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

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?