As a retired military officer I can’t believe anyone is giving Johnny Boy any credibility. Does anyone think JK is a great military strategist capable of developing the tactical and strategic plans needed to win a war? Based on his past history, the only decision we can expect from him is how to cut and run. When I think of JK as being part of an organization, I don’t think of the military, but rather with his fellow traitors like Hanoi Jane. Now he’s a member of Congress and of late I have really started to question some of those folks patriotism also. Guess that’s why he feels right at home.

We are about to repeat the history of Vietnam all over again and JK can’t or won’t see he is helping to set the stage for failure in Afghanistan. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for victory at all costs. If it is in our national interests to be in Afghanistan, then do what it takes to win. On the other hand, if Afghanistan is a lost cause, then withdraw and bring our people home.

Which is why Obama’s comments at NAS Jax are so ridiculous. “[Before 3,500 members of the military and their families in a hangar at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Obama said U.S. troops deserve a clear strategy and full support to fulfill their mission. “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,” Obama said to loud applause. “And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt.”]” All you have to do is change the location to see how absurd this sounds. Instead of Florida imagine the comments being made at any of the military bases in Afghanistan.

Hey mr. president! You have already sent people into harm’s way. You are already risking their lives. Now back up the first part of your statement with the second part … back them to the hilt. Quit figuring out ways to delay your decision and speaking flowery words to attempt to justify your lack of action. We in the military respect actions more then words … FISH or CUT BAIT!

Oral, of course, would be too slow.

Looks like the RedState health care professionals on duty here have responded efficiently and sent our patient off to a better place.

Given the track record of Antichrist identifications, extreme caution is in order. Besides, nothing in the prophetic passages I’ve read envisions any kind of role for today’s United States in the apocalypse

I don’t want to start a threadjack, though, so I’ll leave it at that.

They, after all, have posed more of a roadblock to teh Won’s plans than we have. Although the Tea Parties have certainly made some inroads on their intentions……

KABUL, Afghanistan — Attackers stormed a guest house in central Kabul on Wednesday morning, killing five people, including three United Nations staff members, according to a United Nations spokesman and an Afghan rescue official.

…The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, according to The Associated Press.

…On Tuesday, eight Americans died in combat in southern Afghanistan, bringing October’s total to 53 and making it the deadliest month for Americans in the eight-year war.

…In the attack on American forces on Tuesday, a Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, said Taliban fighters had blown up two armored vehicles carrying the troops near Zabul Province. He also said that the Taliban had engaged in a fierce firefight with the Afghan police in Zabul and killed eight officers.

And to answer your question, “How is Afghanistan different than Somalia, another lawless Islamic state packed with would-be terrorists?”

“Stability in Afghanistan is an imperative; if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or has insufficient capability to counter transnational terrorists – Afghanistan could again become a base for terrorism, with obvious implications for regional stability,” ~ General McChrystal

“Some people say, ‘Well, Al Qaeda’s no longer in Afghanistan.’ If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast Al Qaeda would be back in Afghanistan.” ~Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

“My greatest concern still is the ability of al Qaeda to use western Pakistan and Afghanistan as sanctuary.” ~FBI Director Robert Mueller

President Obama himself said our goal is to eliminate Al Qaeda and similar terrorists globally, including taking on anybody who provides them with material support.

This overlaps what President GW Bush was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but still represents a departure from the so-called “Bush Doctrine” (a strategy for concentrating and taking on Islamic terrorists in one place far away from North America; as well as building peaceful, stable and democratic societies in the very heart of the most violent region on earth).

My question is, if we intend to take on anyone who supports Islamic terrorism, why are we not immediately engaging Iran militarily? Clearly, they are the leading supporters of Islamic terrorism! As well as some mullahs and oil-wealthy Arabs in Saudi Arabia.

The Taliban’s support for Al Qaida is pretty insignificant next to Iran, or even Syria and Libya.

I thnk McChrystal’s strategy for the war would involve making an enormous and concerted push against the Taliban, to crush them, and perhaps convince what’s left of them they ought to lay down their weapons and engage peacefully and politically in a stable Afghani gov’t.

This Jg is the village idiot that threw his Bronze Star ribbons, not the actual medals (citations written by himself and unearned), over the White House fence at an anti-war protest.

He did one thing properly, he returned the ribbons to the proper place. He still used the medals to run for office as a “hero” of Viet Nam, though.

Be proud Massachusetts, be very proud! Were I you, I would be a little more circumspect about who I send to Washington. Two poltroons over the past 45 years is quite enough.

Sheesh!!!

1. I will concede this point; we are closer…in a tiny incremental way, than we were the day we went in. But you will agree, won’t you, that the Taliban controls about 80% of the country? After 8 years of fighting?
By any estimate, that isn’t really a good sign.

2. You are correct again- stable nations are in our interest; I only argue that we can’t make it our polilcy to be policeman and social worker to the world.

3. Again, we agree; they were not a threat, but we somehow made them into one. I just don’t see the wisdom of this.

4. Fair enough- I am not the world’s authority on the hearts and minds of the Afghan people; but I think it is telling that our handpicked man, Karzai, felt it was necessary to win through massive fraud, rather than let the people truly decide. Again, not a good sign.

Finally, I will not post on this thread again- you can have the last word here.

However, if you are willing to admit that you are here to correct your embarrassing deficiencies in knowledge, reason and logic, then you should just read without commenting.

However, if you want to continue to put up posts that skip over the surface of rational thought like a rough stone on a still pond, you will find them to carry a short distance and rapidly sink without regard by those who read them for amusement.

PS. Default on your student loans. It would be only fair.

If you want to understand Afghanistan, take a couple of hours and soak this paper up. Think on it, think hard. But, toss your western perspective out the window before doing so or you won’t appreciate its brilliance or time investment and personal commitment the men who would implement it have to make.

Highly recommended.

1. We are closer the goal than 8 years ago. I know it is really inconvenient to admit it but Afghanistan has made substantial progress over where it was in 2001.

2. Stable nations which are in control of their own territory are always in our national interests. We can’t do them all at the same time but it is just profoundly stupid to advocate letting a nation regress.

3. The Taliban were not a threat to us in 2001 but one of our stated goals in going in was to remove them.

4. I doubt seriously that you are qualified to comment on what the people in Afghanistan want. For 8 years I listened to you clowns blow smoke on the same subject in Iraq. You were wrong then, you’re wrong now.

If you want to advocate defeat, go some other place. You’ve worn out your welcome here.

After 8 years we are still nowhere near this goal; how much longer should the American people throw lives and trillions on this venture, before we are allowed to question its effectiveness? Will we be having this conversation again in 2017, being told that “just one more surge, this oughta do it”?

How did building a nation out of scratch become vital to our interests? It was not at all important when we went in; it became our goal only after we failed to capture Bin Ladin, and only then, by default after our other goals were not working.
If they had turned over Bin Ladin to us, we never would have invaded, and the Taliban would still be in power, and we would be ok with it.

Your point would make sense if the Taliban posed some sort of real threat to us; but they don’t and never did.

Nation-building can work if the people there really want a nation; the Afghan people are so divided and quarrelsome, the notion of a central representative government is a joke.

How is Afghanistan different than Somalia, another lawless Islamic state packed with would-be terrorists?
Or are we going to open yet another war front to nation-build a Somali government?

Neither you nor I know his politics.

He has paid zero price for his convictions. In fact, he was offered two promotions and after talking to Biden’s foreign policy advisor may very well be offered another.

Nation building is how wars are won. That’s how we won in Iraq. The USMC has embraced the concept of the “three block war” for well over a decade. I know it is considered witty and insightful in some circles to use “nation building” as a slur but no practitioner of counterinsurgency warfare is opposed to it.

As to the latter, our mission in Afghanistan has been public for some time. Obama himself defined it in March. If you need more than that, I can’t help you.