Skip to main content

McChrystal: No Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but keep fighting anyway

Now that we have generals running our foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia, this is what you can expect:

Speaking on the eight-year anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack, top US commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal says that he sees no indication of any large al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.

Gen. McChrystal’s comments come at a time when the Obama Administration is facing an increasing revolt over the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and officials have used the “threat” posed by al-Qaeda as their primary justification for continuing the conflict.

Seemingly oblivious to having already dismissed the conflict’s ostensible raison d’etre, the general continued to defend the war, maintaining that it was winnable given increased effort and insisting that, while he had no evidence to back it up, he “strongly believes” the war has prevented other terrorist attacks.


Meanwhile, the Taliban insurgency continues to spread; the Christian Science Monitor:

Long considered one of the most stable and peaceful parts of the country, the northern provinces have seen rising violence as heavy insurgent activity has spread to 80 percent of the country – up from 54 percent two years ago. (See map.) Under increasing pressure in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, militants who have long sought to extend their reach have turned their attention to the north, where NATO has established a second supply route in the wake of debilitating attacks on its southern pipeline.


So what is the Obama administration doing in the region: doubling down, of course:

WASHINGTON - With hardly any debate, a powerful Senate committee Thursday approved President Barack Obama's $128 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the budget year beginning in October.

The move came as anxiety was increasing in the Capitol over the chances for success in Afghanistan and as Obama weighs whether to send more forces to the country.

The war funding was approved as the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously for a $636 billion spending measure for next year's Defence Department budget. The war funding would implement Obama's order this year to add 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the number of U.S. forces there to 68,000 by the end of 2009.


Yeah, change we can get our troops killed for nothing with.

Comments

G Rex said…
I hate to trot out another Vietnam comparison, but I'm reminded that the Tet Offensive essentially wiped out the Viet Cong as a fighting force, leading to the regular North Vietnamese Army taking the lead role against the South.
Miko said…
This is expected under democratic (as in democracy) governments. Dictators are quick to get into wars if they think it'll benefit them/their cronies, but also quick to leave when they see things aren't going there way: after all, if the military was destroyed, the citzenry would overthrow them.

Democracies are (sometimes) slow to get into wars due to bureaucratic overhead, but also slow to leave even when there's obviously no reason to stay: after all, if the public perceives a defeat, the citizenry wouldn't vote for them again.
The Last Ephor said…
I'm still wondering where the morally outraged anti-war people went. It's as if their huge marches, paper mache puppets and dopey signs were really an anti-Republican thing rather than principled anti-war or something. Strange, innit?
Kilroy said…
OK no Al Qaeda but does Afghanistan have an Army and if so when will the step up to and take their country back? Speaking of Vietnam, is it possible we can spray some Agent Orange on the poppy fields.

"Ambassador Richard Holbrooke has said destroying the poppy fields would only strengthen the Taliban. As Sec. Gates told me today, you have to find a crop to replace the poppies or every farmer becomes a Taliban recruit."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/07/couricandco/entry4999323.shtml

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

The disturbing decline of the Delaware blogosphere: a very unfortunate Around the Horn (even if it's not Friday)

I've noticed a change in my own blog-checking habits over the past several weeks, and I don't know if it's just me or the reality of the last month of a divisive political campaign. I automatically used to check out Delawareliberal first and several times a day, because it was where I could find edgy, thought-provoking, and (dare I say it) funny banter going on. These days visit several other spots first, and my visits to DL are both shorter and less engaged. Why? Because the combination of invading neo-con commenters with the stridency of some of the major contributors has led to such pleasant exchanges as a post dedicated to labeling another blogger racist by donviti, whose own sense of provocative humor is generally so far out there that he makes John Belushi doing Samurai bartender on the SNL look positively pro-Asian. Or I can find Delawaredem and jason periodically spewing the idea that anybody who is not a liberal or progressive Democrat is somehow a non-American,...