My latest in PJ Media:
President Trump is withdrawing a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is livid. According to AP, McConnell “warned against a potentially ‘humiliating’ pullout from Afghanistan that he said would be worse than President Barack Obama’s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975.” Not to be outdone, Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican leader on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, insisted: “We need to ensure a residual force is maintained for the foreseeable future to protect U.S. national and homeland security interests and to help secure peace for Afghanistan.” But McConnell and McCaul are advocating for a failed policy. It is long past time to leave Afghanistan.
In his State of the Union address on February 5, 2019, President Trump stated: “As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.” Epitomizing the need to do this was what happened when Trump first moved to end America’s longest endless war, the war in Afghanistan, with a treaty with the group that the U.S. entered Afghanistan in order to topple, the Taliban, in February 2020. The ink was still fresh on the signed document when the Taliban launched a new attack against Afghan government forces, killing twenty Afghan soldiers and police officers.
The attack was a fitting symbol of the fruitlessness of these endless wars and the bankruptcy of the assumptions and policies that had led to their being waged.
After all these years, we have little to show for all our efforts in the nation that has been ominously dubbed the “graveyard of empires.” The U.S. has sacrificed the lives of numerous heroic service members and squandered trillions for nearly two decades in the fond hope that it could remake Afghanistan into a stable, Western-style republic that would respect the human rights of all its citizens. That’s still the plan, as far as the architects of our intervention are concerned: One foreign policy establishment wonk counseled patience, saying that Afghanistan “is not going to become Switzerland overnight,” a fact that is as obvious as Joe Biden’s dementia.
Great. So we know now after almost twenty years that it isn’t going to happen overnight, but how long exactly is it going to take? To that question the advocates of endless intervention have no definite answer. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in late 2019: “We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave.”
All right, but what’s it going to take? Do Rumsfeld, McConnell, and McCaul really think that after nearly twenty years, one more year, or five more years, or ten more years, will do the job?
There is much more. Read the rest here.
tgusa says
Search 9-11 hijackers how did they get here? Spoiler: none of them obtained government issued visas to enter the USA from Afghanistan. What say you regarding that Senator McConnell?
It is disturbing that the security of the nation is in the hands of those people.
don vito says
If I remember correctly, the Taliban gov. offered a safe haven for planning, training, and R & R for islamikkk terrorists, that had begun with the somlia ambush of al kada in ’93, the attacks of American embassies in east Africa, during the 90s, culminating in the attack on the USS Cole, with the loss of 17 US sailors. The taliban refuse US demand to hand over the ring-leaders of these terrorist (islamikkk) attacks and end the safe-haven giving that Afghanistan had been offering. The 911 homicide bombers came from many moslem countries, primarily saudi arabia (15 saudis to my knowledge). Many came to study and overstayed their visas. There was no allegation at the time that Afghanistan initiated the physical islamikkk attack on the US. Anyway this is how I remember this era, no?
gravenimage says
Spot on, Don.
Peace says
Biden will open arms the borders, (hopefully they’ll brag about their terriosm so we know who is killing us …)
Infidel says
The GOP senate needs a major overhaul, starting w/ Mitch! He can’t continue to be a one issue champion – judges, while continuing to live like it’s still the 80s or latter half of 2001. I wonder whether he thinks there’s one place that we need to get our troops out of! Problem is that the bulk of his conference is on the same page as him, and only some newer senators, like Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton see it the president’s way. Oh, and there’s Rand Paul, and this is one of the things he happens to be absolutely right about!
Of course, the driving force behind all this are defense lobbyists – retired generals, defense contractors and so on – who have everything to gain by wars not ending b’cos they then get to keep the cash flow going from more weapons sales. I understand their desire to avoid the ‘peace dividends’ of the early 90s, when there were all those ‘swords to plowshares’ trends going on in the military. But things ain’t getting peaceful anytime soon: China is on the rampage, and the US is busy trying to contain them in the Indo Pacific. Note that here, the US doesn’t have to harangue countries to pay 2% of their GDP on defense, or do the burdensharing: in Quad, Australia, India and Japan have been more than happy to pull their own weight. In fact, after the elections, suspecting that Biden may not be interested in confronting China, Japan and Australia had a meeting on how to continue on this in case the US pulls out
So the GOP needs to be transformed at the senate level: every new candidate for Senate needs to be on the same page as the president, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley and the Freedom Caucus. We can’t keep having our troops in 150 (out of 190) countries forever, particularly when there is a rising Chinese threat. Nor can we defend the entire world from China: we need to prioritize our regions, and leave the rest to others. One good choice: defend the Americas as well as the Indo-Pacific, where we have 3 solid allies and then some others, like Taiwan and Vietnam, and have NATO (sans the US) take care of Europe and Africa. That sounds like a fair strategy
Wellington says
Optimal for the US and all the West: Cordon off the entire Islamic world and only allow a limited number of diplomatic personnel from said sorry-ass region of the earth entrance into Western nations (and keep a close eye on these reprobates).
Again I state that Islam is the turd in the punch bowl of world religions. It deserves no respect, anymore than Nazism or Communism did, though the latter two are representative of secular totalitarianism and Islam a religious form of totalitarian rot.
Think containment doctrine a la Truman and, when the time is ripe, move to a win doctrine a la Reagan.
Just as Nazism and Marxism were worthy of being consigned to the fringes of human society, if even this, so should it eventually be the case with Islam.
And yes, I know full well that though Nazism is now fully fringe, nutty material, Marxism is still very much alive in Western academia and so keep a close eye on the overeducated fools in this sphere of the West—they have nothing to contribute and are shills for two evils—Marxism and Islam.
Perhaps, a la that monumental nitwit, AOC, lists should be kept of Marxists in Western academia but then this would be a very long list, including many in so-called mainstream Western political parties. OK, nix this list because lists of this kind are inimical to liberty all around, but let the rubes like AOC know that what they propose could come back to haunt them. Yes indeed, keep the bad guys and fools on the defensive—and keep them guessing. No quarter.
gravenimage says
Wellington wrote:
Optimal for the US and all the West: Cordon off the entire Islamic world and only allow a limited number of diplomatic personnel from said sorry-ass region of the earth entrance into Western nations (and keep a close eye on these reprobates).
…………..
Spot on, Wellington. We were *much* safer when the Muslim world was largely kept isolated from civilized nation.
The only caveat I would add is that there should be a mechanism for evaluating people seeking asylum from these Islamic hell holes–but noting that such vetting should be *very* strict, lest we wind up with more pious Muslims here, which would defeat the whole purpose.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
I agree, the vetting of people seeking asylum must be very strict.
No one from an islamic country should be admitted to the United States unless they are willing to totally give up their totalitarian / religious / political ideology of islam – and swear an oath to the United States of America…
Karen says
A Muslim swearing an oath to the US or any other Western country is, unfortunately, not worth the breath it’s sworn with. Why? According to Allah oaths of any kind may be made outwardly if needed to promote Islam as Allah will know the person doesn’t feel that in their heart. Read Stephen Kirby PhD “Islamic Doctrine v the US Constitution. He covers this subject thoroughly with Islamic scripture references.
James Lincoln says
Yes, Karen.
I agree, very very difficult to vet.
There are exceptions:
1. Persecuted Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc., in a muslim majority country.
And there are *rare* exceptions:
2. Legitimate muslim apostates – who are valuable in turning other muslims against islam.
But, as I’ve said repeatedly before, better to not let muslims into your country first place…
gravenimage says
+1
Avenger says
If the USA continues to support Al-Qaeda in Syria then its time to close shop there too.
President Trump brought the Israelis and Sunni Arabs to the negotiating table, he can do the same with the Persian Shiites and Israel.
gravenimage says
The idea that the US supports Al-Qaeda is ridiculous.
Avenger here just hates any action taken against his beloved Shia Jihadists. He is also irked that we were able to take out the Islamic State.
somehistory says
I tried for some time to keep up with who was supporting which group…’o’ was not honestly supporting those who want ‘freedom’ for all…but Ifinally gave up on trying to sort it all out.
Too many terror groups claiming to be “freedom fighters” and fighting to take over in Syria, etc. Many did get their hands on U.S. weapons…via hillary clinton.
But, back in the ’80’s when Russia was trying to gain control in Afghanistan, the U.S., via the C.I.A., did fund, arm, and help bin laden, the terrorist who formed al queda when he was a member of the mb in Egypt. They thought he could keep Russia from getting their hands on the resources that could come through afghanistan.
We live in a world full of complications and things going on that are not ever revealed to the common citizen; other things come out after the fact and too late to complain.
tgusa says
What came out of the media in the 80s, and they were all for it, was the mujahideen were freedom fighters. The reality is mujahideen is the Arabic term for one engaged in jihad. So I’m not really surprised the CIA supported them. Even back then they had to know.
gravenimage says
I think anyone who opposed the Communists at the time was seen as a freedom fighter–it really was not any more sophisticated than that.
tgusa says
Perhaps. But in light of what I have seen unfold since then lets just say I’m suspicious.
gravenimage says
I think that anyone who opposed the Communists at the time was deemed a “freedom fighter”–it really wasn’t any more sophisticated than that. The idea that they could embrace an ideology as bad or worse occurred to almost no one (although it *should have*).
gravenimage says
Sorry for the near double-post. Posting has been really balky today, and I didn’t think my first comment posted.
tgusa says
That is true. A mistake, but truthful.
tgusa says
“Even back then they had to know.” They did.
The jihad is way older than the USA. But we Americans, we deserve to have been told the truth and we weren’t.
underbed cat says
If the idea that U.S. supported al-Queda is ridiculous to you, it is not ridiculous to me but crazy to do so. Al queda also I beleived refers to themselves as the the base”, or the soldiers of allah correct? Isis, again soldiers of allah, they were reported to often be found to carry and quote passages of Qurans to fight non believers in jihad. Shites and Sunni’s fight each other only to be victorious as a leader for caliphate or fight together against those fighting against the Islamic state, those fighting against it are considered terrorists or trainers depending on the circumstances. So Iran once called Persia and non islamic was captured and is now under sharia law many years back. They rule by terror and obligation. So when our government fights jihad we fight Islam and it’s clever deception of peace. Its confusing and it is a curious and frightening observation that if we don’t stop the deception of a peaceful Islam the peaceful people who live inside the war zone cannot defend themselves if the country bans weapons it is a tragedy to fight it ,if we don’t know it and prevent it here in America, if we are still under the delusion of a religion not an enemy already established within our borders. Afganhistan communists? It seems Islamic to me.
Rob says
Good luck with the Shiites.
don vito says
Can you live under shia rule?
somehistory says
One cannot…with kind words, threats, or bombs…change the “minds and hearts” of moslims.
They are not “noble.” And they don’t want to change and become nicer to their own people, much less to outsiders…to ones they view as Crusaders or friends of the Jews.
The taliban was persecuting other moslims in that country…the women and little girls in full body bags, fencing over their eyes and whipped for being outside. stoned for being raped by one of their ‘own.’.
The female reporters wore scarves and covered up with what looked like sheets when going in to the war zone.
The taliban are still there…even aided by ‘o’ as he let some out of confinement in Cuba in order for them to return to fighting.
The Bible says, “There is no peace for the wicked, my God has said.”
Michael Copeland says
Exactly. Muslim hearts and minds are not available: they are spoken for by Islam, which kills them if they leave. Imams instruct their listeners to hold the ilthy kuffar in contempt.
Relic says
midday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG9EgGG7t94
Major Tom says
As soon as we allowed the Afghans to have a Shariah compliant Constitution……we should have pulled out! It makes as much sense being there now as camping next to a bee hive…….
don vito says
That single decision was as stupid as the FDR Yalta agreement during WWtwo. A WESTERN nation installing a sharia compliant governing document, showing how ignorant our bureaucratic State Department was. Preposterous for a civilised nation to install such uncivilised governing authority on a people just liberated from islamikkk iron gripe. Thanks for reminding me.
Kepha says
I winced when Bush II sent us into Afghanistan. The logistical chain, on which any US military campaign would have to depend, had to pass through the very duplicitous and treacherous country of Pakistan–the country that gave OBL a very cofortable hiding place. I thought it would’ve been far better, in the wake of 9/11, to quietly rebuild our human intelligence capabilities (which were a joke back when I was in State) to the point where OBL would’ve been the target of a wet operation, or, when he felt safe enough to get on a place, end up the target of a stunt such as was played on the Achille Lauro hijeckers. It would’ve been worth it to have intercepted the place on which OBL would’ve been travelling, divert it to a US military base, take him off in handcuffs, apologize profusely to all inconvenienced, and even set aside money to compensate people suffering loss. But we would’ve made our point.
British and Soviet misadventures in the Great Game should’ve taught us that Afghanistan was a hopeless case. We could win it only were we willing to use medieval Mongol tactics–pile up the skulls of every man, woman, and child in a city or town that resists; ensure that many following generations of their people looks like us (think Hazara, Mogholi, and Aimaq people in Afghanistan). Yet these are tactics that would get American military personnel court-martialed.
We failed utterly in winning the hearts and minds of a Far East bent hell-for-leather on trying out Communism back in the 1940’s, and didn’t get a sympathetic hearing until after they’d been through Mao’s cultural revolution. We aren’t going to win the hearts and minds of an Islamic world which is determined hell-for-leather to impose Shariah; and haven’t gotten a sympathetic hearing until the Iranian people got sick of their mullahs’ demands, and walked around our flag and the Isaeli flag painted on a campus sidewalk.
Infidel says
The original attacks on Afghanistan as a result of 9/11 made sense, but that operation was done in 3 months, when Mullah Omar hightailed it out of Kandahar. Everything since January 2002 was a mistake, particularly helping them write a shariah-compatible constitution and getting into the weeds in the setup of their government
You’re right about the treachery of Pakistan, and the Bush administration made things worse by rubbing Uzbekistan the wrong way so that the 2 bases that the US had there were shut down. All b’cos in the name of ‘democracy’, the US criticized the Uzbeks for cracking down on islam, particularly after the Andijon riots. Also, at the time, India had offered support to the US, but the Bush administration still believed that Pakistan was the same sort of ally that it was in the 80s, and went along w/ them
You’re also accurate in pointing out that the only non-Muslim power that ever succeeded in conquering Afghanistan was the Mongols. Chengiz Khan took a year to prepare for his invasion of the Qhwarezm sultanate, of which western Afghanistan – Herat and Ghowr – were a part, and he would besiege and starve cities to force them to surrender, burning crops and making a wasteland out of their hinterlands. The only thing Americans could have done would have been to carpetbomb the cities, but now there are all those ‘civilian protection rules’ that make war impossible, no matter how justified it may be
For everyone warning that Afghanistan will revert to what it was in 2000 before 9/11, there is a simple solution: add Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh to the list of countries in the Travel ban, which exists. After that, let Pashtuns, Tajiks and Hazaras duke it out, and let it spill into Pakistan, where Pashtuns are now on the warpath against the Pakistani government, despite Imran Khan himself being one of them
Lorensacho says
I wouldn’t put much confidence in Trump’s knowledge of international affairs but I do know that American troops are in Afghanistan to protect the lives of women who when the U.S. leaves will have acid thrown on their faces for having jobs and going to school. This presents a humanitarian conflict that is difficult to mitigate.
gravenimage says
Lorensacho, Afghanistan has already put stoning back on the books. Most of the women in prison–up to 75% of them–are jailed for trying to resist or flee a forced marriage. It is unfortunately impossible to priotect women and girls in an lslamic society, because Islam itself calls for their oppression and abuse.
Tony Naim says
I wish President Trump will give me 2 minutes of his time to let him know it is more important to defeat political Islam than to keep troops in Afghanistan.
This is an ideological struggle more than a military one, that the United States cannot and should not shy away from . If not for any reason, simply because 3000 mosques in the US preach an overt soft theology to conceal a covert and vile political dogma .
OLD GUY says
Well said truth about the problem of 3000 mosques in the US that are supporting the islamic ideology. No such thing as a moderate muslim.
gravenimage says
Actually, Tony, studies have shown that over 80% of Mosques in the US are openly “extremist”–they aren’t even trying to conceal how savage Islam is.
https://www.jpost.com/International/Expert-Saudis-have-radicalized-80-percent-of-US-mosques
Clifford Fodor says
We sure have attacked and conquered Saudi Arabia. They are the ones who are responsible for 9/11. We should occupied Saudi Arabia until the Second Coming.
gravenimage says
The Saudis wdere certainy one of the major forces behind 9/11.
I don’t think it is possible for us to civilize them–but neither should we think they are our allies.