So instead they are going to rain down missiles from on high.
"Don’t rush Afghan decision, Kerry cautions president" by Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 30, 2009
WASHINGTON - Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry argues that the new realities on the ground make it important to at least consider a radical change of course....
Well, that would be ENDING the thing and COMING HOME, so I know that is just a "consideration." Not going to do it, just consider it -- for about 5 seconds.
In 2007, Kerry called for 5,000 elite Special Forces troops to be sent to Afghanistan....
Related: "Al-CIA-Duh" Invades Afghanistan
How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last to Die For a Lie, Senator?
And this guy is considered to be a "dove."
Kerry said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University:
“This will take years, but we can’t afford to fail.’’
So what exactly is "success?"
Obama gave a similar message during his own presidential campaign, bolstering his national security credentials by pledging to redirect the war effort from Iraq to Afghanistan. Once Obama took office, he ordered more troops to Afghanistan with little opposition in Congress. At the time Kerry avoided Vietnam analogies, saying that Vietnam was never a direct threat to the United States, while “the exact opposite is true in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.’’
I'm so sick of the "Al-CIA-Duh"charade.
But this week, Kerry made reference to Vietnam in his plea for time to reexamine the policy. “We went through years and years [during the Vietnam War] of [General William] Westmoreland and President Johnson saying ‘we need more troops’ without ever examining the underlying assumptions,’’ he said.
Where do we start? Free-fall collapses due to fire?
After years of warning that the United States was running out of time in Afghanistan, Kerry seemed to suggest that it may be too late to turn the tide with more troops. “That is the question,’’ he said. “I think it is scandalous the way Afghanistan has been treated for seven years.’’
So do I, but for very different reasons.
Kerry said he plans to make his decision about how to proceed after his trip to Afghanistan and after holding a series of hearings, including one examining whether narrowly tailored strikes on terrorists would produce better results than a broad counterinsurgency campaign....
No, they are just going to murder a lot of innocent people and destroy things.
--more--"
More things Obama doesn't want to talk about:
"Afghan bus hits roadside bomb; 30 killed; Attack highlights perils of travel for civilians" by Laura King, Los Angeles Times | September 30, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan - Yesterday, Obama opened a new round of meetings to rethink his strategy in Afghanistan as he weighs a request for more troops from General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander on the ground.
Obama hosted the new NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said he agreed with the president that it was more important to figure out first what the mission should be in Afghanistan....
They DON'T EVEN KNOW the MISSION?
Then IT IS TIME TO LEAVE!!!!!!!!
Civilian deaths, either by foreign forces or the Taliban, have caused many Afghans to question the price of the fight against the insurgents, now entering its ninth year.
So do MANY AMERICANS!!!!
The Obama administration is still struggling to come up with a coherent war strategy, even as some NATO allies question whether the conflict is winnable....
Short answer: it is not.
A crowded Afghan passenger bus struck a roadside bomb yesterday in the violent southern province of Kandahar, killing 30 people and injuring more than three dozen others, Afghan officials said. As many as 10 children were reported to be among the dead.
The incident underscored the growing danger of road travel in much of Afghanistan, even on main highways, and the peril faced by civilians engaged in such mundane activities as walking to school, going to the market, or riding a bus.
Some liberation, huh?
The United Nations reported last week that August had been the deadliest month this year for civilians, who often find themselves caught in fighting between Western troops and insurgents. At least 1,500 noncombatants have been killed this year, the report said.
Related: Censoring Afghanistan's Slaughter
Boston Globe Buries Afghanistan Dead
Roadside bombs are almost always meant for foreign troops.
Almost always?
The crude but powerful devices claim far more Western troop casualties than out-and-out clashes with the Taliban and other militants. But they are indiscriminate killers: Civilians also use the roads traveled by military convoys.
So are missiles shot from drones.
At the time of yesterday’s blast, a contingent of soldiers had blocked off the main route to sweep it for explosives. The bus turned onto a parallel dirt road and struck a buried bomb there.
Intercity buses are the main mode of transport for Afghan workers and families, few of whom can afford to fly across the country’s vast distances. The bus was traversing a popular route from the western city of Herat to Kandahar, the hub of southern Afghanistan....
That's why I'm doubting my MSM account, but....
--more--"
And WHAT is with the REWRITE, Glob!!!!????
"President, advisers study Afghan war
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Obama [huddled] Wednesday with key members of his national security team, [but did not make any decisions]....
Then why is this news?
Wednesday's White House session was believed to have been the most high-powered gathering so far. It was to have included Vice President Joe Biden; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command; McChrystal; Admiral Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence; CIA Director Leon Panetta; Karl Eikenberry, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan; Anne Patterson, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan; and national security adviser Gen. James Jones.
When he installed McChrystal as commander in Afghanistan earlier this year, Obama ordered him to write an assessment of the conflict. The dire answer came back in September, declaring the U.S. would fail to meet its objectives of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaida allies if the administration did not significantly increase American forces.
One faction in the administration -- it includes the top three military commanders overseeing the war -- wants to accept McChrystal's recommendations. Others favor a new strategy of using Special Forces and unmanned drone aircraft for tactical strikes on the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership, a move that would require much more U.S. action in Pakistan but fewer troops....
While the Pentagon has so far locked away specifics of McChrystal's troop request, he is widely believed to want to add between 30,000 and 40,000 to the current force of 68,000....
Yeah, if you rad the top of this post you know why it is locked down.
Obama is moving with extreme deliberation even though he said during the presidential campaign that defeating the Taliban militants and al-Qaida was essential to U.S. security.
What, guarding oil pipelines and protecting the drug trade?
He moved swiftly on that pledge in the early days of his 8-month-old term, ordering an additional 21,000 forces into the country. In combination with NATO forces, the allies have about 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan's rugged terrain....
Russia had more and they couldn't get it done.
But [as casualties have risen], support for the war has fallen off sharply among Americans, with just more than half now saying the conflict is not worth the fight.
Yeah, it is "just more" than half, not too much more, blah, blah.
Can't even frame the poll right, can they?
The fact is MORE and MORE AMERICANS are OPPOSED to these wars EVERY DAY!!!
--more--"
Now I DON'T WANT to talk about the Boston Globe anymore!
