Afghanistan: Obama Surrenders

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In, is now available.


Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai“The Afghan War is coming to an end,” said Barack Obama on May 23, but it is not ending well. NBC News reported Tuesday that “U.S. and Taliban representatives will meet soon for the first time to begin what are expected to be long and complex negotiations for a peaceful settlement to the war in Afghanistan.” The U.S. entered Afghanistan to topple the Taliban from power and end their influence in the country. In light of that, these talks in themselves constitute an admission of failure. But these talks are far from the first of those.

In an incident emblematic of American policy failure in Afghanistan, American and Afghan officials in Afghanistan’s Farah province were holding an inauguration ceremony last August for new recruits to a village police force. As part of the ceremony, the new policemen were given weapons that they would use for training. As soon as one of the recruits, Mohammad Ismail, received his, he turned it on the American soldiers who were present, murdering two.

Such attacks epitomize just how foolish and wrongheaded our national adventure in Afghanistan has been. In that instance, Farah’s provincial police chief, Agha Noor Kemtoz, explained: “As soon as they gave the weapon to Ismail to begin training, suddenly he took the gun and opened fire toward the U.S. soldiers.” Ismail had just joined the Afghan Local Police force the Sunday before his attack. Nonetheless, according to the Associated Press, “the NATO-led coalition has said such attacks are anomalies stemming from personal disputes.”

In the intervening months, NATO has not grown more honest or forthright about the genuine cause of these green-on-blue attacks, which have continued. They have gone even farther in other attempts at face-saving, claiming that the attackers are not part of the Afghan jihad against NATO forces. According to ABC News, “officials have said most of the attacks are motivated not by support for the Taliban, but for ‘private reasons’ including grievances against local Afghan commanders, ethnic feuds, and depression. Senior U.S. officials have insisted the attacks don’t indicate a high level of Taliban infiltration into the army.”

On the other hand, said the AP, “the supreme leader of the Taliban boasted on Thursday night that the insurgents are infiltrating the quickly expanding Afghan forces.”

It is hard to imagine anything that could be easier than that infiltration. These murders keep happening because there is no reliable way to distinguish an Afghan Muslim who supports American troops from one who wants to murder them, and political correctness prevents authorities from making any attempt to do so anyway, because it would suggest that Islam is not a Religion of Peace. And so ever more U.S. troops are still being sacrificed to this madness.

Meanwhile, the coming talks with the Taliban manifest the same unreality, and they do not represent the first overtures Obama has made to this group that the U.S. entered Afghanistan in order to fight. Obama has urged Afghan President Hamid Karzai to come to a settlement with the Taliban; he secretly dropped charges in the case of a Florida man accused of funding the Pakistani Taliban; and even considered sending Taliban detainees back to Afghanistan as a gesture of goodwill.

And now the “peace talks.” All this is obvious denial and self-delusion. What are we fighting for at this point, anyway? The Taliban, the erstwhile enemy, is coming to the negotiating table not as a vanquished foe, but as a partner for peace. Joe Biden some time ago declared that they were not the enemy, anyway. American forces have supervised the implementation of an Afghan constitution that enshrined Islamic law as the highest law of the land. Yet Islamic law is nothing like the democratic principles that we went into Afghanistan to defend (over here) and establish (over there). Sharia institutionalizes the oppression of women and non-Muslims, extinguishes the freedom of speech, and denies the freedom of conscience.

Was that what we were fighting for?

Nonetheless, America continued to pour out her blood and treasure for this repressive state, with no clear objective or mission in view other than a never-defined “victory.” No one ever clearly defined what victory would look like in Afghanistan. What could it possibly have looked like? Has the Karzai regime ever allowed women to throw off their burqas and take their place in Afghan society as human beings equal in dignity to men?  Does the Karzai government, or any Afghan government that would follow it, ever intend to guarantee basic human rights to the tiny and ever-dwindling number of non-Muslims unfortunate enough to live within its borders?  Of course not.

And no matter how long American troops might stay in Afghanistan, no Afghan regime is ever going to do such things.

In July 2012, the U.S. designated Afghanistan a “major non-Nato ally.” According to the BBC, this gives the Afghans “preferential access to U.S. arms exports and defence co-operation.” Thus unless Afghanistan is stripped of this status, we could be funding the Taliban with billions annually for years to come. And so the next time an Afghan soldier murders a group of American troops, and despite these negotiations in Qatar there will certainly be a next time, remember: you paid for his weapon.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • disqus_Npi3ZYRHkO

    test

    • Jason Vickers

      audit.

  • Tan

    This is appalling. We’ve gone from being the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” to a “Land of the Weak and Home of the Afraid.” What Obama is doing will make the Chamberlain-Hitler Munich Agreement and the aftermaths of the Vietnam War look like a freaking walk in the park. That’s it! Time to impeach the Marxist-Socialist! And God help us all if he serves throughout his full term.

    • stephencarter

      After the media and public and Congressional non-response to 6 ongoing Obozo scandals, I can’t see this president ever being held accountable. It’s the time for reasonable men and women to contemplate his removal from office in a pine box.

    • EarlyBird

      Oh stop with the Chamberlain s**t! AS IF the Taliban are the existential threat to the West that the Nazis were. Dammm I’m tired of these idiotic comparisons to Nazis of every enemy we have. Please.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Hitler didn’t want to destroy the West and Nazism never made as many advances in America as islam has, you idiot.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Oh stop with the Chamberlain s**t! AS IF the Taliban are the existential threat to the West that the Nazis were.”

        The Taliban are key members of an organization that is a much bigger threat to America than Nazi Germany ever could have been.

        “Dammm I’m tired of these idiotic comparisons to Nazis of every enemy we have.”

        That’s the only ideology that is permissible to hate (because they attacked Stalin) according to leftist doctrine – unless you count Judeo Christianity and capitalism.

        We use that example because it’s the only evil ideology that leftists can’t easily make excuses for – because they attacked Stalin.

        So get used to it bubba. Not our fault. I can see why you hate it though. It makes it hard for you to talk about ideology as always benign just because.

    • knowshistory

      no. chamberlain was not a nazi, he was just weak, and was prime minister of a country exhausted by “the great war”. obama is a muslim. the chamberlain-obama comparison is invalid. if we somehow were able to impeach obama, we would still be in big trouble, because the problem is not obama. the problem is a nation made of citizens so incredibly venal, suicidal, lazy, ignorant, and cowardly that they would elect obama. get rid of obama, and we are still a nation of moral midgets. if we do not soon receive a huge violent shock from our muslim conquerors, we are doomed to submission to the “great religion of peace”. the only comfort in that will be seeing the greatest enablers of islam eradicated first.

  • Michael Copeland

    This same conspiracy to cloud the issue and never blame the ideology is conducted also by the BBC. Soldiers continue to be murdered.
    http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/5171-bbc-fog-making-soldier-murder-in-afghanistan

  • Jason Vickers

    Bush screwed up when he did not crush the Taliban in the first place. I do give him credit for continuing to try but you cannot fight a politically correct war. Obama on the other hand has made it impossible for us to make progress. He (Obama) is now getting what he wants anyway. A defeat for the United States and in turn radical islam will rule the land once again in Afghanistan. Obama has done well in his eyes. Another notch in his belt for letting the radicals win.

    • EarlyBird

      What?! “Crush the Taliban” to what purpose? So that once we leave – because we would HAVE HAD to leave ultimately – they could just come back? It was INEVITABLE that the Taliban would come back! It’s how that society is organized. Bush’s mistake was to attempt to “nation build” something resembling a Western nation. It was bound to fail.
      We lost the moment we expanded the goal from wiping out AQ to “nation building.”
      In terms of “crushing,” don’t forget that Obama added 30,000 troops (mostly moving them from Iraq) to “surge” against the Taliban and the remnants of AQ.
      OF COURSE radical Islam was going to end up ruling that nation again. It’s hard for us Americans to accept limited war goals, after big conventional war wins like WWII where we completely define the outcomes. Not every conflict ends up so neatly. Historically speaking, very, very few have.

      • ziggy zoggy

        It was never “inevitable’ that the Taliban weaklings would come back to power. Not until the election in 2008, anyway. Bush beat them EASILY and drove them into Pakistan but he could have wiped them out as thoroughly as Alexander wiped out the people who used to live there before the Bactrian campaign in the fourth century B.C. He chose not to for foolish political and moral reasons. The Taliban have only existed for a very short time and Bush ended their control of Afghanistan decisively. The reason more Americans have died under 4 years of your Obamessiah than ever did during the actual war that Bush won is because of the asinine rules of engagement forced on the troops. Afghanistan could defend itself against any takeover attempt by the taliwhackers and America could easily bomb them into extinction but Obama wants to empower islam in Afghanistan just like he has throughout North Africa, Iraq, Iran and Israel.

        Like usual, you are peddling lies.

        • EarlyBird

          “The reason more Americans have died under 4 years of your Obamessiah than ever did during the actual war…”
          And you call me a liar? Dude, you’re deranged. And I told you to shoo before, so f*** off!

          • ziggy zoggy

            Afghanistan. Official fatality records. Do I have to bitch slap you back to your Saudi harem/swineherd?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Do I have to bitch slap you back to your Saudi harem/swineherd?”

            It’s always a good idea to play it safe. Slap away.

          • defcon 4

            You always result to insults when your facile lies are exposed for what they are.

      • 4True

        If you’re dead you don’t come back . The Taliban villages, headquarters and fighters should have been wiped out as much as possible. One less monster to shoot kids and burn women.

        • EarlyBird

          It’s not worth preventing the Taliban from shooting kids and burning women in Afghanistan if it requires the US to commit fiscal suicide in the process.
          The Taliban is not an existential threat which would warrant a full-scale, WWII style total war effort, followed by – to keep the Taliban from returning – a Marshall Plan. The Taliban is not an international terrorist organization with designs or abilities to attack the United States.
          Our job was pretty much done by late 2002, when we had properly and brutally punished the Taliban for hosting a death, we had badly damaged AQ and ran it out of the country and into Pakistan. (Too bad we didn’t press our advantage and use eastern Afghanistan as a base to launch the drone and commando raid campaign which Bush finally started in 2008, and which Obama has pretty much finished, and instead got distracted by Iraq, but that’s for a different discussion.)
          Why the f*** do we need to entangle ourselves in these senseless, counter-productive and unsustainable conflicts where we set literally impossible goals for ourselves?! It’s just maddening.

          • ziggy zoggy

            None of your idiotic drivel is true. America can crush the Taliban with ease.

          • EarlyBird

            We can’t even distinguish the Taliban the from the average Afghani when our patrols go into a village. Even General Drakken would agree with that.
            Now, if you’re saying we could commit a nuclear holocaust in Afghanistan and kill every living creature in it at the press of a button, agreed. Win the assymetrical war being fought there is very, very tough, and it’s not Bush’s or Obama’s fault, the right or left’s fault.

          • Drakken

            You being a fanboy of the COIN manual which is a total goatf***.

          • Drakken

            We could have won, but to do so would take a little taste of Ghenges Khan to do so. It’s too bad our western sensibilities can’t handle it.

          • EarlyBird

            “We could have won, but to do so would take a little taste of Ghenges Khan to do so. It’s too bad our western sensibilities can’t handle it.”
            Colonel Ripper,

            This bulls**t is why I suspect you’re not really in the field fighting anybody. If you were, you would understand that these very low intensity counter-insurgency campaigns aren’t won by simply using enough fire power. If it was the case, the Soviets would have won.

          • Drakken

            They were winning until we got dragged into it you dolt. The only bulls*** being spouted is you running your mouth about subjects you just have feelings for instead of cold harsh facts.

          • EarlyBird

            Goes to show how ignorant you are of the realities of the type of war that is going on there. If the difference between the Soviets winning and losing was the introduction of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, they were losing.

          • Drakken

            I am very aware of what happened there, sorry to burst your little bubble, but the Russians were winning because they were bleeding that country dry of bodies, until Charlie Wilson got involved.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s not worth preventing the Taliban from shooting kids and burning women in Afghanistan if it requires the US to commit fiscal suicide in the process.”

            You blow me away. Don’t you realize these compromises cost many times higher then simply going in as I explained to you months ago? It would have been over before Iraq started AND the insurgents would have known we don’t play leftists games. The whole world, realistically, would see that we are not divided by leftist lunatic ideas and we don’t play with terrorists. It would have cost less blood and treasure, not to mention time.

            And all of this has a residual effect on the global economy. Everything would be better today if not for leftist lunatics trying to get revenge for the “hanging chad” or some other grievance they have with American sovereignty and any non-leftist politician.

          • EarlyBird

            OFM, what “compromises”?
            Not every conflict lends itself to full scale, total WWII-style war effort, followed by the administration of a Marshall Plan type rebuilding effort, especially Afghanistan post-9/11. It would have been a ludicrous amount of overkill.
            On a purely military basis we should have mauled the Taliban and Al Queda – and by that standard we had “won” by say, 2005. And then we should have brought our boys home and kept our powder dry.
            I think the supposed military “failure” by Bush has been blown way out of proportion; it was the desire to make Afghanistan safe for democracy which was not only futile, but a massive waste of money.
            The frustrating part of this war is that it is not just a matter of smashing enough things or killing enough people and we can say we “won.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Not every conflict lends itself to full scale, total WWII-style war effort, followed by the administration of a Marshall Plan type rebuilding effort, especially Afghanistan post-9/11. It would have been a ludicrous amount of overkill.”

            You’re kidding, right? We’re trying to accomplish the same thing with compromised missions and bribery instead of military dominance. We should have used enough force to win, for minimum destruction to achieve clear control. Then dictate our terms rather than spending years trying to bribe and flatter an enemy that isn’t convinced we could have done any better if we wanted to.

            What exactly do you think is going on over there year after year? We’re trying to use minimal force as a bluff, which just extends the pain over the years in the expectation they’ll give up.

            My way is cheaper, quicker and more convincing for the enemy that they ought to listen to us. And if they don’t want to listen, they go to prison.

            They’re our enemies but thanks to the left, we get accused of “demonizing” and “dehumanizing” them if we do anything but send armed men to the region.

            It’s one big parade since 0′Bama took charge. And Bush’s concerns about appeasing leftists meant that instead of achieving victory he left the door open for an evil enemy to win POTUS election.

            “The frustrating part of this war is that it is not just a matter of smashing enough things or killing enough people and we can say we “won.””

            Dude, it’s like you don’t pay attention. Kill 10 guys on Monday if that is what it takes so that you don’t have to keep killing 2 guys each day for 10 years. Do the math. Winning decisively is just, AND merciful.

          • EarlyBird

            You brain dead infant.

            I am not accusing you of being unmerciful; I am accusing you of being stupid of once again not understanding reality.

            EVEN IF we had killed ten times the amount of Taliban, we would not transform the country into a placid, pro- Western nation. THAT is the definition of ” win” in Afghanistan you stupid f—! We can not transform an alien culture.

            You stupid mother f—er!

            Oh and you call the Taliban an enemy of civilization! Yeah, the fate of civilization hinges on the defeat of a ragged band of bearded Islamists in the Hindu Kush. And you say I am the emotional one.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK. You’re not the emotional one.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “What?! “Crush the Taliban” to what purpose?”

        To destroy in irredeemable totalitarian enemy of civilization. More lives have been lost already because of our failure to do that. Innocent lives were lost to save the lives of the guilty. That’s before we even count the financial costs of such unjust, ill-advised mercy.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Bush screwed up when he did not crush the Taliban in the first place.

      Actually, Bush screwed up when he didn’t go after AQ only in retaliation for 9/11, as he had no damn business jumping into the middle of an ongoing jihad between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance based on stupid and idiotic premises about Islam, as both sides of the jihad are our enemies since all Muslims are the eternal enemies of all infidels. Had he had half a brain or at least had an ounce of conservatism in him, he would have duplicated what Reagan did in the Iran – Iraq War, which is aid both sides of the jihad to ensure the jihad lasted as long as possible. Indeed, Muslim on Muslim violence is very bad for the Dar al Islam, but very good for the Dar al Harb. As a matter of fact, that should also be America’s policy with respect to Syria as well.

      A defeat for the United States and in turn radical islam will rule the land once again in Afghanistan.

      What you mean a defeat? Afghanistan just like Iraq as well are the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history because they were based on absolutely ludicrous premises about Islam, like, for instance, radical Islam is hijacking moderate Islam. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as radical Islam, much less moderate Islam. Instead, there is only mainstream orthodox Islam and the fundamental sole purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is to subjugate all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia.

      Obama has done well in his eyes. Another notch in his belt for letting the radicals win.

      Bush was a loon and Obama is a bigger loon, but there are no such thing as radicals, just like there is no such thing as moderates either. Only mainstream orthodox Muslims, as all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.

      • EarlyBird

        “Actually, Bush screwed up when he didn’t go after AQ only in retaliation for 9/11,…”
        You’re exactly correct. We failed the moment it was turned into a nation building exercise where we put in a massive amount of troops on permanent bases, tried to build infrastructure and a new government, and attempt to transform an entire society to fit Western ideals which are entirely alien and anathema to Afghanis.
        We should have treated it entirely as a military operation focused on obliterating AQ and punishing the Taliban. Short and extremely violent, and come home.

  • UCSPanther

    I think we should just let the Chinese (or the Russians if they feel up for a rematch) have Afghanistan. I hear there are large mineral deposits there and the Chinese aren’t known to let “political correctness” or “human rights” get in the way when they get imperialist fever…

    • EarlyBird

      The Chinese are the only winners in Afghanistan. They have been mining massive copper deposits there, and the US military has been their de facto armed guards. Unbelieveable.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Completely unbelievable.

    • Drakken

      You just have to love the irony, when we leave and the Chinese go in, they will without hesitation give them a taste of Ghengis Khan. The leftist will go completely apes*** and cry and whine about human rights and violating the so called Geneva Conventions.

      • EarlyBird

        I don’t think they will go Genghis Khan. I think they’ll just play ball with the Taliban, pay whatever bakshish they need to keep extracting copper, and go home quietly to continue to build their economic might. The Chinese don’t care ’bout nuttin’ else.
        “The supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu
        They seem to be doing a great job of that lately.

        • ziggy zoggy

          The Chines don’t “play ball” in any of the countries they’re exploiting, their economic might is fictional and they absolutely are trying to dominate the world.
          All the writing attributed to “Sun Tzu” is idiotically obvious and so are you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The Chines don’t “play ball” in any of the countries they’re exploiting, their economic might is fictional and they absolutely are trying to dominate the world.”

            That’s true, but people will believe it until they collapse. Their economy is based on non-resilient investments that depend on, among other things, radical political corruption.

            I think that’s why they’re investing so much in offensive military capabilities. They’re expecting to have to make a move in grabbing natural resources they don’t currently control.

            The things they get away with in other regional nations is stuff Westerners don’t care about because they’re too busy fighting over carbon credits and BS like that, crying over “neo-colonialism” when they should be looking at China with those accusations.

            Again, all thanks to leftists.

            Thank you, thank you, 1000 times.

          • ziggy zoggy

            I agree. They will go trough Hell trying to keep what they grab but greedheads don’t care about that.

        • Drakken

          That is the problem right there, you don’t think. The Chinese nor the Russians for that matter play, any threat to them is met with a mailed fist, carry a mace. You can see how the Chinese operate in Africa whenever anything of their interest is threatened.

          • EarlyBird

            When was the last time China fire a shot in anger? I actually see the Chinese as simply totally without scruples and willing to do business with anyone which will help their interests. They are doing this throughout Africa and Central Asia. The moment a place becomes too difficult, and the cost/benefit ratio no longer works, they leave.

          • Drakken

            When was the last time China fired a shot in anger? You ain’t been to Africa where they are crawling all over the place.

          • EarlyBird

            They are all over Africa economically. They are fighting in Africa? No, they are not. (Oh, and let me guess: your work as a soldier of fortune has brought you to Africa.)

          • ziggy zoggy

            The Chinese mow down disgruntled Black African workers with machine guns, you racist TROLL.

          • EarlyBird

            And that makes you very happy, doesn’t it, Soggy, mowing down black people?

          • Drakken

            When you reach, you really go for it don’t you?

          • ziggy zoggy

            No, we are not going to give you a reach-around, GirlyBird. Whenever you trolls are forced to confront the contradictory stupidty of your memes, you fall back on even stupider projection and hypocricy – and of course, the accusatiion of racism.

          • defcon 4

            What about the enslavement and ethnic cleansing of black Africans from the Sudan by Arabic muslimes. I’ve never noticed you uttering a peep about that.

          • Drakken

            How can I put this as nicely as I can for a sniveling fool as you are. Yes the Chinese are fighting in Africa protecting their economic interest. Yes my experience has crossed paths with them and the Chinese have no problem whatsoever making a village or two disappear if it suits their purpose. They also have zero problem with making witnesses disappear. So please enlighten the rest of us with your superior experience and intellect, for it certainly enlightens the rest of us in its stunning capacity for feelings instead of facts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes the Chinese are fighting in Africa protecting their economic interest. Yes my experience has crossed paths with them and the Chinese have no problem whatsoever making a village or two disappear if it suits their purpose.”

            Just like all the other leftist regimes that have the power to get away with it.

          • EarlyBird

            I’ve noticed you have a lot of respect for the tactics of Nazis, Soviets and Red Chinese. You like it when villages and people disappear overnight and think it’s just fine that villages are wiped out for economic interest. Guess ol’ battle-hardedn “Gunny” “get’s it” and ain’t naive.
            And you sure have a lot of time to devote to a chat board for someone who’s on the pointed tip of the spear.

          • Drakken

            Far more time than you sitting in your lab watching a beaker. Some tactics work better than others and that is why my people come back and theirs don’t, so you go ahead apply westernern principles to Islamic savages, I’ll watch and laugh at you when it they don’t respond to kumbaya and a COEXIST sticker on a prius.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve noticed you have a lot of respect for the tactics of Nazis, Soviets and Red Chinese.”

            I’ve noticed you always miss the point. The point is that force works. The questions about justice are separate. Not that they’re invalid, they’re separate.

            We can potentially learn from any history. The fact that you try to score points with fake or real confusion is pathetic. You’re just determined to make us out as unjust. This serves the enemies of the USA. Thanks for your service, comrade.

            You’re entitled to your delusions and we’re entitled to bitch-slap you rhetorically for repeating them senselessly.

          • EarlyBird

            “…The point is that force works…”

            Force works when appropriately applied. Not all force or enemies are the same.

            Are you totally unaware of the difficulties of fighting an assymetrical war against home-grown insurgents 5,000 miles from home? Have you not yet become aware of why Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires? Do you think the armies of Alexander, Genghis Khan, Tsarist Russians, 19th Century Brits and 1980′s Soviet Union were ground to a pulp there because they were hippies, too dainty and unwillig to take the gloves off?
            “You’re just determined to make us out as unjust.”
            Not at all. Our mission and tactics could not be more moral or just. We probably bind ourselves with too many rules. My comment was to Drakken who was probably a gung ho marine in the ’80s who missed his war, and so spews childish fantasies about “mailed fists” and so on. Blech.

            Insurgencies are far, far different from conventional wars. There are only so many targets to bomb or shoot. We often can’t identify the Taliban amongst the locals. Tactically speaking there is very little more we can do – “tough” or otherwise – to win. Any general would tell you that insurgencies are the hardest wars to fight, because what makes one a “win” has a lot less to do with actually fighting the battles.

          • Drakken

            When you kill enough of them, they run out of bodies to throw at you, simple math.

          • EarlyBird

            Wrong again. Not a conventional army we’re fighting over there, Rambo. Many of the Afghans may have hated the Taliban, but they don’t feel “liberated” by the US military, either. It is not France, 1944. We don’t have – and won’t have unless we reinstate the draft and treat Afghanistan like the Axis – enough troops to fully hold and secure the entire country INDEFINITELY. It’s in fact far more difficult than liberating Europe and handing it back to Westerners with an economy, infrastructure, history of self government, etc. We’re starting from below zero ove there.

            The Taliban can and will wait us out. And every time we accidentally kill some kid while taking out an insurgent, another future insurgent grows, because we can not hold the country indefinitely.

          • Drakken

            Trying to use WW2 France as an example of how to fight an Islamic insurgency really shows that you have absolutely no idea wtf you are talking about. As you can plainly see the COIN manual of hearts and minds and suicidal ROE only emboldens them, as for killing a kid or 10 makes no difference to the savages for they hate us whatever we do.

          • EarlyBird

            YOU are the one suggesting we use WWII style “total war” to fight this particular enemy, not me, you idiot. Why don’t you go back to playing Medal of Honor or something.
            We. Can. Not. Transform. An. Entire. Culture.
            We can only hope to wipe out as much of the enemy as possible, and go home once the major military objective is achieved.
            We will never be able to pacify Aghanistan and get them to sing the Star Spangled Banner.
            Get it?

          • Drakken

            As per usual, you have completely missed the point and it went sailing completely over your pointy little head.

          • Drakken

            Genghis Khan won dumbass.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Force works when appropriately applied.”

            That’s what I’ve been saying. We as a nation can’t apply force appropriately because half of the nation hates our national sovereignty. Guess which half?

            “Are you totally unaware of the difficulties of fighting an assymetrical war against home-grown insurgents 5,000 miles from home?”

            Our problems are not technical. It’s asymmetrical in our favor! They only gain from us because of appeasers. Appeasers lose the wars for us.

            “My comment was to Drakken who was probably a gung ho marine in the ’80s who missed his war, and so spews childish fantasies about “mailed fists” and so on.”

            People get angry when justice can’t be served due to traitors and their dupes.Insurgencies are far, far different from conventional wars.

            “There are only so many targets to bomb or shoot. We often can’t identify the Taliban amongst the locals.”

            And therefore we should tie one hand behind the back of each American soldier? We should level the playing feild and basically follow the leftist playbook for running from the battle?

            Nobody is angry because of failure per se. We’re angry because Americans cause those failure.

            “Tactically speaking there is very little more we can do – “tough” or otherwise – to win.”

            Even if that was true (and it’s not), my point is that we should have destroyed them when they were physically isolated.

            We lost this war by letting them win. Because of leftist appeasement and the leftist agenda. We could change that at any time. Whether we should choose to starting today is another question, but we could if we chose to.

            The real war is here in the US between conservatives and globalists on the left. You’re sitting with the globalists while claiming loyalty to the USA, just like they do.

          • EarlyBird

            OFM, you’re angry at the reality of being unable to fight this particular type of war to a very clean WWII type victory where the enemy is fully annihilated and the resulting country is transformed.
            You think it’s just a deficient matter of will. I’m saying it’s a matter of physics have having set ourselves up for failure by the grandiose mission we created.

            Where we have encountered the enemy we have obliterated him (like in Vietnam). But we just don’t have enough troops to permanently hold the villages and valleys we clear out so that the transformation projects can take hold. The locals – even if they do no have divided allegiances – KNOW we can not stay there forever, and the Taliban will return or merely reassert itself.
            We are winning militarily; we are losing the transformation of the country – the ultimate victory – because it is physically and fiscally impossible for us to do so. We would need to reinstate the draft, create a WWII-style million man army and virtually adopt Afghanistan to achieve this type of victory.

            “Even if that was true (and it’s not), my point is that we should have destroyed them when they were physically isolated.”
            Will you at LEAST acknowledge that they ran across the border into Western Pakistan, where they remained virtually untouched until “Jihadist in Chief” Obama started wiping them out with drones? And that HE is the one who added far more troops that to mission to give it at least an glimmer of a chance of success, and that it is the pacifist left which considers him the “traitor” and a Nixonian figure in all of this?
            Geez man, everything with you is seen through the prism of the culture war. Amazing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You think it’s just a deficient matter of will. I’m saying it’s a matter of physics and having set ourselves up for failure by the grandiose mission we created in the first place.”

            Your opinions are based on delusion. The reason we had broad consensus in the West during WWII is because the Soviets instructed their agents to support the war. Once the Soviets decided we shouldn’t fight again, we were never united for any war. For the first Persian Gulf war, we got it over with quickly enough that the left couldn’t come up with reasons to rise up quickly enough.

            The rest of your comments are just superficial restatements of points I’ve already covered. It’s clear that these topics are too complicated for you to understand, so you stick to your “gut” opinions.

            “Will you at LEAST acknowledge that they ran across the border into Western Pakistan, where they remained virtually untouched until “Jihadist in Chief” Obama started wiping them out with drones? And that HE is the one who added far more troops (“the surge”) that to mission to give it at least an glimmer of a chance of success…”

            You’re easily impressed by kabuki theater politics.

            “…and that it is the pacifist left which considers him the “traitor” and a Nixonian figure in all of this?”

            Many of them are also easily impressed by kabuki theater politics.

            “Will you also admit that there are no ROEs that prevent us from winning the military conflict?”

            We’re not even trying to win. You’re insane.

            “What “arm tied behind our back”? Oh, we don’t get to actually drop tactical nukes on every village that a suspected Taliban lives in? You don’t say!”

            Do a little research before you shove your foot in your mouth over and over again.

            Yeah, troops are upset about not being able to return fire, because they want to use nuclear weapons. That’s the big controversy.

            “Geez man, everything with you is seen through the prism of the culture war.”

            This is how leftists perceive people who try to reason with them about war. War culture. Well, OK. War is real. Our culture should value the best possible approach to these realities.

            Our present day culture values delusion.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh you sad, silly little man!

            I provide an assessment of OBJECTIVE reality of what our country is facing in Afghanistan, a reality check on why you can’t have your fantasy happy ending, and you respond with blithering idiocy…Um…”The left!”

            Yeah. We can’t remake an entire culture and society a world away because, um…” the left!” Yeah, that’s it.

            You can’t POSSIBLY be as stupid as you pretend to be. NOBODY could be as deranged by partisanship as you are. And you wonder why I can’t take you seriously? You pathetic F***k!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You can’t actually comprehend what is written.

            “Yeah. We can’t remake an entire culture and society a world away because, um…” the left!” Yeah, that’s it.”

            Look at Germany and Japan today in contrast to the cultures that birthed tyranny. We did it right.

            Your ignorance is evidence of nothing more than that.

          • Drakken

            Read the effing rules of engagement in asscrackistan and you will see what a complete clusterf*** that it is, so no we cannot win with PC rules.

          • defcon 4

            Isn’t it strange how you indict nazis, soviets and the “Red Chinese” for their atrocities, but never have anything to say about the historical atrocities committed in the name of islam, much less the daily atrocities.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh, I know, DipCom, we need to constantly wail and gnash our teeth on this board about the horrors of Islamists.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The Chinese can do what they want thanks to the global left. They are the true heirs of all the Soviet groundwork.

          Wonderful.

        • OfficialPro

          Clearly you haven’t seen what the Chinese do to the Uighurs (who just happen to be …ding ding ding! MUSLIM!)

      • knowshistory

        leftists are silent when their friends are the ones violating human rights. that is why they are called leftists.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    Yup, the “confirmed unteachability of mankind”

    Peres, Clinton and Blair – The Unteachable Trio

    http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-unteachable-trio.html

  • Rosasolis

    The Afghan war is not coming to an end! It will continue until the Taliban has
    complete control of the whole country, and then it will go on to Pakistan.
    They will join forces with several other jihad groups to secure complete
    domination of Africa and the Middle-east. Europe will be their next target,
    followed by North and South America.
    It’s especially sad for all the International military men and women, many of whom
    have given their lives, or were wounded during the terrible battles with the Taliban
    while trying achieve freedom for this country.
    Does Obama, and his corrupt, and weak government really believe that they
    can achieve peace in Aghanistan, by having talks with primitive, uneducated
    men! Why would they choose to have any discussions with such aggressive men,
    instead of the official government of Afghanistan, which also has women in office?

    • AKEK

      But do you really believe that we can achieve peace in Afghanistan by occupying it for another 10, 20, 100 years?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “But do you really believe that we can achieve peace in Afghanistan by occupying it for another 10, 20, 100 years?”

        How long did it take for Japan to recover after WWII? Was it worth it? The difference is that the hippies were born too late to interfere. That’s what the problem is today. Leftist interference.

        • AKEK

          So our presence in Japan was similar to our presence in Afghanistan? And if we just stay in Afghanistan long enough it will eventually become Japan? I have to give you credit for your optimism.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Afghanistan doesn’t have to become Japan. It just needs to stay out of the hands of jihadi scum who want to kill us and will try their utmost to do so.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So our presence in Japan was similar to our presence in Afghanistan?”

            What makes you say that? I’m saying we should learn more lessons from our successes, so I’m saying the opposite of what you attribute to me.

            “And if we just stay in Afghanistan long enough it will eventually become Japan?”

            Yeah, it’s a timing thing. But only if all of the soldiers hand out enough flowers.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Handing Afghanistan to the Taliban is idiotic. Do you dispute that?

        • AKEK

          It’s not a good outcome, but is it worth _any_ price? I don’t think so. Since the answer to that question is obviously “no,” then no, it is not idiotic. I don’t think this is a matter of right and wrong, it is a matter of is it worth it? It is far from obvious that we or Afghanistan are better off for us being there for the past year, so what is going to be different next year? And even if it is better, the question of whether it is worth it is still a legitimate question.

          • ziggy zoggy

            America does not occupy Afghanistan and handing it to the Taliban is not a rational option.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It is far from obvious that we or Afghanistan are better off for us being there for the past year, so what is going to be different next year?”

            That depends on who is leading this nation.

        • shootist MP

          No. That trash heap will fester whether the US Army is there or not.. If the Mad Mullahs get out of hand there are plenty of B52 and 2000 lbs JDAMS to go around.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That trash heap will fester whether the US Army is there or not.. If the Mad Mullahs get out of hand there are plenty of B52 and 2000 lbs JDAMS to go around.”

            The dumbest thing in the world is nation-building on behalf of jihadis. There are lots of ways to be stupid, but this is unprecedented.

            Should we have given the Nazis a “do over?” This isn’t a board game.

      • Rosasolis

        Although the official government of Afghanistan is struggeling
        and weak, compared to the Taliban, they now need more than
        ever support from the Western World. If the Taliban were to
        achieve their ultimate goal — a complete takeover, daily life in
        Afghanistan and its neighbouring countries, would become an
        even worse nightmare than it now is. These TERRORISTS
        will force the primitive and very cruel Sharia Law upon all people.
        Women and girls will have no hope for any kind of life, except
        to be used for breeding as many sons as possible for the Jihad.
        Do you remember Malala, that intelligent 11 year old little girl in
        Pakistan who was brutally attacked byTaliban terrorists on her way to school? This is what girls and women are facing everywhere in the Middle-east! America does not occupy
        Afghanistan! But if several countries keep on supporting the
        official government, there could be a future for the people of
        this country. This could take 5 – 10 years to achieve, while
        more men and women receive education and are able to
        lead this country into the 21C.
        Supporting the Taliban will only lead to more terrorist actiivities.
        Many more young girls and women will face the same as
        Malala, and even worse.
        And all the years of help that America, Netherlands, and other countries have given to Afghanistan will be wasted!

  • Mitch Paeglow

    Afghanistan = Vietnam.2 Why is it that DemLibs love turning victory into defeat?
    They love to rail about American troop losses and the resulting terrible tragedy- But the REAL tragedy is their mocking the troops’ sacrifice by destroying every gain that their blood purchased. Liberty lost is only regained with the spilling of innocent blood. How many times does history have to repeat itself for them to learn?

    • ApolloSpeaks

      Vietnam 3. 2 was Iraq.

      • Mitch Paeglow

        I stand corrected. Actually, in my mind I kind of blend the two, despite the subtleties.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Any war is “Vietnam” ever since the hippies took over speaking for communists and globalists every time the USA defends its interests and sovereignty.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Obama and his Dems are handing over a victory in Afghanistan the same way the Dems did in Vietnam but the similarities end there. The Taliban were overthrown in short order and US casualties in Afghanistan are about 1% of the casualties incurred in Vietnam. Ho Chi Mihn and his commies NEVER intended to attack on American soil but the islamopithecine Taliban do.

      • Mitch Paeglow

        Points well taken ZZ. My comparison specifically refers to the DemLibs (DimLibs?) insistence in stealing victory from US soldiers and handing victory to this nation’s enemies.

        • ziggy zoggy

          I definitely agree with that. =D

    • Snorbak

      I remember saying when it was 1st decided to go into Afghanistan that this was going to be the “mother of all f%#k ups”.
      You are correct in that Afghanistan is no different to Vietnam in that we are fighting an insurgency made up almost entirely of volunteers whereby, you kill one & another jumps in to replace him, kill 100 & another 100 replace them. The difference is that this time around the enemy is not fighting for their country rather, a hate driven ideology that places no value on human life & which teaches death in battle brings great reward.
      In a conventional war you would target infrastructure, electrical & communication networks, military & government installations etc however, in Afghanistan these do not exist & you need to target the Taliban directly, a near impossible task when the enemy looks like your friend!
      It would seem that the US & its allies learned nothing from Russia’s disastrous foray several decades ago with the end result being no different. To win we would need to be utterly ruthless, be prepared to accept high civilian casualties & weather the inevitable media backlash that would surly follow, in addition to killing almost everyone.
      We entered the war with no clearly defined objectives & rules of engagement defined by PC, of course it was going to be a disaster. The real tragedy is that so many have died for so little gain.

      • knowshistory

        in afghanistan, our enemy does not look like our friend. every afghan is a muslim, and every muslim is an enemy. how difficult could that be to understand? we should never send even one soldier to a place that is 100% enemy unless we have the intention to kill 100% of the enemy. we do not have the nerve to do so, therefore we should stay out of enemy countries. on the other hand, we could gain a stunning victory in the 1400 year war on civilization waged by our muslim enemies if we would just expel all muslims from our country. unfortunately, we dont have the survival instincts to do even that easy task, but our islamic enemies certainly do. they are busy expelling, or in most cases killing, everyone that is not muslim. if we do not learn from them, we will be genocided by them. i am betting on genocided.

        • Snorbak

          Islam is at war with everyone, including themselves, only after the West accepts this fact will we have any chance of doing something about it. A quick look at the problems being faced by most if not all of Europe is what we can expect, & worse.

      • Drakken

        The Russians were winning until we were stupidly dragged in and gave those bloody savages stinger missiles. We can win in asscrackistan, it will just take a more medieval approach which the west can’t stomach anymore.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    IN THE SHADOW OF RICHARD NIXON

    Not only is the mendaciously Nixonian Barack Obama the first president since Richard Nixon to inherit an unpopular war from a president of the opposing party (both Bush and LBJ were Texans by the way) but like Nixon with the Vietnam Commies in Paris Obama seems eager to conclude a peace with Taliban Islamists that guarantees their victory and return to power. As with Nixon there will be no promised “Peace With Honor” for Obama.

  • The Dead Critic

    God commands us to love everyone…including our enemies. How quickly we forget that. Just because we are in negotiations with our enemy, doesn’t mean anything other than just that. Lets use COMMON SENSE for the moment people. We can always bomb them into another stone age later…..

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Just because we are in negotiations with our enemy, doesn’t mean anything other than just that.”

      But accepting their deadly lies as sincere is treasonous.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “We can always bomb them into another stone age later”

      Let them try to bleed us out while lying to us first?

    • ziggy zoggy

      God hasn’t been tasked with the responsibility to protect America but the President has – and God never prohibited just war.

  • Mitch Paeglow

    BTW: Did anyone here see 2016: Obama’s America? Dinesh D’Souza is being vindicated daily. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, now Syria, soon Turkey, ad nauseam – The Caliphate is forming, due in large part to Obama’s policies.

    Q: Is allowing your enemy* to win, effectively any different from aiding and abetting them…And is that not treason? What about direct material support (guns, ammo, taxpayer $$$, Stinger missles, etc.) to your enemy?

    *They’ve sworn themselves as our enemies – not my distinction.

    • WhiteHunter

      Yes, I saw “2016″ when it came out last summer. Frightening. And D’Sousa’s grim vision of our decline and destruction at Obama’s hands is already starting to come true, one ominous click of the ratchet at a time.

  • Bob_from_Iowa1

    Obama never had any intention of fighting his muslim brothers. He proved that fact when he didn’t call for a rescue attempt at Benghazi. He can’t bare to have muslim blood shed on his watch. Too bad he doesn’t think the same for the Americans who have given their lives for this Country. Obama needs to be given a cap pistol, dropped off in Afghanistan, and allowed to negotiate with his Taliban brothers.

    • EarlyBird

      Gee, Bob. Let’s see:
      Obama added 30,000 troops to “surge” in Afghanistan and pushed the Taliban from many parts of the south and east of that country which it then controlled.
      He increased drone strikes inside Pakistan against AQ and Taliban by over 100% from the Bush days and decimated that organization, enraging radical Islamists inside Pakistan.
      He authorized the killing of OBL.
      He has authorized drone strikes against AQ in Yemen and elsewhere.
      And on and on. He was far, far, more effective against radical Islamist terrorists than his predecessor, but he’s the one who “never had any intention of fighting his Muslim brothers.”

      You got some ‘splaining to do, Bob.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Gee, Bob. Let’s see: Obama added 30,000 troops to “surge” in Afghanistan and pushed the Taliban from many parts of the south and east of that country which it then controlled.”

        Added troops to do what? He didn’t push any enemy anywhere. He sent them to kiss butt.

        “He increased drone strikes inside Pakistan against AQ and Taliban by over 100% from the Bush days and decimated that organization, enraging radical Islamists inside Pakistan.”

        That doesn’t legitimately replace troop action on the ground. At all.

        You’re such a sucker for lying jihadis like your POTUS.

        • EarlyBird

          Here are some objective facts which expose the paranoid idiocy of Obama being a friend of Islamists:
          Obama added 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan (the “surge”), and got them out of their bases and into the field to fight, and as a result took control of about 1/3 of the country (mostly in the east) which had been virtually untouched by the US under Bush.
          Obama authorized over six times the amount of drone strikes in Pakistan (and Yemen and elsewhere) in his first 4 years than Bush did in his 8, and as a result the remaining AQ and Taliban inside Pakistan have been stacking up like cordwood.
          He authorized a much greater CIA effort inside Pakistan to hunt down AQ (including OBL and multiple top leaders) and Taliban, and it’s been devastating.
          He has authorized secret Special Ops actions in an estimated 23 different countries to counter assorted Islamist terror groups.
          All which shows why you deserve nothing but mockery for your stupid, wretched lies about him being some friend of Islamists. (You think you’re some serious, objective thinker! My God!) You ridiculous mother f***er.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Obama Osama has strengthened jihadist regimes throughout the islamopithecine wastelands and destroyed secular regimes throughout them. The Muslim brotherhood is his favorite NGO and he lets its subhuman members spread jihad straight from the White house. Everything you paste is ridiculous taqiyah. You ridiculous bendover.

          • WW4

            I imagine your strategy amounts to “nuke ‘em all?”

          • ziggy zoggy

            Try using reading comprehension instead of imagination. Not that using strategic nukes when necessary is an outrageous idea.

          • defcon 4

            Erlyturd is a relatively sophisticated member of the religious species Ratticus Jihadicus.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Here are some objective facts which expose the paranoid idiocy of Obama being a friend of Islamists:
            Obama added 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan (the “surge”), ”

            And what are those troops doing? Do you understand that politicians can move chess pieces around to give people like you non-salient facts to throw around in their defense? Do you understand this Mr. Dupe?

            “…and got them out of their bases and into the field to fight, and as a result took control of about 1/3 of the country (mostly in the east) which had been virtually untouched by the US under Bush.”

            You don’t even know what you’re talking about. It’s political theater.

            “He authorized a much greater CIA effort inside Pakistan to hunt down AQ (including OBL and multiple top leaders) and Taliban, and it’s been devastating.”

            Devastating only to his reputation, not to the jihadis. These are guys that want to die. I wonder why 0′Bama has to pick the targets personally? Maybe he reviews their suicide tapes first to make sure they’re ready for their role. Or perhaps he gets a list from the Saudis, who is OK to kill. If he can’t delegate it, what does that say? Considering everything else we know, it’s not good at all.

            “He has authorized secret Special Ops actions in an estimated 23 different countries to counter assorted Islamist terror groups.”

            With permission of the Saudis and MB. Fighting enemies of the Sunnis.

          • WW4

            “With the permission of the Saudis”

            I’m sorry, this is news to you after it’s been SOP for 50 years?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m sorry, this is news to you after it’s been SOP for 50 years?”

            The only SOP we’ve consistently had with the Saudis can be found in our treaties. Presidents have been duped by them to various degrees since 1945.

            No, it’s not news to me. It’s news to many people. And even those who know a little bit need to know more, like how long it’s been going on.

            Hint: 1945 was almost 70 years ago.

      • ziggy zoggy

        “He authorized the killing of OBL.’
        That is the only thing you pasted that is true. Too bad authorizing the killing of some impotent old man watching Asian porn wasn’t an accomplishment in any way, especially considering that the SEALS were ordered to capture him but wisely chose to snuff him instead.
        Your Obamessiah is trying to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban – and you’re feeling a tingle down your leg.

      • knowshistory

        what choice did the muslim in chief have? when handed the opportunity to kill obl, he could have gone with his heart, and tipped off the pakis, and saved his soulmate. this would have resulted, even in dhimmi america, in the impeachment of the first muslim in chief. so clearly, letting obl live was not possible. so you want to give credit to the m-i-c when he had no choice? obl had to take one for the team. obama is a much greater threat to america than obl ever was.

        • EarlyBird

          Does your mommy know that you’re on this chat board?

          • knowshistory

            does your mommy know you are throwing another tantrum?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Does your impotent Saudi master know that you are a complete failure as a Fatima troll?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Does your mommy know that you’re on this chat board?”

            You’ve never been able to come anywhere close to answering that question: What choice did the muslim in chief have?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Who’s your daddy?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Birdy, birdy birdy. You always lose.

          • defcon 4

            Is your imam or mullah kissing little boys in your mosque?

          • defcon 4

            Is your imam or mullah kissing little boys in your mosque?

      • nightspore

        So you really think Obama is our own Charles Martel … You’ve just shown your true colors with this bizarre outburst.

        • EarlyBird

          I notice that when these wingnuts state that Obama is an AQ agent or fellow jihadist, and I show them just the short list of facts – hard evidence – that utterly refute their ridiculous claim, they don’t respond, or respond with name calling or some non-sequitor. (And I admit I had to look up Charles Martel.)

          • ziggy zoggy

            I notice when you harem girl trolls cant derail a talking thread with your retarded attempts, you post comments nobody will ever read long after everybody else has moved on. That way you can fool your degenerate paymasters into thinking you got the last word. BITCH.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I notice that when these wingnuts state that Obama is an AQ agent or fellow jihadist, and I show them just the short list of facts – hard evidence – that utterly refute their ridiculous claim, they don’t respond,”

            Your “facts” are only compelling in your simple deluded mind

            “And I admit I had to look up Charles Martel.”

            Not surprising at all. You’ve probably forgotten already.

          • Drakken

            Your effing with those facts shows you don’t understand simple facts. Obummers policies in the far and middle east are FUBAR period. If you cannot plainly see what is directly in front you means your either ignorant or blind. So which is it?

  • EarlyBird

    Kids, the war was lost the moment it was turned into a nation building exercise. It should have been about annihilating Al Queda and coming home immediately, period. Even attempting to remove the Taliban was not necessarily a good idea.

    “Was that what we were fighting for?” Who KNOWS what we were fighting for? Attempting to build a nation with some semblance of popular self government based on basic Western notions of human rights in Afghanistan was as much of a pipe dream as building Disneyland on Mars. It wasn’t going to happen.
    And so, here we are negotiating with our enemy because we have lost the war BY OUR OWN STANDARDS, because we set ourselves up for an impossible mission.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Kids”

      Troll, you should come here to learn, not lecture.

      • EarlyBird

        The only thing I’ve learned on Front Rage Rag so far is the poisonous effects of being fed a constant diet of fear, resentment, conspiracy theories, partisanship, bitterness, rage and lies. I’ve learned the power of genuinely wicked propagandists to manipulate the most base fears and bigotries of the demented, far right wing.

        This place is just the flip side of some left wing radical Socialist Worker’s Anarchist site.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Projection only works on the retarded.

        • knowshistory

          and you are the one to tell us about left wing radical socialist sites.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “The only thing I’ve learned…”

          Is how to blame others for your own shortfalls.

        • defcon 4

          It’s hilarious that you indict us, for the vices that are owned by the ideology of islam. Vices that are on display on practically a daily basis, all over the world. Yet you never have a cross word for islamo-nazis or the ideology they subscribe to.

          • EarlyBird

            Because I am not speaking to Islamo-fascists. This board is not populated by them. By the way, there are hard core lefties who fit the description you responded to, also.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “…because we set ourselves up for an impossible mission.”

      It’s impossible to appease leftists or jihadis. That was the failed mission.

    • ziggy zoggy

      The Taliban harbored Al Qaeda (just one jihadist terrorist group among thousands) and Bush was right to overthrow them and remove the breeding ground. It was never about nation building.

      • EarlyBird

        I almost feel embarrassed for you:

        From George W. Bush’s memoir (“memoir” is a fancy word for memories written down) “Decision Points” –
        “Afghanistan was the ultimate nation building mission. We had liberated the country from a primitive dictatorship, and we had a moral obligation to leave behind something better. We also had a strategic interest in helping the Afghan people build a free society,” because “a democratic Afghanistan would be a hopeful alternative to the vision of the extremists.”

        • ziggy zoggy

          I don’t feel the bit embarrassed for you. “Euphemism” is a fancy word for replacing an objectionable word or phrase with a milder one.
          Harem Troll.

  • Titus Greenwood

    The ONLY WAY to win a war in Afghanistan or anywhere else, is to KILL so many of the enemy, that they conclude that continuing their opposition is no longer possible. Sorry, but that’s the way WAR works! The US never entered the war in Afghanistan or Iraq with the intention to WIN! VICTORY was never in Bush’s lexicon, and it certainly is not in 0bama’s. The US is attempting to dazzle our enemies with “social awareness” and political correctness. The enemy is NOT impressed! The blood and treasure squandered in the Middle East has been for NOTHING! The US is fully capable to win any war. However, there is no political or popular commitment to any sort of victory!

    • ziggy zoggy

      I agree. The scum Alexander eradicated over there were every bit as noxious as the Taliban and they have been extinct now for over 2000 years. Git er done.

      • knowshistory

        alexander didnt eradicate anyone. he conquered, then was assimilated into the conquered society.

        • ziggy zoggy

          don’tknowshistory,

          Alexander absolutely exterminated the Bactrian “culture” and he died of a fever after he Hellenized every wimpy society he conquered except the last one – and he would have Hellenized that one and every other all the way to the Pacific ocean if his men hadn’t started crying to go home.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “alexander didnt eradicate anyone. he conquered, then was assimilated into the conquered society.”

          He eradicated all of those who would not submit. That’s not a bad plan under the circumstances….fighting a totalitarian enemy known to play possum any time they can get away with it.

  • shootist MP

    Dang it, has Perpetual War™ replaced the Cold War in the hearts of Hawks and Industrialists everywhere? Perpetual War™ has brought us DHS/TSA and an enhanced NSA. Is that what we want? Do we really need to become some parody of 1984 where the government watches everything and everyone? Security is an illusion. Only freedom is real.

    WWII caused the US to build a large standing Army (the bane of a Republic). The Cold War caused the US to set aside many liberties and freedoms to protect us all from Nuclear Annihilation or Communist domination. We won both.

    Time to shut down NATO. Time to tell Japan and South Korea that we cheer democracy everywhere but are the guardians only of our own.

    No matter what the terrorists do, they cannot destroy this nation. But an over-reaching Security Surveillance State can, and WILL.

    End perpetual war. Bring our service people home. Shutter the DHS/TSA carnival of fools. Point Central Intelligence and NSA outward, not inward.

    There is nothing more poisonous to a Republic than a large standing army and Perpetual War™.

    Thank you.

    • ziggy zoggy

      America was founded and is maintained through military strength – just like every other nation in history. That has nothing to do with Obama spying on dissidents.

      • shootist MP

        No America wasn’t founded on military strength. Our Continental Army was tiny.

        For most of our history the Army was tiny, <350,000 men. Only during times of War was it allowed to grow.

        The Cold War/Korea/Vietnam changed that. We compromised many freedom, many liberties to fight the Cold War. And we won the Cold War. Time to send the Legions home again.

        If the Mad Mullahs™ again decide to destroy our infrastructure and kill our people we can wipe them from the planet's surface. The US does not need a large standing army. It is a threat to our freedom.

        • ziggy zoggy

          America won the Revolutionary War. A large standing army is our best hope of stopping an out of control federal government and its enforcers. The same civil enforcement goons that Obama has been trying to make more powerful than our standing army.

          • shootist MP

            What?! With Obama firing all the Generals and Admirals and appointing new ones who support his ideals? With officers being asked if they could order their troops to fire on American citizens, and being relieved of command if they say no?

            No. You are deluded. Go study some history. Look to the fate of Republics, all Republics, that developed a large standing army. They because Empires under a dictator.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Obama has been staffing the upper echelons of our military with bureaucratic scum, but the rank and file will never attack their own country. Did the Greek polity fall because it developed a large standing army? The Roman republic? Britain? France? Germany? America?
            Who is deluded here?

          • shootist MP

            those rank and file you speak of? they are sworn to carry out the order of those appointed above them. No Sgt or Prt will disobey a possibly illegal order.

          • Drakken

            The Constitution is the highest authority, if Obummer gives and order to fire on Americans, it will be considered an illegal order, thus not followed.

          • shootist MP

            Good luck with that.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Most soldiers hate the Fraud in Chief.

          • shootist MP

            Which certainly explains why the introduction of open homosexuality has been such a rousing success.

          • ziggy zoggy

            They are sworn to defend America against all its enemies, andObama’s moles aren’t likely to last any longer than he will.

          • shootist MP

            If you’re, either of you, worried about Obama you’re worried about the wrong guy.

            Republics and their traditions don’t usually fall overnight, the transition to a dictator, or plutocracy is a gradual thing (like Echelon leading to the Patriot Act took +20 years).

            What Clinton/Bush/Obama have done is pave the way for a future President to do as she will with our freedoms. You might be dead of old age before it happens but Republics don’t survive becoming Empires.

            End the WoT™, bring the troops home.
            End the police surveillance state: Re-elect no one until DHS/TSA are disbanded.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Soldiers have been disobeying orders since the first army was formed.

  • chhelo

    Any war you have to negotiate your way out of should never been fought in the first place. The only moral wars are the ones so violent and effective the enemy can never regroup for another one.

  • Ellman48

    Obama may think he’s playing Santa Claus when he is really playing the Village Idiot.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “”He authorized the killing of OBL.’ That is the only thing you pasted that is true.”

    Kind of. He had no way to prevent the killing of OBL. It was a sacrifice all of the Sunni jihadis agreed had to happen at some point.

    Or what? 0′Bama would stomp his feet at a press conference and let everyone know that in fact he is on the side of the enemy?

    “Your Obamessiah is trying to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban – and you’re feeling a tingle down your leg.”

    I think this leftist maroon just gets off arguing with people.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Yeah, Osama was snitched off by his own species of jihadis because he had become an embarrassing burden and a hindrance.
      Obama stamping his dainty little feet would not have helped strengthen the ummah.

      I think the leftist maroon is PAID to argue with people, and you’re right about her getting off on it.

      Ain’t that right, girlybird?

    • WW4

      I love how you guys are so into Obama’s “secret” motivations that only you can magically interpret. “Obama kills terrorists? Well, that’s because he…” “Obama had OBL killed? Well, that’s because he…” You have an excuse for everything Obama does right. It’s cute! And of course, everything else is the magical “media”s fault, for not going along with every irrational, paranoid speculation you invent every day to explain why this man is still president. And still we poor sheeple re-elected him despite your precious insights! Whether it’s a birth certificate, those all-important college transcripts, or the non-existent scandals (can’t wait for the latest on those! ooo what will Rush and Ailes invent for us to be mad about today?) that give you babies a reason to get up in the morning, it’s always another excuse to do what you do best: whine, cry, and play the victim while the grown ups try to fix the mess you made.

      • ziggy zoggy

        After 8 years of mindless BDS, you moonbats now accuse rational people of ODS because we cant help but notice that he’s a destrutive criminal who has done more to strn jiad

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “I love how you guys are so into Obama’s “secret” motivations that only you can magically interpret.”

        The motives of adversaries are usually secret. No magic involved. If you’ve got better evidence than we do, please share if it contradicts the theories you object to.

        “Obama kills terrorists? Well, that’s because he…”

        If you look at the entire scope of the conversation, the “fact” that he simply didn’t prevent jihadis from being killed is not compelling evidence considering his other statements and policy decisions.

        It’s not like his actions with drones combined with the fate of OBL “on his watch” are the only indicators we have. That’s the weak contradictory evidence that 0′Bama opposes sharia rule wherever Muslims claim it.

        The point in context is that politics are all about getting the results in the most effective manner you can manage based on your end goals. Some times deception is involved. See Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”

        0′Bama has not done a single thing to oppose the MB or Sunni efforts to build a global caliphate. The fact that OBL wanted those things too, and that 0′Bama allowed the plans to go forward to kill him is NOT compelling evidence that contradicts everything else he has done for the MB and Sunni global caliphate.

        0′Bama has not lifted a finger against any jihadis. It might look that way through a pinhole because of public posturing, but his agenda was decided with jihadis even before he arrived in the Whitehouse. But you can just listen to Jay Carney and accept everything he says uncritically and you can scoff at any contradictory suggestions. It’s still a free country.

        It’s true that you have to look outside of this website for all of the objective evidence, but those of us who are familiar with the evidence don’t feel compelled to include URLs for comprehensive analysis every time we make a comment on the subject. If you want help finding it, that’s fine. If you just want to argue, that’s OK too. Do whatever you want, like everyone else does. We can’t force you to look at anything, never mind having you do it objectively.

        “You have an excuse for everything Obama does right.”

        You haven’t actually established that he’s done anything “right.” You’ve just established that you are very skeptical of skeptics and have rose colored glasses for your messiah POTUS.

        “And of course, everything else is the magical “media”s fault, for not going along with every irrational, paranoid speculation you invent every day to explain why this man is still president.”

        What’s your fixation with “magic?” Even most members of the mainstream media admit that they’re liberals, leftists, DC party members, etc. Even members of the media admit they are biased. They can’t put that in the headlines, but when they’re cornered a lot of them admit it as obliquely as they can manage to, but they realize that to deny it is not credible.

        “Whether it’s a birth certificate, those all-important college transcripts, or the non-existent scandals…”

        Sorry, you lost all credibility. Non-existent scandals?

        OK lunatic. Carry on.

        “…whine, cry, and play the victim while the grown ups try to fix the mess you made.”

        You’re typical of the brainwashed radical wannabes. Totally clueless repetition of hypocritical accusations. 0′Bama has not done anything to fix anything for this nation. He’s done a lot for its enemies. If that makes you happy, then you’ve identified yourself as an enemy of US sovereignty and all of the values that made us successful.

  • BeagleDawg

    WHAT WOULD YOOU EXPECT FROM A COMMANDER AND CHIEF WHO HAS NEVER WORN A UNIFORM OR FACED AN ENEMY IN COMBAT. HE HAS NO BUSINESS MAKING DECISIONS FOR THE MILITARY. SD

  • cultureisa birthright

    trying to shoot dead the principles of Islam in one of its fiercest core nations will not do the trick.
    You cannot shoot principles.
    But you can, for example, stop knowledge transfer to Islam by banning it from university campusses. You can use your technological headstart as leverage for oil-producing nations while getting at least a bit more frantic with regard to new energies.

    And harsly sanction every f+++g case of religious persecution.

    • Mark Hensley

      So, maybe we can do the same thing with the Christian rightwing too.

      • defcon 4

        Duh, how many atrocities have been committed by the Christian right lately ‘tard? How many Christians are calling for the imposition of worldwide Christian theocracy and the slaughter of unbelievers again?

        • Mark Hensley

          Ony about 12 million Amercan Indians. The millions during the witchhunts. And the religious right are the biggest threat to the Unites states. And the constant attack on Muslim countries, so we can take their oil, speaks volumes. How about we mind our own business and stop creating enemies.
          Btw, the bike also says, I’ll non-believers:
          “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” — Dt.13:6-10

          • Drakken

            Hey dumbass, we are atalking about the here and now, not 100 years ago. You effing libtards never fail to amaze me with your utter stupidity.

          • Mark Hensley

            You are obviously the result of the poor education standards of republican states.

          • Drakken

            Coming from a liberal/progressive/communist like you, I’ll take it as a compliment.

          • Charlie97

            I love the fact that people like you feel that words such as liberal or progressive are perjorative terms. Unlike you who are illiberal and regressive. Imbecile…

          • Drakken

            What’s the matter muzzy? That skull cap getting a little tight on your grape? If western civilization is regressive, I am as guilty as charged.

          • Charlie97

            You do not equate to the entirety of Western Civilization, you arrogant pillock. It is you who are regressive, not Western Civilization.

          • Drakken

            Look in the mirror Sparky, your islam is of the dark ages and your devils religion will spark a very nasty Balkans.

          • Charlie97

            Your mother…a pity she didn’t keep her legs closed…

          • Charlie97

            Muzzy? That the best you got?

          • Drakken

            Better than anything you got arselifter.

          • Charlie97

            Arselifter? What is that? Some crappy homophobic jibe?

          • Drakken

            You muslims do love the boys young and act accordingly.

          • Charlie97

            You keep bringing up your favourite subjects? Arselifting, young boys…
            Is there something on your mind? Here’s an article that might interest you, Billy boy…
            http://bit.ly/kaDoMh

          • Charlie97

            What do you mean by “act accordingly”? If you’re trying a clever put-down, you may have inadvertently exposed your own feelings towards little boys. Thicko.

          • Drakken

            What’s the matter muzzy, the local bacha bazi boy spurn your advances, perhaps the nearest goat would be more to your liking.

          • Charlie97

            Again, you bring up your favourites. Goats a particular fetish of yours, Billy boy?

          • Drakken

            Projection just isn’t your forte headbanger.

  • spyeatte

    The Taliban will take the Hitler comment as a compliment.

  • EarlyBird

    “It makes it hard for you to talk about ideology as always benign just because.”

    “Ideology as always benign?” What in the world?
    Ideology, typically created by self-styled victims, has created the greatest evil in the world. Add to Nazism, communism and Islamism, things like just endless grudges between tribes, sects, and ethnicities (“cycles of violence”) which keep constantly on-going civil wars aflame around the world for centuries. To me, ideologies born out of the sense – right or wrong – of victimhood are the most responsible for evil in the world.

    The world is about “ideology.” There is a WORLD of difference between classic liberal Western values and the abomination of Islamism, etc. And our values and way of life are absolutely worth fighting for and killing our enemies to save.
    The difference between you and me is that you want to fight stupidly, and I want to fight smartly. In your world, as long as the US has a righteous mission (and in this instance we do 1,000%) there are apparently no costs to consider, and anything other than WWI-style warfare is weak and “liberal.”
    Sorry, but this is a frustrating conflict and it’s not about obliterating enough enemy soldiers or tanks and putting up the flag. Other than the chance of some AQ nut getting a hold of a WMD, I’m far, far, more concerned agout us becoming our own worst enemy in this fight. You represent well-intentioned but stupid instincts.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Ideologies are responsible for the greatest evil in the world. Add to Nazism, communism and Islamism, things like just endless grudges between tribes…”

      You can’t make up your mind. Or you are very easily confused. When we talk about ideology and try to deconstruct problems of today, you call us “haters” and bloodsucking vampires.

      “The difference between you and me is that you want to fight stupidly, and I want to fight smartly.”

      That’s just because you’re smarter than me.

      “Sorry, but this is a frustrating conflict and it’s not about obliterating enough enemy soldiers or tanks and putting up the flag. If only!”

      It’s about obliterating the enemy in the optimal time and place. We already killed too many because we were constantly worried about killing too many on any given day. Your models for reality are too simple.

      “Other than the chance of some AQ nut getting a hold of a WMD, I’m far, far, more concerned agout us becoming our own worst enemy in this fight and committing suicide.”

      Your model is too simple. You don’t get it The terrorists are there to drive the appeasers in to constantly making concessions. Of course they alone can’t harm us collectively any more than driving cars with under-inflated tires can. It’s the concessions that kill us no matter how many or how few we kill.

      Once you start the war, failing to win decisively means giving in.

      We reward terrorists. We cause our own problems here in this country. And the salient is the line between leftists and realists. You’re not a realist because your models are not realistic. You just wish you were the realist. Everyone does. Most are deluded. Nobody tries to be deluded.