Friday, August 24, 2012

Obama's Failed Afghan Policy

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently expressed concern about the increase in green-on-blue attacks; that is, the murder or attempted murder of US/Coalition forces by Afghan counterparts. This year alone, Afghan insurgents have gunned down 39 International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) personnel —about 13% of ISAF deaths this year, and more than 100 such incidents occurred since 2007.

Nothing, if not a genius, Panetta indicated to CNN that he worries continued attacks could damage coalition and Afghan partnerships —but he will nevertheless continue to force American military personnel to work side-by-side with Afghans who have never in the entire history of their culture been regarded as trustworthy.

Here’s a clue: President Obama proclaimed the war in Afghanistan “… is a cause that could not be more just.” What was he thinking? The country has been impregnable to foreign invasion for 2,500 years. Alexander the Great failed there; the British failed there; the Soviets failed there … did anyone with an ounce of brains think that we could succeed?

What does Panetta plan to do to counter this green on blue threat from our so-called Afghan allies? Well, he wants to start a “guardian angel” program. This involves identifying one individual who stands to the side of Afghani troops, or perhaps behind them, so that he can watch the backs of fellow Americans and presumably blow to hell the traitorous bastards before they can murder more American or Coalition personnel.

Sounds like a good plan. Except that anyone who kills an Afghani by shooting him in the back would likely face charges as a war criminal and spend the rest of his life at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. So my question is, “Is this your best shot, Mr. Panetta? Do you really think you enhance our foreign policy by keeping military personnel in Afghanistan so that they can serve as targets of opportunity for Afghan insurgents?”

Well, not entirely: Panetta has other good ideas, such as increasing the intelligence presence and perhaps increasing counterintelligence presence.

How much are we paying this clown?

For more than three years, the Obama administration has done nothing significant to improve our chances of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. Along with his failure to fix our economy, Barack Obama is a failed commander in chief. Obama has known Afghanistan is a lost cause as far back as August 2009, when General Stanley McChrystal informed then Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “…the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency, there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans — in both their government, and the international community— that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents.

What has President Obama done about this? Well, I mean besides implementing the guardian angel program … nothing.

Here’s my idea. Pull out our troops out of Afghanistan immediately. I favor this option because the United States of America has NO NATIONAL INTEREST in that god-forsaken crap hole. Bring our troops home, and do-it-now!


—Mustang Sends

70 comments:

Always On Watch said...

I don't know who made the statement, but this morning I read that an officer said that the recent killing were related to Ramadan. I'm sure that the cries of "Islamophobe!" have already gone up.

The Debonair Dudes World said...

My complements on a extremely well written and well put together post. And so very true.
The picture of Curtis Sliwa of the Guardian Angels fit in perfectly. Well done.

Brooke said...

There is just not enough facepalm. And I couldn't agree more.

FrogBurger said...

Afghanistan has a big resource: lithium for our ipads. And poppy seeds for our bagels.

Silverfiddle said...

Pull out our troops out of Afghanistan immediately. I favor this option because the United States of America has NO NATIONAL INTEREST in that god-forsaken crap hole. Bring our troops home, and do-it-now!

Amen brother! I served there, and I once believed we could make a difference, but I don't anymore.

We need to get the hell out asap.

conservativesonfire said...

Afghanis not and never was our partner in this war. I blame Bush for declaring war on "terroism" ( a war thet will never end) instead of declaring war on Afghanistan for harboring the Taliban who were harboring al Qeada who were harboring bin Laden. We should have learned from our ietnam experience the problems that occur when you can't tell the friendlies from the enimies.

The Debonair Dudes World said...


Silverfiddle
..".Amen brother! I served there, and I once believed we could make a difference, but I don't anymore.
We need to get the hell out asap"


And I second that. Get us out and bring our troops home, enough is enough...

My Conservative Thoughts said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Sinclair said...

It is amazing how little regard politicians have for the lives of our men and women serving in uniform. I suspect that this is because not once have they ever placed their own wretched, self-serving, worthless lives in harm’s way.

Equally depressing is that there is not likely to be any change to this failed policy under a Romney administration. This proves that the American people are not well-led, no matter who’s in charge. It comes down to voting for dumb, or dumber.

Z said...

AOW...which recent killings? I'm curious.
Also, isn't it odd that this morning's NY killings are being touted as "NOT TERRORISM" when the only thing missing from 10 people being injured, and some killed, is a muslim perp? WHAT THE...? What makes TERRORISM? Isn't it TERROR when someone shoots on the street?
ALL channels are saying very distinctly THIS IS NOT TERRORISM, WE ARE TOLD THIS IS NOT TERRORISM.
Okay.........what's missing? hmm?

Oh. A Muslim? No, we can't say THAT, but it's NOT TERRORISM! :-)


DUDE..that's the excellent Mustang's writing...but I'm glad you liked my Guardian Angel images! I think Panetta meant the ones in Heaven, but... :-)

FB...sadly, those poppies are used for something else!

SF...almost every soldier I've ever seen on TV talking about Afghanistan has said WE COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE BUT WE"RE NOT BEING ALLOWED TO.... I've always found that odd.
I think we need to get out now, too.

Cons on Fire...many MANY Vietnam vets say we could have won THERE, too.

ROBERT...I think Romney will have MUCH more respect for the military and may even tell the truth about the SEALS< etc... I don't think he'd be the one to try to grab all the credit for having got Osama, for example.

FrogBurger said...

Z, I know. That's why I was making a joke. But the lithium is true. And this is big.

Ducky's here said...

Well that's what happens when the military writes checks its ass can't cash.

Been doing it for over a half century and sticking us with the bill. But it's good for business.

Z said...

Yes, Ducky, it's been very good for business; and very good for Jews and the Western World, too.
But, you're probably right..it would be better to just capitulate as Americans, help no one, wimp out and wait till we get hit big time, right?

Z said...

By the way, FOLKS...

A friend, who can identify himself here if he'd like!, sent me an email regarding Muslims and the DNC having some kind of convention with them at the start of the DNC convention...or the Muslims are going to be featured at the DNC? ....I've forgotten what the article said..
What this friend was sure about was that the DNC is celebrating a bunch of people who aren't exactly women-friendly. I'm wondering how Americans don't understand how duplicitous the DNC is for that as they watch the left slam Republicans for being anti-woman?
(when at least half of Republicans ARE women :-)
But, of course, the Dems are a party which calls Republicans racist though they champion Alan West and other BLack Americans...the fun never quits, does it!

Ducky's here said...

Who's standing down, z?

These fools still think they can fight a counter insurgency. Haven't learned a thing in a half century.

christian soldier said...

"Wars" not meant to be won-
UN-Constitutionally executed-"wars"...
our BEST murdered at the hands of those (allies?) they train!
indeed - BRING THEM HOME!!!
Carol-CS

Matey Matt said...

So, our Liberal friends, how's that Hope & Change working out for you?
This is the real America in a new age of Depression. You won't hear these kinds of stories on the campaign trail or in the billions of dollars spent on commercials with politicians selling you empty words that can't fill your belly at dinner time.
I never seem to hear about any llegal immigrants from Mexico on food stamps going hungry !!
I just reas a blog about Cheryl Preston a 54-year-old mother of three and grandmother of three in Roanoke, Va., says there are days she skips meals so her husband and son can eat. If they notice, she says, she'll let them think she's fasting. She waters down the milk and juice to make it last longer. She visits food pantries, but it's not enough.
"Who would think that in the land of plenty, hard-working families would go hungry? But I am living proof it is true," Preston writes in a first-person account for Yahoo!.
In the last three years, she hasn't been able to replace a $500 loss in monthly income. Her husband's job can't always guarantee 40 hours a week; his second job lasted only through Christmas. So mealtime suffers: Her family eats in one day what they used to eat at one meal. Often, they manage on a nearly barren cupboard for five or six days until the next pay day. They sometimes skip family gatherings at restaurants because they can't pay the tab.
"It is distressing," Preston writes.
"When you get a check for $250, and your basic needs require at least $400, you are already defeated. You can only cut back so much and then you have no choice but to do without. I long for the days when I could pay my bills on time, buy more than enough groceries and have money left over."
She's not alone. Eighteen percent of Americans say there have been times this year that they couldn't afford the food they needed, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday. In particularly hard-hit regions of the United States, like the South, at least one in five didn't have enough money for food. In Preston's Virginia, 15.2 percent of state residents are affected. One has to wonder is she is better off today than she was 4 or 8 years ago! And the sad part about all this is that it's gonna get worse. When and if Obama gets re-elected there is nothing to stop him. We are seeing signs of that already. He'll have 4 more years left to complete his “re-shaping America. If Obama gets re-elected there is only one thing we can do. put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!

Z said...

CS, we must bring them home.
The people there are simply besieged by their own monsters who don't want freedom for them.
And we get blamed for that, we paid the huge price for that, in blood and money..

It's a shame, as we see more children attend schools, have shoes, get better medicines from US....the women were starting small businesses, thanks to our training, the men were joining the military and police to help us.

But, their own can't take that.
And, as I said, we get blamed.

Time to go

Matey Matt said...

Below is a great rant by Mychal Massie:
Why I Do Not Like The Obamas
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.
I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

Matey Matt said...

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.
He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”

Dave Miller said...

I agree Mustang, we should, as Ron Paul, has stated, bring them home.

He is one of the few politicians willing to risk the wrath of his party, be it Dem or GOP, by calling for an end to our engagement in this area.

We should have left long ago and never entered Iraq and we'd have lost a lot fewer lives.

Sorry to say, that after WWII there seems to be no way to actually win a war so why bother?

Mustang said...

Ducky wrote, “Well that's what happens when the military writes checks its ass can't cash. Been doing it for over a half century and sticking us with the bill. But it's good for business.”

It must be lost on that ignorant fool that civilians control the military; this includes a civilian commander in chief, civilian congress, and civilian service secretaries and under-secretaries. “Sticking us with the bill” is something he may want to address to members of Congress, who authorize military appropriations in advance of actual expenditures. I don’t suppose he will refrain from making utterly stupid comments before engaging his brain —he’s been doing this for at least the last 8 years.

Mark Adams said...

Afghanistan has become a lost victory. Not because of our guys & gals there, but because we would have routed the Taliban had it not been for Pakistan’s lack of cooperation in getting engaged with the fight, as they said they would. There is a strategic purpose to annihilate Islamic radicals in the border region and that lies with in Pakistan arsenal. I am afraid we will be in the area for the foreseeable future, but no boots on the ground in the cesspool of Afghanistan.

FrogBurger said...

I think the US won WWII because they weren't afraid of casualties. I think the Vietnam war traumatized the country and that a country can't win wars if it's afraid of casualties unfortunately.

That's another reason why we must maintain our economic power over the world. IT has a major influence on the globe. Like it or not. American products, technologies, movies, sports, etc... convey freedom to people outside the country. That's what it meant to me as a teen. It cannot be underestimated.

Mustang said...

Dave, I do not believe this is a failing of the United States military; it is our utter failure in foreign policy and diplomacy. Following World War II, what did most Americans understand about such things? Most were glad the war was over; they failed to understand the intention of highly placed democrats at the time: Dean Acheson, who defended the known communist Alger Hiss, and Harry Truman who was too incompetent to run a haberdashery, but found fame and fortune in the United States senate. These two men gave us the Korean War, and an unsatisfactory peace that looms over us even today. This same “cold war” mentality led to US support of France in Indochina. Ten years later, it was a damn lie told to the American people by Lyndon Johnson that led us into the Vietnam War. Ten years after that, the US abruptly left Vietnam having won every battle. In his excellent book about the war, Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that he was never more surprised than when the United States quit and went home. “The Americans had us beaten,” he said.

And now we must contend with Afghanistan, yet another failure in political leadership —beginning with George Bush, and lasting through the administration of Barack Obama. I don’t know if we could simply say, “Why bother …” I think it is better to suggest the following: no one should take the American people to war in the absence of a clear and present danger to the Republic. If any president proclaims “national interest,” then we must compel him to state clearly what that national interest is. Next, if any president takes America to war, then we must win that war —no matter what it takes. Sooner is always better than later. Finally, declaring war against ‘terrorism’ was stupid. If any president is determined to take America to war, it must be with a Congressional declaration, and it must be against a place and its people, not an abstract concept.

Thanks for commenting, Dave.

FrogBurger said...

Good analysis Mustang. I'm sharing most of your point of view but I'm still struggling from a pure moral standpoint with not having the US intervene when we have genocides and things like that.

Anonymous said...

FROM Z:

Mustang, FB, Mark, etc....

How much credence do you still give, or did you ever, to the idea that we wanted to fight a war there instead of here...that, hopefully, keeping the enemy engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq was better than in Columbus, Ohio?

That was a point that got some traction at the time and I wonder how many of you agreed with that, or still do?

Thanks.

My Daily Rant said...

To answer Dave and Mustang .
The threat posed to the US and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programs of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al-Qaeda – have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed. However the belief of the alleged weapons of mass destruction theory was a common one shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. Such as Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John F. Kerry, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, etc, and etc.. So it can’t be blamed on George Bush alone. And no, Iraq was not implicated in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. However
the reason the US went to war in Afghanistan was because it was established that Bin Laden was behind the attack on the US on 9/11 and that he was being harbored in Afghanistan by the Taliban. After many failed attempts to negotiate a turn over of Bin Laden to the US, the US finally retaliated and launched a formal attack on Afghanistan and more precisely, the Taliban..

But now I believe that Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam. and he has to deal with it. . But it seems as if he is not equipped to because of lack of experience, i and frankly I think that he is clueless .This president is probably the most inept leader this Nation has ever had.

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark Adams said...

Actually Z, I do still agree we need to chase them all around the world to eradicate these radicals where ever they hide. Most people have got the notion from the liberals point of view, that we need to stay out of other's backyard.
To me... you come here and mess with us, we come there and mess you up tenfold.

This Afghanistan fight has gone on long enough... It would have been over with if Pakistan had lived up to its part of the commitment, instead of trying to make peace with tribal elders in their northwest territory... In the exact area the Seals nail OBL... Need I say more?

Anonymous said...

FROM Z:

Mark, what can we do about Pakistan? India's a much stronger ally to us, right? But we need Pakistan, too. They've let us down countless times since the last leader was thrown out (I can't remember his name); to the whoops of our Left, which either doesn't understand diplomacy or so badly disdains OUR getting anything out of ANY deal that they love it when our buddies get ousted.

Dave Miller said...

Mustang, your response is the most cogent view of war I have heard from a conservative in years.

We went into AF/PAK in response to a legitimate issue, but like every other battle since 1945, without a clear mandate from the American people to do whatever it takes to win "at all costs!"

As a lib, I've always believed that we should stay out and avoid war if we are not willing to do whatever it takes to win.

Sadly, like many others before, this mess in the Middle East has just become a graveyard for our soldiers.

Yes... it has been a total failure of the civilian political leadership from both parties from day one.

Mustang said...

@Z … the basics of foreign policy is not about having friends. It is rather baser than that, although I have to say that exchanging embassies seems ridiculous to me. Why should we have an Embassy in a country that has nothing we want or need? I also cannot justify the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the United Nations. There is nothing “united” about it. It is a waste of money and frankly, I find the suggestion that the United States of America cannot entreat with another country without the UN looking over our shoulder insulting.

We don’t need Pakistan to be “our friend.” I don’t understand why we are kissing their patooties. I know that they have a nuclear capability that makes us nervous, but I don’t understand why. The same goes for Iran. The solution is simple, IMO. If US Diplomacy were worth a salt, our president would make a public statement to this effect: “Waste your money on nuclear weapons all you want. Build and maintain ten thousand weapons if you wish —we don’t care. However, if you use them against the US, or if you use them against any US ally, we will obliterate you within one hour and there will not be any negotiation. Have a nice day.”

The overreaching problem is that nations such as Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all know that our leaders are inept and susceptible to “public pressure.” Do you think that Russia or China gives a damn about public opinion? This may in fact be a positive factor seen from a domestic point of view: that transparency everyone is always talking about, but the international community sees this as a weakness —and one they will exploit.

Solution: we must have competent diplomats, rather than political cronies. How is Hillary Clinton qualified to serve as Secretary of State? If you believe college professors are good at developing ideas about theoretical international relations, but have never had a real job … how is a college professor’s selection as Secretary of State a good move? Of all Secretaries of State over the past thirty years, one (Larry Eagleburger) was a career diplomat. How is this in our nation’s best interests?

Louis H. said...

BARACK OBAMA SHOOTS 11 PEOPLE IN NYC

Well maybe not.

But if Romney murdered Soptic’s wife, then Obama shot 11 people in NYC today. It was his economy that resulted in J. Johnson being laid off, right?

Fair is fair, right?

Anonymous said...

FROM Z:

Dave...'as a lib'? But this is what the conservatives have been trying to get done in Iraq and Afghanistan. To GET IT DONE, not hamper our soldiers with ridiculous rules.
I remember so vividly when leftwingers found it acceptable that mosques couldn't be shot AT 'because they're holy' but they were shooting OUR SOLDIERS from within those 'holy' mosques.

I remember this administration saying that we should try for Mirandas when arresting Taliban, too, remember?

I don't like to make this a political thing, but it's refreshing to hear a person who'd say "as a lib" back up what we've wanted since these problems started.

We used to fight TO WIN (for us or Western allies, for peace, etc.), now we fight to keep the leftwing media from insulting our soldiers more than our enemies.

I believe it's been really difficult for our soldiers to carry on when facing the kinds of restrictions they've had...to say nothing of the SEALS who have quite different stories about the OBL hit, for example.
Who to believe, our amazing, honorable SEALS? Or the administration which has much to win from grabbing most of the credit and padding the story to suit the campaign hopes?

Anonymous said...

FROM Z:

Mustang, I agree with everything you said, but I think NEEDING and BEFRIENDING can be different...still, maybe NOT.

I believe we need to get the world respectful and even fearful of American righteous intervention/power again; the things we hear peabrained dictators saying TO US as threats is absolutely unbelievable! They'd have NEVER DONE THAT under Reagan or Bush..NEVER. And OUR MEDIA seems to go along with it...


Louis, I think that's an excellent analogy....pure genius!

Always On Watch said...

Z,
I was referring to the recent killings of our people by Afghans, trusted and/or under our training. See this index of article.

Always On Watch said...

Jummah at the DNC

Always On Watch said...

Additional information about the Jummah at DNC 2012

Always On Watch said...

A more informative link about the Jummah at DNC 2012.

Always On Watch said...

Obama denied a Cardinal's request to say a prayer at DNC 2012.

Anonymous said...

FROM Z:

AOW...isn't that amazing?
Not much media coverage, either.

I like the title "Islamic Culture and FUN FEST"

If Zunni Jasser doesn't like it, I don't like it. We don't need radical muslims moving into the DNC...

And then, as they have two days like that surrounding the DNC convention, the DNC denies a Cardinal a prayer at the functions? REALLY?

The only good thing about that is they're going to lose a LOT of Catholics and a lot of other Christians....if they haven't already.

I'd be hard pressed to believe Cardinal Dolan wasn't a typical NY Catholic Democrat, but I'd be very surprised NOW if he'd vote for Obama, who he practically called a LIAR over the Catholic insurance birth control thing.

christian soldier said...

"our BEST murdered at the hands of those (allies?) they train!"

I- too- was referring to the Afghans that our Best Trained--

After the last set of our BEST were killed a smell change was made in the RoEs-
now the troops can carry loaded weapons on US bases--
Loaded weapons-in a War zone-- WOW- thanks DoD!!!
Now- let's also
allow them to go 'full chamber' into the battle zone ...

BTW- if our BEST were 'allowed' to carry loaded weapons on all US bases- the murderous Hassan (US trained) would not have killed so many at Ft. Hood--

Shall I go On!!

C-CS

christian soldier said...

" smell change"

that would be a small change--

Time to go feed my horse!
C-CS

FreeThinke said...

Never should have gone in.

Never should have stayed in.

And parents of teenagers, please threaten to disown and disinherit any child of yours who even dreams of going into the military.

It's not the U.S. military anymore. It's a laboratory where your kids are going to be used as guinea pigs to test cockamamie theories in Social Engineering while they risk their lives unnecessarily in places where they are not respected, not welcome, not appreciated, where they can do no good whatsoever and where they are not permitted to do what's necessary to defend themselves adequately when they are attacked.

To ask an old question from the Vietnam Era:


How many more of our children are we going to shove into harm's way to die for a MISTAKE?

OUR FOREIGN POLICY is a FARCE.

~ FreeThinke

Robert Sinclair said...

And parents of teenagers, please threaten to disown and disinherit any child of yours who even dreams of going into the military. It's not the U.S. military anymore. It's a laboratory…

This is complete nonsense, I suspect written by someone who never served in uniform. I served in uniform. I have never met better people anywhere than I did while in the service. Ethical men and women, dedicated people, intelligent, hard working, and clear thinking. None of the people I served with had much respect for paper-pushing generals or politicians. Our country needs these kinds of people to step up, not shy away from serving their country. What WE must do … we civilians who are large on talk but shy on walk, is support our military by insisting on a president who isn’t a communist POS and members of Congress who will do as much to preserve and protect our young warriors as our young warriors do to preserve and protect our Constitution.

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vince said...

. If only the MSM would have done their job we wouldn’t be stuck with this marxist usurper in the white house… the fact that this clown was elected tells me that we are a country of fools and we are circling the proverbial drain

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beakerkin said...

Mustang

Pull the plug on Obama and with adult leadership we can rethink the entire region. If Obama wins then pull the plug.

Ed Bonderenka said...

" The country has been impregnable to foreign invasion for 2,500 years. Alexander the Great failed there; the British failed there; the Soviets failed there … did anyone with an ounce of brains think that we could succeed?"
I do not understand the logic of that.
We did invade.
We did succeed.
We drove the Taliban out (having harbored UBL).
Who would do different?
We did not strive to conquer, to subjugate, but to deliver.
Unfortunately we allied with Karzai, but even then, if Obama hadn't sold us out, the outcome might well have been positive.
Sure, pull them out if you want, but don't detract from what we did.
Just regret what we didn't finish.
If you're going to compare to Vietnam, remember:
We didn't lose.
We drove them to the Peace Treaty and it would have held, had a democratic congress not sold us out by prohibiting funding that would have maintained the peace.

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mustang said...

@ Frogburger

The problem with American intervention is that we Americans have been terribly selective about this. In the first place, why must this always involve US troops? I know, I know … it is difficult to trust UN Peacekeepers when they go to quell disturbances in Africa, and end up raping six-year-old girls … but America is not the world’s police force.

You may recall the US led NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia; how long did it take European nations to muster up the courage to do something? How many lives might have been saved had not these nations procrastinated? Before that, you may recall over one-million murders by the ruthless leftist Saloath Sar (aka Pol Pot) in Cambodia. Did the US do anything to save Cambodians? No, they did not. Did the UN do anything to save the Cambodians? No, they did not. So the Vietnamese saved the Cambodians. I actually think this was a proper course for the Vietnamese to take and it goes to prove that there are nations who, in the absence of US intervention, will intercede.

Now we are looking at Syria: the state is massacring its own people. Who has a greater stake in this than the Syrian people do? I did not support US intervention in Iraq or Libya, and I would not support US intervention in Syria or Iran. But we should ask where that worthless United Nations is? Where are the Pan-Arab States? I’ll tell you where they are: they’re sitting around in their multi-billion dollar palaces canoodling with camels waiting for those stupid Americans to do their dirty work.

Mustang said...

Ed ..

No my friend, we have not succeeded in Afghanistan. The Taliban are back, along with Al-Qaeda, and they have infiltrated the new Afghan Army, and the national police. They are shooting our troops in the back during joint operations. That is not how I would describe success. Ten years from now, Afghanistan will be the same crap hole it was in 2001 and our young men and women will have died for nothing.

We did not lose any of the battles in Vietnam. I said as much earlier —but we did not “win the war.” This was a political decision that undermined our every military success, even in spite of the fact that the senior commander was incompetent. I highly recommend Stanley Karnow’s book, History of the Vietnam War. Now let me add to this that Vietnam today is an emerging success. The “socialist” government is moving away from socialism toward a free-market system. We, on the other hand, have Obama. I often wonder if we are living in Wonderland.

Robert Sinclair said...

If anyone hasn’t read this article, they should.

FrogBurger said...

Mustang, I agree with you and I do ask myself the same questions. Europeans are weak and the United Nations are a joke. I always think about what the US did for France in WW1 and Europe in WW2. So it's hard to now say that people should handle their own business.

Liberalmann said...

Gee, Obama should make a speech about getting out...oh, wait. Yet, the GOP keeps the funding-a-coming.

viburnum said...

Ducky: "Well that's what happens when the military writes checks its ass can't cash."

No Ducky the politicians write the checks using the military as currency. Want to win wars for a change? Give them the mission and get the hell out of the way. With the exception of Eisenhower every president in the past century has been a rank amateur. Commander in chief my ass.

Lisa said...

Matey Matt-I love that rant by Mychal Massie. It really hits home about the reality of who the Obama's really are. Thank you for sharing that.
Anyone else read that? It's pretty potent.
A comment on Face book today someone was ranting about how Obama was in over his head and how inept he is and that the only thing he really knows how to do is show contempt for America..

Mustang said...

@Daily Rant
The threat posed to the US and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programs of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al-Qaeda – have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed. However the belief of the alleged weapons of mass destruction theory was a common one shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. Such as Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John F. Kerry, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, etc, and etc.. So it can’t be blamed on George Bush alone. And no, Iraq was not implicated in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

I just wanted to ad that I know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; I saw the aftermath of his use of it on the Kurds. It wasn’t pretty. As to why Bush decided to invade Iraq, I can only speculate that if you wanted to kill many radical Moslems, Iraq is a better place to do it than Afghanistan. We killed about 65,000 of those people, which I am sure you will agree lowers the possibility of illegal persons enrolling in Texas based flight schools in the future. On the other hand, while the military invasion was a textbook execution, the post-war administration of Paul Bremer was nothing if not unacceptably incompetent.

The US may have helped to decrease suicide bombers in Jerusalem by killing Saddam (you remember he was paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 for their service), but they also removed an important check against Iranian power in that region. If this was an unintended consequence of George Bush’s War, then I can’t think of much good to say about his cabinet.

Mustang said...

@Liberalmann

I see you're still abusing yourself. Keep it up and you'll turn out just like David Axelrod.

You've been warned.

Lisa said...

Z I don't understand what the democrat's obsession is with Muslims.
Can you imagine if the RNC was having a convention with Mormons?

Mustang said...

Lisa, if there is one consistency among the communist left, it is their hypocrisy.

Z said...

Mustang, thanks so much for this article.......what wonderful conversation it elicited...really good.

Lisa...VERY good question. Oh, no...the DNC can feature the CULTURE and "FUN" of Muslims for two days, but Republicans talk about MORMONS after all the people THEY have killed and threatened? (sarcasm!)
I guess marrying more than one person is way worse to libs than murdering more than one person?

And, of course, the left will show up here and say "it's not actually part of the DNC.." Ya, right.

Lisa said...

haha well Mustang I guess they do have one thing going for them then.

Z said...

If anybody's emailing me tonight, please know that my normal email address isn't working at all.....nothing's coming in.

Z said...

Did anybody see Hannity tonight? Actually, I have to go watch the beginning now, which I missed.

He had on about 10 voters who voted for Obama in 2008. Honestly, I have to admit I almost cried listening to their troubles and disenchantment. They seemed SO sad that they'd voted for him and SO disillusioned...some losing businesses, some losing jobs..all losing hope in that jerk (finally).

Of course, we all knew the truth in 2008, but to see people who had that hope turn to rubble is really upsetting to me. Most didn't even pay attention to the stories about his lies, etc...they admitted they were disenchanted with Bush and just grabbed the brass ring of Obama...........fascinating to hear...and so sad.

They're SURE not voting for him this time and I couldn't think of anything but "Please, let millions more feel like this"...Please, God.

FrogBurger said...

Watched a little bit of it.

They all proved my point: if you expect government to better your lives, you're wrong. Only ourselves can do that assuming we don't have too much to get in the way.

We must have low expectations with politicians whoever they are. We can only be disappointed otherwise.

The high expectations should be for ourselves. That's the only way you can handle your life better.

Z said...

FB...good point about expectations.
But we did have high expectations for Reagan and he didn't let us down, or the country.

I think the media takes care of any expectations, at least for Republican candidates; it's all bad news, finding the slightest little thing they feel is disparaging and running with it for days...

IMagine the American media (or DNC, which is really one and the same) digging up that Paul Ryan dated a black girl before his wife? Suddenly, it's a disparagement? This is a very good example of something the Right would NEVER EVER have done to a Dem candidate ... because we're more into privacy and because we're not racists and see that as a positive thing, not a negative.
BUT, the media painted it with phrases like "How will some in the GOP take this?" which is a clear swipe at those they think might not vote the ticket because they're so racist.
WHICH IS UTTERLY INSANE, considering the popularity of Herman Cain, Alan West, JC Watt, Thomas Sowell, etc etc etc... what are they THINKING?