Terror, War & Twilight (10/29/09)

The Democrat Party is psychopathically Ameriphobic and pacifist.  They proved it when they demanded that we surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran to "focus on the REAL War on Terror" in Afghanistan, and they're proving it again, from the ObamaHouse down, now that Afghanistan IS the focus and they've decided they don't like THAT front of the GWOT anymore, either.

Since their actions speak so deafeningly that nobody can hear their BS words anyway, why don't they just admit it instead of hiding behind excuses this feeble:

[New York Donk Senator Chucky] Schumer said the U.S. might be able to keep itself safe while leaving Afghanistan destabilized.

“If we can accomplish the first part–protecting ourselves from terrorism–without bringing stability to Afghanistan, which I think is a very long, expensive, and iffy process, we should try to do it,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

The New York Democrat compared the situation to Iraq, where he suggested stability had been too expensive.

“It cost us [a] trillion dollars and 4,500 lives approximately to bring stability to Iraq,” Schumer said. “Just in terms of the loss of life and treasure, do we want to do the same exercise in Afghanistan?”

"Too expensive" from the same man who is bent on bankrupting the country with the entire Obama domestic agenda?  Pulheeze.  If that's what it takes to win the War on Terror, Chucky, then YES WE DO.  The alternative is a return to the proven ineffectiveness of “air raiding villages and bombing civilians" - and, ultimately, this:

Years more in Afghanistan isn't a sexy prospect, but I'd call that the less "expensive" alternative, wouldn't you?

Besides, it's not as if the "international community" Red Barry is so fond of is going to let him keep lobbing missiles from afar with impunity:

US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN’s top investigator of such crimes said.

“The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan,” UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.

“My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law,” he said.

US strikes with remote-controlled aircraft against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan have often resulted in civilian deaths and drawn bitter criticism from local populations.

“The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren’t in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he added.

Neo said, "There is no spoon."  Alston says, "There is no war."  And, presto chango, all Islamist jihadi fanatics are entitled to "due process" anywhere on the planet.  Which, as I recall, is right in tune with where our own Democrat Party has already fellow-traveled on the matter of "terrorist rights".

You can start the clock on how long it will be before the Predator drones are grounded and the ObamaHouse epiphanizes the Pakistani Taliban and al Qaeda as U.S. "partners in peace" right alongside our Afghan Taliban "brothers," who are now to be conceded pretty much the entirety of Afghan territory outside the handful of what pass for their major cities:

At the moment, the administration is looking at protecting Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Herat, Jalalabad and a few other village clusters, officials said. The first of any new troops sent to Afghanistan would be assigned to Kandahar, the Taliban’s spiritual capital, seen as a center of gravity in pushing back insurgent advances.

But military planners are also pressing for enough troops to safeguard major agricultural areas, like the hotly contested Helmand River valley, as well as regional highways essential to the economy — tasks that would require significantly more reinforcements beyond the 21,000 deployed by Mr. Obama this year…

[The new] strategy would be open to complaints that American and allied forces were in effect giving insurgents free rein across large parts of the nation, allowing the Taliban to establish ministates with training camps that could be used by Al Qaeda…

Today it's Max Boot's turn to wield the firehose of cold reality:

The Taliban right now are still working to secure the countryside and it would be a grave mistake if we allowed them to pursue that strategy hindered only by a few air strikes that inevitably would be ineffective unless we had troops on the ground to generate accurate targeting intelligence. That doesn’t mean that we should send forces into remote outposts where no one lives. McChrystal is, in fact, pulling back such small bases, and rightly so. But his strategy envisions major operations to secure the Helmand River Valley, a rural area but one with plenty of substantial towns and villages. This is the economic heart of southern Afghanistan and the country’s major poppy-growing region. His strategy also envisions taking control of the rural areas that surround major cities such as Kandahar and Kabul. In the case of the capital, that means pacifying provinces to the south such as Logar and Wardak. The approaches to those cities have been in the grip of the Taliban, and breaking their vice grip will require more troops.

Similarly, Baghdad did not start to become secure in 2007 until the U.S. deployed substantial surge troops to the “gates” of the city — the belt of rural territory surrounding the capital including the “triangle of death” to the south. If the Obama strategy does not envision a similar offensive in Afghanistan, it will be making a terrible mistake. But if such an offensive is planned it will take a lot of troops — 10,000 to 20,000 probably won’t cut it, especially if most of those are providing combat “enablers” (medevac, air support, route clearance, intelligence, and the like).

I.e. just enough troops to "lose with honor".  Here to be defined as buying a year's cover to pretend to finish training the Afghan army prior to bugging out in time for the Taliban and al Qaeda to take the cities as well.  If anything, it sounds like a siege strategy planned by the besieged.  Maybe the idea is to try and forestall the resumption of AQ's North American offensive until a second Obama term in which he would be free to travel to Waziristan - or, more likely by that time, Islamabad - and hold the grand summit/surrender ceremony with bin Laden that he's been dreaming of for the past two years at minimum, complete with bowing and prayer rugs.

Is it any wonder that even the EUnuchs are getting nervous?

Afghanistan and Pakistan are being shaken by attacks, and the Taliban is dictating the course of the war. US President Obama has been silent about the situation for far too long and European countries like Germany and France are correct to demand better American leadership on the issue of Afghanistan. …

For once, this hesitation cannot be attributed to widespread war fatigue in Europe. The mission in Afghanistan is seen as a toxic issue in all Western nations, and every government that has provided troops has come under sharp criticism at home. What the US’s NATO allies now find far more irritating is US President Barack Obama’s silence on the issue.

The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US’s most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the “AfPak” region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate. …

Whether it means withdrawal or a troop buildup, NATO expects Obama to make a decision. So far, no one knows which direction he favors. Even experienced Washington insiders have encountered a wall of silence at the White House, leading Europeans to question whether Washington even believes in its war anymore.

Well, not to be overly caustic, but that's what they claimed to want.  They hated Bush The Unilateral Cowboy, and they rejoiced with the election of Godbama, who was everything Bush wasn't.  The adage "be careful what you wish for, you may get it" comes cacaphonously to mind.

So is this Europe's repudiation of the Capitulation Proclamation?  Given that they're a lot closer to their own Day After Disaster, you can almost forgive them their belatedly acute case of buyer's remorse.  Question is, what'll B.O. do without their unconditional, brain-dead love?