General Allen: U.S. to stay the course in Afghanistan -- what course?

The dogged insistence of hanging on to the vague, makes me think there is something else going on that they are not telling us...Are they really that stupid? What course? Is about right, if there is one, they are not telling us about it...

Robert is right when he says "What is the objective?".
The current objective, as it exists now, is called "pusillanimous".
It's confused and built on a false understanding of islam.
The objective, as it could be and should be, is called "eradicate islam".

You think that can't be done?
Read your history.
It's been done over and over, the old fashioned way - read Isabellan Spain.
You give the population 24 hours to renounce islam and convert to some non-islamic REAL religion.
After that, burn all the mosques, destroy all the korans, brook no resistance - whatsoever.
Rule Afganistan as an American colony and business interest for a generation or two, the way the Americans ruled Japan after WWII.
Make the Afgans pay us for the effort and the trouble, they have the natural resources.
In a few generations, Afganistan would be a Western Christian civilization.

You think it's not justified?
islam intends to destroy the West.
With one islamic atomic bomb, used as an EMP weapon, they can kill 90 percent of the American population.
And there are nut cases in Iran who intend to do just that.
Come home, sit back, enjoy your last meal - before your execution - or rise up and defend yourself.

We make a show of sending our troops out the front door to kill a few islamic terrorists in Afganistan, albeit with one hand tied behind their backs.
And then we fling open the back door so the more sly agents of islam can slither in to - as the muslim brother has sworn -

"The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

But even at this, the battle in Afganistan is only peripheral.
Afganistan is being subverted by Pakistan.
And the source of the infection in Pakistan is the madrassas.
And the madrassas are being funded by Saudi Arabia.
By Saudi OIL MONEY.
Take the oil money away from Saudi Arabia and you'll be removing the one thing that is powering the current islamic uprising around the world, and you'll go a long way toward winning the war against islam.

General Allen is another in a long line of silver-haired stars-bedecked Generals in pajama outfits whose hearts and minds are besotted with that curious, but all too coommon, form of cultural suicide called PC MC neo-Wilsonianism that pivots our entire strategy agaisnt these Muslim barbarians who hate us upon "winning their hearts and minds" and bringing out their inner Westerner which, as we all know, must exist in every homo sapiens on Earth, whether he be a headhunting cannibal in Borneo or a beheading Muslim in Sumatra; for human being is assumed to be Homo Occidentalis.

On a philosophical level (as opposed to an ontological or materialist level), I don't mind that assumption (it actually reflects a paradoxical hangover, in the form of modern Leftist condescendion to the Noble Savage, of a former rationality that formed the rational pith of classic Western Colonialism). What I mind is irrationally extending the benefits of that symbolization to embrace those who don't deserve it.

"Allen says. “I wish I could tell you that this war was simple, and that progress could be easily measured.."

This approach is flawed, in that war is simple, in that you defeat your enemy, not build his roads, schools that are blown up as fast as they are built, any worry about burning OUR own books.

War is simple, and war is hell. Patton understood this, knew objectives in a way that is alien to the current stratagy, and leadership.

We are not at war with the enemy, but at war with the objectives that are our own, and we will loose, being unable to have victory over ourselves.

All this reminds me of how shocked Clark Clifford was when he took over as Secretary of Defense in 1968 after Robert McNamara's retirement. Clifford was stunned when he began asking questions of the JCS. What was the plan for ultimate victory in Vietnam? There was none. Well, was the air war having an effect? Yes, but in only a limited way. Could the JCS tell him how much longer we needed to be in Vietnam? No. And on and on.

This is when Clifford himself turned against the war and tried to convince LBJ to get the hell out. He wasn't successful in this endeavor. Then Nixon spent four more years getting basically the same result he could have had four years before. Meanwhile, many more thousands of American soldiers died or were maimed for life. To what effect?

The sad but true fact is that the last war America fought to really win was WWII. And at least with Korea and Vietnam we could name the enemy---Communism. Now we can't even do that. And the enemy most assuredly is Islam---all of it.

Sad. So damn sad.

The way a war is won is that we kill as many of the enemy as we can as quickly as we can and break all his stuff, and then we come home.

Period. It doesn't take stars on the shoulders to understand that axiom.

I used to wonder how the top brass in our armed forces could stomach having to toady up to the Obama and his Administration, including the likes of Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton. Now I am beginning to believe that they actually enjoy it. Meanwhile, the troops under their command are being needlessly sacrificed in implementing this Administration's policy of ensuring Islamic supremacy throughout the Middle East.

"There have been setbacks, to be sure, we’re experiencing them now, and there will be more setbacks ahead,” Allen says. “I wish I could tell you that this war was simple, and that progress could be easily measured. But that’s not the way of counterinsurgencies.”..."

Pathetic and weak. Now there is a speech sure to inspire the confidence of the troops under his command. Do you not agree that it ranks right up there with: "We have only just begun to fight". "Don't give up the ship." "You are embarking on a great crusade . . ." (oops, can't say that again can we?), "We are surrounded on all sides? ... , that means we can attack in any direction" or "Nuts".

Where is the modern day General Patton needed to give a general officer a slap on the head and a kick in the butt?

Hugh Fitzgerald used to talk about 'Tarbaby Iraq'.

Now we - Aussies, Americans, British, Canadians, and a whole bunch of others - seem to be stuck fast to Tarbaby Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan began as a hunt for Bid Laden (and he was found in Pakistan nearly 10 years later), and wound up being a military campaign waged for altruist reasons. That is, it was prosecuted in order to bring “democracy” to the place at the expense of American blood and treasure. No number of lives or amount of money was too much to pay to win a smile from brutal tribalists and a population locked in the stasis of deferring to a mythical moon god and filthy traditions. The impossibility of that goal is now dawning on the policymakers, but they’re not the ones who have had to pay the price. No war waged from altruist motives has ever achieved its goal. Not the “War on Poverty,” not the “War on Drugs,” not the “War on Crime.” The more impossible the goal, the more money and lives have been thrown at it.

It was never in America’s self-interest to pacify Afghans and bring them into the 21st century. It might have been justifiable to go in and destroy Al-Quada, the Taliban, and bin Laden, and a smart policy expert might have advised that there was no reason to stay there once that was done. “They’re still in the seventh century, Mr. President, and don’t want to leave it, either. To hell with them.” But, beginning with Bush, we’ve had no smart policy experts in the White House, only sly ones with nothing else to do but advocate more of the same altruism. So, Robert is right: there is no “course” to pursue in Afghanistan.

This Adminstration and those that preceded it do not even have the moral courage to name the enemy. Who is the enemy? ISLAM is the enemy, and ALL Muslims are its soldiers. No exceptions! Instead everyone uses euphemisms based on the false premise there are "peaceful" Muslims and "violent" ones. That has led to the stupidity that you can divide and conquor an enemy that is NOT divisible. ALL MUSLIMS are involved in the practice of Jihad, yes ALL of them. Their Mosques are command and control centers for jihad that ranges from political subversion through disruption and violence. They corrupt everthing they touch. Mohammad simply legitimized religious violence as a component of his Mafia organization to assuage the guilt complex of those were squeemish about rape, torture, and murder as his soldiers plundered their way through history. He invented the religion of Islam and named it after the chief idol of the Arabs. He bestowed Allah with components of his own personality and convinced his followers that the most contemptible, vile, inhumane acts of man's corrupt nature had been sanctioned by Allah. Our current leaders use phrases like the "holy Koran" instead of calling it what it is, Islam's totalitarian manual for plundering the wealth of nations, the formula for world conquest. How cowardly and stupid we have become! We have allowed our leaders to become "enablers" of our enemies who are embedded in the most sensitive positions in our defense department and national security agencies. We are the ones who are being "divided and conquored." Let us STOP the madness and name the enemy. ISLAM IS THE ENEMY, and ALL MUSLIMS ARE ITS SOLDIERS. Do we want to survive? Then,it is time to ROUND THEM UP and DEPORT THEM ALL domestically, and quit sending our troops to any area that we have not defined Islam as the enemy, AND prior to Congress having made a formal DECLARATION OF WAR! Enough of policing the world, and the brush wars that waste our resources and do not achieve strategic victory. If we send our troops to fight, lets give them the authority to win strategically, and not be hamstrung by political correctness.

General Allen: U.S. to stay the course in Afghanistan -- what course?
........................

"What course?" indeed.

Here's some stupidity from the Chicago Tribune, claiming General Allen turned "former militants into U.S. partners" in Iraq:

"Success in Iraq Shows Gen. John Allen 'Just Gets It'"

Pollack ]Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council official now at the Brookings Institution—GI] credits Allen with being one of the first U.S. generals to "recognize that this was not a capture-them-and-kill-them kind of counterterrorism operation," says Pollack. "He gets how to integrate the political and the military. He just gets it."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201203201137usnewsusnwr201203190319genallenmar20,0,408141.story

Good thing we aren't doing anything so crude as killing Jihad terrorists—that just wouldn't be "nuanced"! sarc/off

When criticized over the cringing American apology over the unintentional Qur'qn burnings, he said this:

"Why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we?" Allen said of the apology during a recent television interview. "This is the central word of God for them. Why wouldn't we? We didn't do it on purpose. But we should apologize. And now we get on with the relationship."

No mention, of course, that the Afghan Muslims "got on with the relationship" at their end by murdering American troops...

Osama bin Laden said very clearly that it was his intention to launch a small attack upon America that would cause the U.S. to react in such a way that it would exhaust and bankrupt itself.

And our so-called leaders fell for it.

The real "mission accomplished".