GROW A SPINE
While the Obama administration is still "conferencing" to make a decision about the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan has just launched what is being reported as a massive attack against the Taliban in South Waziristan.
The Pentagon reported this week that it is monitoring the situation in Pakistan, following a series of terrorist attacks there that have killed or injured scores of innocent people
Reportedly the latest attack on Friday occurred when a suicide car bomber attacked a police station in the Pakistani city of Peshawar, according to news reports. The explosion reportedly killed 13 people, including three police, a woman and a child, and injured 10 other people.
That incident was preceded by another attack on Thursday, when militants attacked three Pakistani security agency buildings, including the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters and two police training centers, in Lahore. A suicide car bomber also struck in the northwestern city of Kohat, and there was a reported bombing in Quetta in the southwest of the country. News reports cited at least 30 Pakistani police and civilian deaths as a result of yesterday’s attacks.
Pentagon officials said the U.S. embassy strongly condemned the attacks as President Barack Obama signed a law that provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. The funds are part of a comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of confronting the root causes of extremism as well as extremists themselves.
“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday.
An Oct. 11 attack on Pakistan's army headquarters in Rawalpindi outside Islamabad reportedly killed 11 Pakistani troops and three civilians. Nine terrorists were reportedly killed.
U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage yesterday over the latest string of attacks.
“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” according to a statement released yesterday. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.
“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims' families, friends and community.”
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following the Rawalpindi attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.
Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.
The counter-offensive coincides with the visit to Afghanistan by NATO''s Military Committee, the 28 member contingent, which wrapped up their visit to Afghanistan last week. The NATO Committee chairman, Admiral Di Paola said, “NATO remains strongly committed to Afghanistan. We will continue to strengthen the Afghan National Security Forces so that the Afghan government can provide stability and security for its people. Our efforts in Afghanistan are ultimately focused on helping to make the lives of Afghans better, including by preventing extremism from taking root in this country.”
Sokesmen said the NATO leaders were there for first-hand feedback in order to fully understand and better evaluate what would be necessary to promote peace and security across the regions. The statement said, "They were able to appreciate the work of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and to speak with local governors," and that "Although the situation in Afghanistan is still serious and difficult, the visit showed encouraging signs of progress, which were noted throughout the discussions and meetings.
The Military Committee members on their visits around the regions were quick to praise both the cooperation between NATO and the Afghan National Security Forces, and the bravery shown by the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. The Military Committee also recognized the impact that a stable and legitimate government in Afghanistan would have on security, and expressed the hope of such a positive outcome for the recent elections.
This statement is couched with the perspective of French President Sarkozy's statement this week, in which he vowed to not send one more soldier to Afghanistan. "France will not send any more troops to Afghanistan," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview with a French newspaper on Thursday.
"Is it necessary to stay in Afghanistan? I say 'yes'. And to stay to win ... But France will not send a single soldier more," Sarkozy told Le Figaro.
Sarkozy said he wants instead to see more home-grown Afghan troops fight the Taliban guerrillas.
"They will be the most effective in winning this war because it is their country. But we need to pay them more to avoid desertions that benefit the Taliban," said the French president.
Today, US Senator John Kerry said in an interview with CNN that it would be "entirely irresponsible" to send more troops to Afghanistan until the country's lengthy election process delivers a clear verdict and the US knows who it will be working with."
France's 24 International News Agency quoted today Kerry's statment saying, "When our own commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we're living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, 'Oh, they asked for more, sure -- here they are?'"
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government has been plagued by uncertainty and a legitimacy crisis after allegations of widespread fraud in the August elections whose preliminary results put him on top, and ongoing charges of corruption.
While Kerry may have a point, his obvious miss is that the lack of governance is precisely why McChrystal made the recommendations the way he did.
It is arguments like Sarkozy's and Kerry's who in attempting to make the point against the McChrystal recommendations, state the obvious and, although they sound like they are in opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, actually make the argument to do so, and emphasize exactly why politicians are not the ones that should be conducting the war.
A key factor being used as a wedge into the McChrystal analysis is that the recommended actions amount to "nation-building," a term that tough talking retired Colonel David Hunt used on Fox News yesterday. Hunt stressed that the military should be going after the terrorists, and not building a nation because it is "too expensive" and we cannot afford it.
There is a reason why the McChrystal report is being picked apart by both military and political chickens. It is because they know that the McChrystal recommendation is what needs to be done, and that no amount of feverish hen scratching will pen an alternative that will not result in a catastrophic result for the U.S.
Even while the New World Order's George Herbert Bush (Sr.) was positioned as a "wimp" by his political opponents, it was he who launched the largest and most effective offensive Western military force into the Middle East to put down Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Obama's lack of a decision in the Afghanistan matter, which is being seen not only as indecision, but weakness, could be remedied immediately by the growth of a sufficiently calcified spine, and the corresponding injection of testosterone.
The threat from Taliban and the axis of terrorist groups that comprise the battlefield in Afghanistan is as crucial to the security of our nation as the threat from Iraq was to the Middle East and the nations that stood to be affected by Iraq's agression.
The administration is looking for an exit strategy from the War on Terror. Afghanistan is the base from which that exit strategy can emerge, but it cannot be done by patty-caking with an enemy that seeks a foot-hold in Afghanistan. What will emerge if we withdraw from the challenge will be a terrorist state with the spectre of Pakistani nuclear weapons allied with a nuclear armed ally in Iran, which is now reportedly helping Venezuela's Chavez prospecting for Uranium.
The history of Freedom contains the milestones that mark the times when ordinary people acted in extraordinary situations to put period to the agenda of tyranny. Our victory in Afghanistan would be such a milestone, because there would be the final launch to end a tyrannical force that seeks to suppress humanity once again.
The choice is simple. We can contend with a force intent on imposing by force its medieval ideology on the rest of the world, or we can defend the cause of Freedom and ensure that that force advances through the reformation required so that it can join the community of nations that will guarantee a secure future for the nurturing of Freedom.
We are challenged on many fronts this day, and this action in Afghanistan must be confronted with the same fervor as has been the Health Care and other issues that we face.
We cannot sit idly by while the train of tyranny advances unchecked.
The Pentagon reported this week that it is monitoring the situation in Pakistan, following a series of terrorist attacks there that have killed or injured scores of innocent people
Reportedly the latest attack on Friday occurred when a suicide car bomber attacked a police station in the Pakistani city of Peshawar, according to news reports. The explosion reportedly killed 13 people, including three police, a woman and a child, and injured 10 other people.
That incident was preceded by another attack on Thursday, when militants attacked three Pakistani security agency buildings, including the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters and two police training centers, in Lahore. A suicide car bomber also struck in the northwestern city of Kohat, and there was a reported bombing in Quetta in the southwest of the country. News reports cited at least 30 Pakistani police and civilian deaths as a result of yesterday’s attacks.
Pentagon officials said the U.S. embassy strongly condemned the attacks as President Barack Obama signed a law that provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. The funds are part of a comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of confronting the root causes of extremism as well as extremists themselves.
“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday.
An Oct. 11 attack on Pakistan's army headquarters in Rawalpindi outside Islamabad reportedly killed 11 Pakistani troops and three civilians. Nine terrorists were reportedly killed.
U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage yesterday over the latest string of attacks.
“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” according to a statement released yesterday. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.
“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims' families, friends and community.”
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following the Rawalpindi attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.
Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.
The counter-offensive coincides with the visit to Afghanistan by NATO''s Military Committee, the 28 member contingent, which wrapped up their visit to Afghanistan last week. The NATO Committee chairman, Admiral Di Paola said, “NATO remains strongly committed to Afghanistan. We will continue to strengthen the Afghan National Security Forces so that the Afghan government can provide stability and security for its people. Our efforts in Afghanistan are ultimately focused on helping to make the lives of Afghans better, including by preventing extremism from taking root in this country.”
Sokesmen said the NATO leaders were there for first-hand feedback in order to fully understand and better evaluate what would be necessary to promote peace and security across the regions. The statement said, "They were able to appreciate the work of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and to speak with local governors," and that "Although the situation in Afghanistan is still serious and difficult, the visit showed encouraging signs of progress, which were noted throughout the discussions and meetings.
The Military Committee members on their visits around the regions were quick to praise both the cooperation between NATO and the Afghan National Security Forces, and the bravery shown by the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. The Military Committee also recognized the impact that a stable and legitimate government in Afghanistan would have on security, and expressed the hope of such a positive outcome for the recent elections.
This statement is couched with the perspective of French President Sarkozy's statement this week, in which he vowed to not send one more soldier to Afghanistan. "France will not send any more troops to Afghanistan," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview with a French newspaper on Thursday.
"Is it necessary to stay in Afghanistan? I say 'yes'. And to stay to win ... But France will not send a single soldier more," Sarkozy told Le Figaro.
Sarkozy said he wants instead to see more home-grown Afghan troops fight the Taliban guerrillas.
"They will be the most effective in winning this war because it is their country. But we need to pay them more to avoid desertions that benefit the Taliban," said the French president.
Today, US Senator John Kerry said in an interview with CNN that it would be "entirely irresponsible" to send more troops to Afghanistan until the country's lengthy election process delivers a clear verdict and the US knows who it will be working with."
France's 24 International News Agency quoted today Kerry's statment saying, "When our own commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we're living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, 'Oh, they asked for more, sure -- here they are?'"
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government has been plagued by uncertainty and a legitimacy crisis after allegations of widespread fraud in the August elections whose preliminary results put him on top, and ongoing charges of corruption.
While Kerry may have a point, his obvious miss is that the lack of governance is precisely why McChrystal made the recommendations the way he did.
It is arguments like Sarkozy's and Kerry's who in attempting to make the point against the McChrystal recommendations, state the obvious and, although they sound like they are in opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, actually make the argument to do so, and emphasize exactly why politicians are not the ones that should be conducting the war.
A key factor being used as a wedge into the McChrystal analysis is that the recommended actions amount to "nation-building," a term that tough talking retired Colonel David Hunt used on Fox News yesterday. Hunt stressed that the military should be going after the terrorists, and not building a nation because it is "too expensive" and we cannot afford it.
There is a reason why the McChrystal report is being picked apart by both military and political chickens. It is because they know that the McChrystal recommendation is what needs to be done, and that no amount of feverish hen scratching will pen an alternative that will not result in a catastrophic result for the U.S.
Even while the New World Order's George Herbert Bush (Sr.) was positioned as a "wimp" by his political opponents, it was he who launched the largest and most effective offensive Western military force into the Middle East to put down Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Obama's lack of a decision in the Afghanistan matter, which is being seen not only as indecision, but weakness, could be remedied immediately by the growth of a sufficiently calcified spine, and the corresponding injection of testosterone.
The threat from Taliban and the axis of terrorist groups that comprise the battlefield in Afghanistan is as crucial to the security of our nation as the threat from Iraq was to the Middle East and the nations that stood to be affected by Iraq's agression.
The administration is looking for an exit strategy from the War on Terror. Afghanistan is the base from which that exit strategy can emerge, but it cannot be done by patty-caking with an enemy that seeks a foot-hold in Afghanistan. What will emerge if we withdraw from the challenge will be a terrorist state with the spectre of Pakistani nuclear weapons allied with a nuclear armed ally in Iran, which is now reportedly helping Venezuela's Chavez prospecting for Uranium.
The history of Freedom contains the milestones that mark the times when ordinary people acted in extraordinary situations to put period to the agenda of tyranny. Our victory in Afghanistan would be such a milestone, because there would be the final launch to end a tyrannical force that seeks to suppress humanity once again.
The choice is simple. We can contend with a force intent on imposing by force its medieval ideology on the rest of the world, or we can defend the cause of Freedom and ensure that that force advances through the reformation required so that it can join the community of nations that will guarantee a secure future for the nurturing of Freedom.
We are challenged on many fronts this day, and this action in Afghanistan must be confronted with the same fervor as has been the Health Care and other issues that we face.
We cannot sit idly by while the train of tyranny advances unchecked.
Comment
About
© 2009 Created by Laurie Hamilton on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of vitalfinds to add comments!
Join this Ning Network