one time if an invading force suffered more than 15% casualties in a battle (circa WW2) that was considered unacceptable & poor generalship. It is in relationship to how good the enemy is compared to yourself.

      Since the Commander in Chief is the head general so to speak. He falls under the same system. Talking about caring, flying out to the Area of operations (AOR) for Thanksgiving & Christmas photo ops does not cut it.

      It does not matter if a commander actions resulted in 4%, 20% or 1% casualties, when there was the option to achieve the same result with fewer casualties, he is not to be commended. He is to be reviled. After a while you get to know what effort (troop strengths), tactics & equipment get what results. This is not an arcane art. Many soldiers & former soldiers & others know this. The Commander in Chief has advisors.While he may have eschewed studying military science earlier in life there is no excuse for engaging in losing strategies.

      And it is more than troops & equipment. It is rhetoric & willpower. Having people say "the war is lost" or threatening to cut off funding to troops in the field is better than the enemy having new formations forming as if by magic or secret agents inside the enemies military establishment feeding information about enemy troop movement & dispositions.

      P.S. Don't bring up Vietnam. You only display your ignorance for all to see.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "It does not matter if a commander actions resulted in 4%, 20% or 1% casualties, when there was the option to achieve the same result with fewer casualties, he is not to be commended. He is to be reviled. After a while you get to know what effort (troop strengths), tactics & equipment get what results. This is not an arcane art. Many soldiers & former soldiers & others know this. The Commander in Chief has advisors.While he may have eschewed studying military science earlier in life there is no excuse for engaging in losing strategies. "

        Exactly, if you're out to achieve your objectives…unless your objective is to transform the host nation and continue your treason.

  • IRL

    Get the troops out and let the drones take over.

    • davarino

      I agree. I think we have learned an important leason over the last ten years. Dont put troops into these God forsaken countries, because they dont want our help. They like living like dogs. Just bomb the crap out of them till they stop doing bad things, then they can go back to living like they did 1500 years ago.

  • pierce

    He, Barack Obama, found ways to criticize George W, but he has flummoxed around on just about everything he has had contact with. I honestly think that he, and his czars have not a clue as to what they are doing.
    In Hamid Karzai, Obama has come face to face with someone of his own ilk.

  • Joan Rogers

    I am glad ,finally we get out of the Middle east,saving billions,and protect our own land….Go where we are needed,they don't want our help..their only agenda is to kill kill kill.Leave them to their way of life,it will never change EVER…..from the line of Ishmael..Gen.16:11,12…will never change

  • BLJ

    I am reading "The Wrong War" by Bing West. It is about the debacle in Afghanistan and is an outstanding read.

    Our troops hands are tied by idiotic "rules of engagement" and political correctness. Toss in a Muslim C-in-C and there you have it. We have the best military in the world and their hands are tied.

    The MSM's lack of reporting what is going on there is also a crime. These clowns were jumping all over news from Afghanistan and Irag when Bush was in office. Now that the Chosen One is there not a peep.

  • Walter Sieruk

    One of the many nonsensical polices of Obama in his administration concerning Afghanistan is that he feels ,in spite of all the facts, that some kind of workable " peace alliance" might be workedout between the Karzai goverment and the Taliban. This is worse then folly. One of the reasons is that the Taliban have worked very hard to prove by their own actions,time and time again, that they are a group a cruel, ruthless thugs with honor . Thus they would keep their word in any "negotiations" that they may have with the people of the Karzai goverment only as long as it would suite them and no longer. Instead of listening to the foolishness of Obama nad his polices in Afghanistan it would be a good idea for the the people in the Karzai goverment to heed the wisdom of Sun Tzu in THE ART OF WAR. Which teaches "We cannot enter into an alliance with neighboring princes until we are acquainted with their designs." To put this in a more current and updated way, it may be said "We cannot enter into an alliance with the Taliban until we are acquainted with their designs." With the Taliban we all may be sure that their intentions are evil.

  • bob e

    i do not know how this country is gonna make 4 more years of this black muslim phoney.

  • Ghostwriter

    The Taliban aren't the most peaceful people out there.

  • trickyblain

    "Our mission there should only ever have been to find bin Laden and eradicate the Taliban to the last man; we turned up empty on the former, and if we’re not going to follow through with the latter, then the least we can do is quit setting up our own soldiers and advisers for eradication at the hands of the Taliban and friends."

    1) We came up empty? Isn't UBL sleeping with the fishes?
    2) This, much to the chagrin of the hawks who've never seen battle, is exactly the administration's strategy.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "1) We came up empty? Isn't UBL sleeping with the fishes?"

      Not from the mass deployments, no.

      "2) This, much to the chagrin of the hawks who've never seen battle, is exactly the administration's strategy."

      There's a huge difference between avoiding escalation in war, and going in to win one but then handing victory to the belligerent. You don't have a clue what 0'Bama's strategy is because even 0'Bama doesn't know. He doesn't actually have a war strategy, he has a political strategy for the war. That strategy changes with the politics, like the weather. He's a proud follower. Remember?

  • Len_Powder

    "So naturally our senior military officials have placed the blame for the green-on-blue murders on everything from the strain of Ramadan fasting, to summer heat, and most recently, to our troops’ own “ignorance of, or lack of empathy for Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms.”

    It seems our soldiers are not sufficiently politically correct, accepting of diversity or cultural equivalence, or sensitive to the feelings of those who hold us in contempt and whose primary aim is to end our existence. Of what possible use could we be to Afghanistan given our troops' moral decrepitude? In fact, would it not make a great deal of sense to not only withdraw our soldiers from all Muslim countries but to disband our military altogether? After all, they seem incapable of conforming to their new mission as defined by the Obama Team, which is to be diplomats and social workers in occupied countries.

  • wsk

    Why the silence about 72% of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan occurring during this administration?
    Duh.