Monday, December 14, 2009
Obama's Illegal Occupation of Afghanistan.
Where's ReidTard uttering his famous words, "we've lost," when we need him? We know we've lost in a war when the U.S. commits more Troops to the cause. This is known as Reid's Law: a Military surge of personnel means "we've lost." We sure don't hear Harry bad-mouthing the Military policies of Pbama the same as he did of W. Bush, do we?
One has to wonder if Pbama really wants to win the war in Afghanistan, since his Admin is tying the hands of U.S. Soldiers behind their backs in terms of Rules of Engagement. NPR:
... we were in this combat outpost down in southern Afghanistan, in the Helmand River Valley, and we were inside this center, a command center, watching a video screen. They were watching live while these guys were digging a hole for a roadside bomb. And there were other indicators, too, besides digging the hole. There was a guy swimming across a canal with this wire, and the wires are used to detonate the bomb.
Unidentified Man #1: I have two guys on the west side of the cow buoys(ph) running wires across the canal to the west side, where a (unintelligible) an IED the other day. So, they're watching them right now.
BOWMAN: There were a couple of guys keeping watch and stopping traffic. And the Marines were intercepting a radio call from these suspected insurgents while they were doing these other activities.
MONTAGNE: And on the radio, they were saying we're planting a bomb?
BOWMAN: And on the radio they were talking about planting a bomb.
MONTAGNE: So from the Marines perspective, the Afghans really did appear to be insurgents. So what did they do?
BOWMAN: Well, they felt comfortable. They had all the indicators that these guys were insurgents planting a bomb. So they thought about using a machine gun to shoot these guys. There was another combat outpost not too far away. The problem was there was a compound of houses between where the Marines were with their machine gun and the guys planting the bomb.
So then they decided to bring in the helicopters and use the machines guns and the helicopters to shoot these guys. As the helicopters came in, these guys look up in the air and start walking away. One of the guys was carrying a yellow jug - and that's become the icon of the roadside bomb. They mix fertilizer and diesel fuel in this, and that becomes a part of the bomb. And then we saw one of these guys throw this jug into a haystack.
Unidentified Man #2: And hiding the jug into the hay pile right now, and then are walking near the open field, so just wait until�
BOWMAN: And they were gone. It was all over. They could no longer shoot at them.
MONTAGNE: So why didn't they shoot at them?
BOWMAN: Well, they thought that they were still too close to this compound of houses to allow these helicopters to use their machine guns to shoot, so they decided against it.
MONTAGNE: So, in being very, very careful about shooting at what they absolutely believed to be insurgents, they ended up, in effect, losing these guys. How did that make them feel?
BOWMAN: Well, they weren't happy at all. And some of them stormed out of this command center. And we talked with one of them afterwards. This is Lieutenant James Wendy(ph).
Lieutenant JAMES WENDY (U.S. Marines): There's no way that anyone other than the enemy would've been injured.
BOWMAN: So, why weren't you allowed to shoot?
Lt. WENDY: Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to say I wish we could play by the big boy rules, you know, but, you know, it's just the way it is. And if I had known how frustrating it'd be and was able to better prepare myself for that mentally, I think that maybe I would've been better off.
MONTAGNE: What about the military leaders? Is it reaching the top? Are they hearing these complaints about these rules of engagement that are so restrictive?
BOWMAN: You know, they are hearing these complaints. And I had a few minutes this week with their overall commander, General McChrystal, and I told him the same story, Renee, I told you. And I asked him about the rules of engagement. Here's what he had to say:
General STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL (U.S. Commander, Afghanistan): I've been at this a long time now, since 9/11, and there were a tremendous number of times when I've seen activities done, which, on the surface of what was seen, looks exactly one way, looks completely convincing. And then in the aftermath, what you saw was incomplete. In fact, what we find is civilian casualties who are unarmed civilians.
I think when we err on the side of maturity and caution, there is a cost. And I know that we're asking an extraordinary amount from them to operate with such restraint and self-discipline, but I think it's how we win the war.
No one really knows what Pbama wants to do in Afghanistan. He's set no benchmarks, other than a withdraw date that is about as permanent as Nanny Pelosi's botox. From the hardly Right of Center Slate:
Since his inauguration, Barack Obama has tripled the number of troops fighting in Afghanistan. After announcing the latest surge of 30,000 new soldiers in a speech at West Point, it is clear that he is a president actively prosecuting a war, not merely tending to one that was left to him.
According to his speech, Obama is escalating while retreating, adding more troops while also setting a date for their departure. Obama said he was putting pressure on the Afghan government, but he didn't suggest how. Some of the blurring was by design. He smudged the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, explaining that while he was sending troops to Afghanistan, the struggle was now more regional than it was when the war started eight years ago.
The president's critics will complain about the 18-month deadline Obama set for starting the troop withdrawal. The president says he set a deadline to focus the minds of our partners in Afghanistan, but he also said the departure decision would be based on the recommendations of his field commanders. This is a version of the debate we had during the presidential campaign, when Obama set a 16-month deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. His advisers will no doubt admit—as they did during the campaign—that if military advisers say a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 18 months is inadvisable, then the troops won't leave. His Republican critics will also presumably agree, as John McCain did during the campaign, that if the commanders say it's OK to start leaving in 18 months, then that's just fine with them.
Obama insisted that his deadline-that-isn't-a-deadline would put pressure on the Afghan government. "The absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan."
But Obama said nothing in the speech that put actual pressure on the government.
Obama's tone was methodical and emotionless. He often sounded like a reluctant warrior. He told the West Point students about signing condolence letters and greeting coffins arriving at Dover. "As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service," said Obama. There were repeated references in the speech to the honor of their service.
The president said twice that he didn't take his decision "lightly." This seemed like an obvious shot at Dick Cheney and other critics who had complained that he had taken too long to make his final decision. (On the day of the speech, the former vice president claimed that Obama had shown "weakness.") Obama also spent considerable time reminding his audience about the troubled history of the Afghan war since the attacks of 9/11, implying that if Bush and Cheney had taken a little more time during the first seven years of the war, there would be no need for him to be giving the speech—or sending more troops into danger.
Why...I remember a time where The Left jumped all over W. Bush whenever he mentioned the words, "nine-eleven." But Barry received The Coveted Free Mass from his Kool-Aid injecting Cult Followers.
Has Dear Leader His Kenyan Excellency "clearly defined" his Afghanistan surge?
Is Barry a Warmonger? Is he a pansy Pacifist? Is he a Wussy-Widdle Kenyan whose loyalty to the United States is virtually nonexistent? Is he a Marxist, set out to destroy America at the string-pulling expense of his puppet masters? Why, yes, he is. He's all these things. And more. He's what you call, a versatile.
Whew. It's tough playing the roll of a trollbama. Maybe it's the koolaid.
"Well, we're waiting!"
Nice to see the HNIC image again.
According to the Cultists, everyone is to look upon The Kenyan with awe and wonder and accept everything he says without questioning it or examining it. That crap isn't flying with anywhere from 60-75% of the population any longer.
Thanks for letting me "off the hook," Don. You're quite gracious. Glad you approve of the HNIC image. "Hockey Night in Canada."
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.