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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...