14 posts tagged “afghanistan”
I love Ann Coulter’s sarcastic wit especially when the Left, Obamanites, and anti-war morons looking for defeat. Coulter unleashes that wit in this column entitled, “Natural-Born Losers.”
Get ready for a good laugh at the expense of the Leftist Democratic Party that convinced America to vote for the greatest appeaser since Neville Chamberlain.
JRH 10/15/09
I am more than likely not too popular with Leftists and centrists: I firmly believe there is only one way to win the theatre of war in Afghanistan. America needs a WWII mentality to do whatever it takes to win a war even if civilians (who more than likely support their leaders) are harmed in collateral damage. Now it is obvious that eight years of war fighting non-national entities that are transnational terrorists is a bit too long to go without a decisive crippling of the enemy.
Carpet bombing of training camps and terrorist managed opium fields used to generate narco-bucks needs to take place. Then one may ask: “What about the Tora Bora cave system that is used as an effective terrorist hideout for the Taliban and al Qaeda?” It is time to use surgical nuclear strikes equal to a little lesser than the Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s correct. I said the politically incorrect of nukes. Also I am not just speaking of the mountains of Afghanistan but also the mountains and training camps of Pakistan.
Will Pakistan protest? More than likely that would be the case. Will Pakistan use its nuke arsenal in retaliation against American in Afghanistan or Iraq? A Pakistani nuke reprisal would be a foolish strategy since America is capable of blowing our erstwhile ally off the map. The old Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is something the Pakistan military would comprehend (unlike the Mullah-Messianic dictatorship of Iran).
Anyway, here are some previous posts I have utilized concerning an Afghan strategy:
· “Comment: Can We Win in Afghanistan,” by Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
· “Resolve 9/11,” by John R. Houk
· “Is This Obama’s War?” by JudgeBob.
Now Ben of Ben’s Blog has a radical view on Afghanistan. Ben’s post is really a critique of a Col. Tom Snodgrass post at American Thinker. Ben has some agreement and disagreement which I feel is worth the read.
JRH 9/16/09
In war civilian casualties should be expected when the civilians willingly support the combatants or the combatants hide among unwilling civilian human shields. An example of the flawed strategy to place civilian comfort above winning wars is the case when a group of Marines failed to receive air support for fear of hurting civilians. That became a disaster for the Marines.
Read this and more at The AfPak Reader.
JRH 9/13/09
During President Obama’s campaign for the Office he was elected, his Global War on Terror (GWOT) theme was the Iraq war theatre was the wrong war and that Afghanistan war theatre is the right war. After all the Islamic terrorists that attacked American soil on September 11, 2001 was organized from al Qaeda Afghanistan under the protection of Taliban Afghanistan.
I have been reading that the so-called Obama’s War in Afghanistan is being screwed up by a strategy of politically correct care and protection of Afghan/Pakistani civilians living among and probably supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda Islamic terrorists. This is a typical policy of defeat that instills bad morale among otherwise gung-ho American troops.
This is touched in detail by Gary H. Johnson, Jr. in a series of AfPak Reader thoughts posted at SlantRight HERE.
I encourage you to read a Judge Bob post dealing with some of this defeatist thinking the Obama Administration is pursuing.
JRH 9/11/09
September 11, 2001 is the date that Islam became more than just another religion that was growing rapidly in the world. Islam became the religion in which some people took the literal past as the will of Allah for the world in the twenty-first century. Thus the proponents of what is commonly called “radical Islam” to differentiate from “moderate Islam” seemed to become the mouthpiece of Islam to the American public.
Al Qaeda became a household word in America soon after 9/11. The recognized leadership figure of Al Qaeda is Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s ideology of Islam is from the mold of Wahhabi (Salafist) Islam the dominant version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthiest oil nations in the world. Saudi adherents of Wahhabi have been the recipients of that wealth and have used it to finance the Wahhabi Islamic version world wide including the United States of America.
Wahhabi Islam is very closely related to the same radical Islamic ideology birthed in Egypt known to the West mostly as the Muslim Brotherhood but also is known as Ikhwan.
The murdering Islamic Supremacist Palestinian-Arab organization known as Hamas is essentially an autonomous wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza (Gazastan or Hamastan). As we know Hamas wishes to be the lead Muslim terrorist organization superseding Fatah and the Palestine Authority (PA) representing Arabs that call themselves Palestinians in the creation of a Palestinian State that would dismember Israel and provide the next Jewish Holocaust.
The Muslim Brotherhood is highly connected to many American-Muslim organizations of note who claim to represent some aspect or another of “Moderate Islam” in America. Consequently Islamic terrorists Hamas also extend a reach into America as the Holy Land Foundation convictions (along with unindicted co-conspirators) proved.
Despite this interconnected web of evil which is to this day extending its hand on American soil, the American Left is hyper-concerned that Freedom of Religion should prevent scrutiny of the same Islamic ideology that inspired the 9/11 attacks that killed more Americans in our homeland than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
President Roosevelt announced to America that December 7, 1941 would be a day that will live in infamy. That day of infamy led to a war strategy that the Nazis of Germany and Imperialist Japanese could only make peace by a total and absolute surrender to the Allies that were at war with this axis of evil.
Here we are today on the cusp of nearly eight years of continuous fighting in Afghanistan and there is no unconditional surrender. For that matter there is not a hint of peace overtures either from the Taliban or al Qaeda toward ending the conflict. Indeed the radical Islam of these groups has taken on the nature of suicide before surrender.
Unfortunately the times they have changed from a strategy of win at all costs to a strategy limited by Western International Political Correctness. I am thinking a general like George Patton would have taken the mountainous Bora Bora cave system between Afghanistan and Pakistan and would have immersed the area in carnage (including the collateral damage of Taliban sympathetic civilians) until there was surrender or nothing left to surrender.
Twenty-first century Political Correctness would look upon such a victory in horror because of the huge toll of human lives lost. And yet it was the strategy of forcing unconditional surrenders in World War II that led to the devastating bombing of Dresden, Germany as well as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. I am guessing more civilians died in those actions than Nazi or Japanese military personnel. Even so Germany and Japan provided the unconditional surrender to sue for peace.
I am also guessing if the WWII drive to win at all costs was executed today, the chasing of the Taliban and al Qaeda would have ended years ago.
Since the polls concerning the Iraq War theatre brought down Republican dominance in Congress and vilified President G. W. Bush, I am guessing President Barack Hussein Obama is watching the polls of American attitudes toward the Afghanistan War Theatre.
Since President BHO is the Prince of Appeasement and Political Correctness, I wonder what the Obama Administration strategy will be to end America’s military action in the Afghanistan War Theatre. Do you wonder as well?
For democracy to work in Afghanistan the heads of tribal families would have to unite and agree to binding decisions of the majority. Then the tribal heads would have to agree to cooperate with a U.S. supported Afghan government (that is wishfully lacking in corruption) to confront warlords that are not tribal leaders that fight to protect their drug business or are Islamic ideologues.
I suspect the problem that might crimp this thought would be some tribal families stretch across the Afghan/Pakistan border. Defeated or weakened warlords could simply find haven in the wild lands of Pakistan which the Pakistani government exerts little to no authority.
With these thoughts based on opinion more than on facts: read the Gary H. Johnson Jr. story on the corruption in the recent Afghan national election in which Karzai more than likely won a fraudulent election.
JRH 9/4/09
Below is a response to a Facebook buddy Scott Isaacs which I will also post below.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scott I got to hand it to you. This article is indeed a great piece of writing. The information is extremely accurate.
However, I observe that your conclusions are slanted Left for placing the total blame on America for the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I do like the Nazi/Taliban metaphor though.
I have some thoughts as to a possible reason America did not step up to be a rebuilder of Afghanistan after the Soviet Communist departure.
Going back to the Nazi-Germany/Imperial-Japan scenario: Note that after those two lost WWII that the Soviet Union was officially one of the allies. The rebuilding of Germany really was only applicable to the Western portion occupied by the American and British forces. The "East Germany" occupied by the Soviet army did not receive comparable reconstruction. Also not at the end of WWII the Americans and Brits basically gave Eastern Europe over to Soviet hegemony as the spoil of war. Eastern Europe did not receive the same reconstruction as Western Europe.
The Soviet Union never declared war on Japan until defeat was imminent.
America looked the other way as the Soviets took control of Sakhalin Island; otherwise the Soviets showed little interest in a defeated Japan. America was free to reconstruct Japan into a democratic society.
I don’t believe there is an exact comparison of the reconstruction of the fallen axis powers to that of Soviet devastated Afghanistan.
Here is another thought.
America’s involvement in aiding Afghani tribal leaders eject the Soviets from Afghanistan probably gave a pretty good idea of the combination of greed from the petty (basically feudal) tribes and the Hanafi influenced Islam in the area. America had relatively left the Vietnam debacle that was the result of supporting a corrupt South Vietnamese government that alienated it citizens rather than inspire them to fight Communism. I would a good analysis of Afghanistan would be a risky political enterprise investing democratic principles in an area committed to either tribal/familial authority or Islam or both.
I agree that one huge failure was not protecting an asset like Massoud. Allowing his assassination was a grave mistake; however there was also no guarantee that Massoud would have developed into an Afghanistan unifier either. The best that could be hoped from Massoud would have been was a tool to keep the Taliban/Al Qaeda at bay. Investing in a full military-political support of Massoud could just as easily have been like supporting the corrupt South Vietnamese government.
My belief is that America made the correct decision in not getting directly involved in a post-Soviet reconstruction of Afghanistan and made a fatal error in not throwing covert military support to Massoud. If Massoud proved himself to be an able leader to offset the popularity that Taliban justice was perceived to be accomplishing.
One other thought about your reference about the Taliban not being corruptible to drug money from opium interests: If that is true it is more so because of the Taliban’s own opium production and less so because of the justice demanded by Hanafi Islamic teachings.
JRH 7/9/09
Victor Davis Hanson analyzes President Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy. Basically Hanson senses that BHO is sending a wrong message to allies and enemies alike.
BHO’s lack of forthright condemnation of Mullah repression had all kinds of consequences. It may have emboldened the Mullahs to execute extreme prejudice on its own citizens. The lack of initial condemnation certainly will irritate and possibly extinguish continued backbone to Iranian protestors. Since no early condemnation proceeded, BHO failed to bank on serious real sanctions that might have been used against Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.
Hanson goes on to excoriate BHO over inconsistencies with Israel’s Netanyahu, Afghanistan’s Karzai, Honduras’ expulsion of a Marxist President and so on.
JHR 7/3/09
I just read a fascinating analysis of Dr. Richard M. Swier pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama’s global agenda. For a right winger Christian Right kind of guy as my self, Swier’s analysis is not a pretty one.
Dr. Swier believes BHO is leading America into dhimmitude by embracing elements of Sharia Compliant Finance and compartmentalizing global issues to obscure the international threat to Western society of Islam.
It is a good read. At SlantRight I will try to find definitions for difficult to understand terms in parentheses. This “Grand Strategy” could infect Western and/or American life via BHO’s agenda.
JRH 4/15/09 (Hat Tip Gary H. Johnson, Jr.)
I almost hate to say the Theo-cult religion known to most as Islam (I often prefer Mohammedanism) is an inherently evil religion. The number one reason I hate to say this is because I know there are good and decent people who call themselves or identify on some level with Mohammedanism.
If there were not good people practicing Mohammedanism such websites as Muslims Against Sharia would not exist. I also realize there are Mohammedans that believe such notions that “Jihad” is all about the “Inner Struggle” more than make war on unbelievers to force them to be believers even if it means the Kafir’s death.
Nonetheless, even a brief cursory examination of writings considered holy to Mohammedans demonstrate this is not the case. Mohammed was an inherently violent man who liked his women (even if he had to force them) and encouraged his hoards of followers to war against the Kafir yet really the goal was to amass wealth and slaves (FIRST for Mohammed then for his followers).
Thus these “Inner Struggle” Mohammedans are not practicing the dominant tenets in their theo-political faith (Thank God!).
Places in the Middle East that PC Westerners might label practitioners of Mohammedanism as Radical Islam are actually closer to following the theo-political cult laid by Mohammed and carried by his Companions.
Saying that I came across a post on the social blogosphere known as VOX with the name Ben’s Blog. It is an awesome work of research that the Politically Correct hide their eyes from and Mohammedan theologians DO NOT want readers to view. Hello CAIR and such American Muslim organizations that claim representation of American-Muslims yet support the radical Islamic terrorists and the theology of Saudi Wahhabis and Egyptian Ikhwan.
The peace is quite honest so I am certain some nitwit will call Ben a racist when in actuality he is a watchmen on the wall saying the enemy is at the gates. Check it out.
