1,950 Dutch Troops to Vacate Afghanistan.

1,950 Dutch Troops are being pulled out of Afghanistan, leaving the United States with another member of NATO abandoning our mission after a radical change in government: Holland voted out their almost decade long Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, after his governing coalition failed to extend the amount of time that Dutch Troops would be on the ground, which also led to his coalition government collapsing.

This is not good news.

Especially since both Canada and Poland are scheduled to withdraw all of their Troops within the next two years. Plus, the United Kingdom is drifting farther and farther from the War on Terror, while it seems only France and Germany are willing to remain on our pro-war side, despite the economic and political cost.

What now?

Three things:

1. The United States must increase our Troop levels to compensate for all of our allies leaving us in Afghanistan without support whatsoever.

2. The United States must come to realize the fact that this is our war, not Holland's, not Spain's, not NATO's, not the Afghan people's, but our War on Terrorism. It's true that Spain and the UK should care about what happens over in Afghanistan, but it's obvious they don't.

3. The United States must scrap our 2011 withdrawal/timeline NOW.

All in all, the Dutch are just doing what Europe as a whole has always done - Surrender to pure evil without thought as to the consequences.

Any thoughts?

Consider advertising on our site!

12 Republicans voted against Afghanistan War Funding Bill.

The House of Representatives voted on and passed the much needed Afghanistan War funding bill last night by a vote of 308-114. A majority of the opposition came from a divided Democratic Caucus, but 12 members of the usually neo-Conservative Republican Caucus voted against the essential war funding legislation.

This should no longer come as a surprise to me, but it is just so damn awful that members of our own Caucus, the true representatives of the American soldier, stand against our humble soldiers, and our Wars on Terror.

Here's the list of Republicans that need to go:

Congressman Broun (Georgia).
Congressman Campbell (California).
Congressman Chaffetz (Utah).
Congressman Duncan (Tennessee).
Congressman Ehlers (Michigan).
Congressman Flake (Arizona).
Congressman Gingrey (Georgia).
Congressman Jones (N. Carolina).
Congressman Johnson (Illinois).
Congressman Linder (Georgia).
Congressman Paul (Texas).
Congressman Rohrabacher (California).

This is the reason I'm fearful of a United States Senate with Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ken Buck and Sharron Angle, in addition to Senator's Coburn and DeMint. Once we regain control of Congress, and say we have to expand the War on Terrorism into Pakistan or Yemen, will we have enough of our own Representatives and Senator's on the right side?

That's the question that leaves me awake at night.

What say you?



Consider advertising on our site!

Afghanistan vs. Vietnam - The Statistics.

Is the War in Afghanistan the same as the Vietnam War?

Absolutely not. Afghanistan has been fought with vigor and courage at such levels Vietnam knew nothing of, and our Troops in Afghanistan have been well received and honored at home, and the cause of our mission is supported by the American citizenry, and the ultimate cost of war cannot be compared between the two.

American casualties in Vietnam - 58,159 killed, 303,635 wounded.
American casualties in Afghanistan - 1,130 killed, 6,623 wounded.

How are these wars the same?

98% fewer American soldiers have died in Afghanistan, while 97% fewer American soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan. Besides for both wars lasting for a long, long time, how in the hell are they the same? Afghanistan isn't split into two, victory can be achieved and our current war means a lot more than Vietnam ever did.

These wars are nothing alike, and will never be alike, unless liberal fanatics, and Libertarian nutjobs get what they want - total American surrender and a hostile Afghanistan.






Consider advertising on our site!

Afghanistan: This is Our War.

Here's an honest question for all Americans: Who owns the War in Afghanistan? Karzai? Obama? Cameron? NATO? The UN? Bush? To me, it's None of the above. This is not Karzai's War, this is Our War; America's War. That started when 17 sex crazed Islamists murdered 3,000 innocent humans on September eleventh, 2001.

Our War was launched to eliminate the Islamists who planned it, the Terrorist's who supported it, and the Fundamentalists who harboured It. Uplifting Afghanistan via Nation Building is just one aspect of our mission to oppose our enemies on the ground, but we should never be confused as to what our primary objective is:

Victory in Afghanistan.

Which is why I cringed this afternoon when the AP published this headline: Karzai reaffirms 2014 goal for Afghan-led security. Goodness! It feels like Afghanistan has turned into Iraq because Iraq was more about removing Saddam than Security, while Afghanistan has, and is, to my knowledge, been about American Security, not Afghan control, which inadvertently places a timeline on our Troops.

Freeing Afghanistan was Awesome.

Women owning Businesses is superb.

Elections being held is Impressive.

However, America winning the War, is what really matters. This is not Afghanistan's War, it's Ours. And I hope we never forget that.

Consider advertising on our site!

We must Win Afghanistan.

The United States of America simply cannot afford to be defeated in Afghanistan. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which resulted in the horrific deaths of 2,991 individuals, President Bush stood against our enemies (al-Qaida and the Taliban), and declared them all the same, and all at fault.

President Bush understood that those who harbored our enemies, such as al-Qaida, were just as much our enemies, than those who took control of the planes; which is why the United States has been fighting against our Islamist foes for nine years in Afghanistan, regardless of President.

It's true that the greatest victory of the War on Terrorism will be Iraq, as our efforts to remove Saddam, to build a Nation, and to secure a friend, at least geographically, has succeeded. It's also true that the greatest morale victory of the War on Terrorism is that our Troops have not been treated like garbage, such as they were during the Vietnam War.

But all of that will be a hollow victory without Victory in Afghanistan. If we lose to the Jihadists: the Taliban, with or without the help of Karzai, will regain control of Afghanistan, they will once again establish Afghanistan as a safe harbour for al-Qaida, they will once again attack us and our allies, and we will have to, once again, launch War into Afghanistan.

We must Win Afghanistan, or another September eleventh will occur on our shores. You don't know how much it affects me when I hear supposed Conservatives, such as Ann Coulter, bash the War in Afghanistan for political gains. It's sickening, and it pisses me off. We have 100,000 soldiers and General Petraeus in Afghanistan, fighting for ours and the world's future as a free world, and now, even some on our side are using that for political gain.

We must Win Afghanistan.

Consider advertising on our site!

A Terrible Rationale for Pulling Out of Afghanistan

The Seattle Times has an absolutely terrible editorial piece arguing that the United States is "running out" of reasons to stay in Afghanistan. Their article is an terrible laughingstock that besmirches not only the US-NATO effort there but also the memories of nearly 3,000 people murdered by jihadists who trained and planned from the Taliban's sanctuary.

A quote:

The United States was not attacked by Afghanistan, but by a band of terrorists trained at a private camp there. The NATO occupation is based on the assumption that if the Taliban return to power, they will invite al-Qaida to set up another camp.

So it's okay that the Taliban willingly allowed al Qaeda and related groups base themselves in their territory and iron out the logistics for the September 11th atrocities? We need to remember one quote about Afghanistan's role in the attacks:

“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” That was President Bush speaking in September 2001-- I think he had the right perspective.
Another gem from the editorial:

First is that Afghanistan would be "vulnerable to a civil war that would suck in the local powers including Iran, Pakistan, India and Russia." In other words, if America gets out of the killing zone other countries will go in, therefore America should stay in. And that makes no sense.

Let's not remember that when the Soviets left in February 1989 Afghanistan fell into a civil war that did not (ostensibly) settle until 1995 when the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies took Kabul. From that point until 2001 the organization trained 70,000 mujahadin to fight both inside and out of the region. Many of those veterans helped coordinate or carry out the September 11th, Madrid, Bali, and other attacks.

These same veterans helped set up al Qaeda networks in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of US, Allied, and Iraqi forces.

If the US and its Allies leave and the Taliban take over, who would be its only choices for allies? Russia? No. China? No. The most logical allies would be terrorist organizations and the Pakistani ISI.

Not to be too campy, but those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Don't forget to comment and to bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

The Taliban are Closeted Gays?!?

From FoxNews, it appears that our dear friends in the Taliban are not just angry about Western culture, but because they are closeted homosexuals:

The group of interpreters who had contracted gonorrhea joked in the camp that they actually got the disease by "mixing green and black tea." But since they refused to heed the medics' warnings, many of them re-contracted the disease after receiving treatment.

The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.

The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.'"

The Pashtun populations are concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the country. The Human Terrain Team that conducted the research is part of a military effort to learn more about local populations.

The report also detailed a disturbing practice in which older "men of status" keep young boys on hand for sexual relationships. One of the country's favorite sayings, the report said, is "women are for children, boys are for pleasure."

What the hell?!?!?

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Albania Sending 85 More Troops to Afghanistan

After news of the American troop surge in Afghanistan broke, many nations have agreed to bolster the NATO mission in Afghanistan, ISAF. 5,000 new forces will be deploying with the Americans to try and pacify the country.

Poland, our steadfast ally, is sending 600 on top of its 2000 already in place. Britain is sending 500 more.

But to readers of Jumping in Pools, it should come as no surprise that tiny Albania, the most pro-American nation in Europe is deploying 85 more troops, bringing its commitment up to 335 soldiers. This is the same country that sent 200 troops to win the war in Iraq.

You go, Albania!

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

We Stand For Victory in Afghanistan

We here at Jumping in Pools stand for victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda. There is no way that we can allow this band of theocratic fascists to control one of the most vital waypoints in Central Asia. It was from Afghanistan that the September 11th atrocities were planned, it was from Afghanistan that the Taliban moved into Pakistan.

We must win there. Period.

We have significant disagreements with President Obama. None of us (not even Joe, a democrat) supported him in 2008. However, we must throw away some of our disagreement in order to do what's best for the soldiers and for the nation as a whole.

We support the troop surge. We hope that the President will send at least 10,000 more soldiers in order to fulfill General McChrystal's request. We hope that NATO and other nations will also send thousands of new troops. Our dear ally Georgia has announced that it is sending almost 2,000 troops, and Britain is sending 500 more.

This is a particularly difficult issue to us. One of our writers, Eli, is in the National Guard training to be a medic. It is likely that he may go to Afghanistan and we want to make sure that reinforcements are there to win the war and destroy the Taliban.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are our enemies, not the President. I hope that after the speech President Obama places responsibility in Generals McChrystal and Petraeus to finish the job.

We all depend on it.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Hillary, Military Want at Least 30k New Troops for Afghanistan

As President Barack Obama continues dithering on the decision to send reinforcements to our troops in the field in Afghanistan, many of those around him are urging him to send more troops quickly. These include the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. What Obama will eventually do is as of yet unknown.

Unfortunately there is also this horrifying news:

But administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not yet made up his mind, and that other top advisers, among them Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, remained skeptical of the value of a buildup.

Man, I hope he doesn't talk to Biden. He's a retard. He's been wrong on just about every foreign policy issue since 2004.

We need to surge up to 60,000 troops in by February and give them the counterinsurgency strategy which will eventually decrease all casualties: US, NATO, and Afghan and will halt the Taliban. With the Taliban weakened in Afghanistan, the Pakistani military can close in on the other side of the border.

Is it easy? No. Thousands of people will die (hopefully all Taliban and al Qaeda). It will take at least a year and maybe five (if not more). But unless you're REALLY hankerin' for a jet to fly into another office building, we better get the job done.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Obama to Consult Magic 8 Ball for Afghanistan Strategy

WASHINGTON- Amidst growing pressure to declare a comprehensive plan for the war in Afghanistan, President Obama has made an unexpected decision: using a childhood toy to decide what to do with major policies.

The toy, a Magic 8 ball given to him when he was nine, is still usable, the President said in a press conference on Sunday night. "You see," President Obama explained, "you ask the ball a question and shake it like so." The President then shook the ball he had at his podium.

"Uh oh, it says ask again later," the President concluded.

In a press release, the White House detailed how the toy would be used, and how exactly the President came to his decision to use it.

The President has grown despondent to Republican leaders, the release states. Escaping for a break in his home town, the President happened upon a childhood gift that had brought him years of joy, and had helped decisions he made in the Senate. He brought it back to Washington.

The press release continues that, when asked a hard question "by a general or official," the President would defer the question to the ball. "It helps us two ways," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated on Monday. "First, we get the action that many pundits and politicians have been waiting for. Second, if a plan goes awry, we can blame the Magic 8 ball for making a bad decision.

"It's win-win," Gibbs added.

So far, in questions regarding the strategy in Afghanistan have produced mix results. According to Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, the President has asked the toy many hard hitting questions.

"Whenever the President asks about troop increases or how long to stay in the war, the ball response in some sort of gray area," Clinton reported. "President Obama asked the ball several times if he should listen to generals or go with his gut, but it responded twice "All signs point to Yes," and once "Concentrate and ask again."

"On the bright side, we are going some consistency with some questions," Clinton continued. "Whenever we ask 'Will republicans ever like us,' it always says "Outlook not so good.""


Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

This Picture Pretty Much Sums it Up

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Interview: Richard Radcliffe on International Threats to the United States

Jumping in Pools is proud to present its twenty-first interview in our series. This interview is with Richard Radcliffe. Radcliffe is a retired Air Force officer living in Apple Valley California. Richard graduated from the University of Southern California in 1968 with a Bachelor of Arts in History. Richard accepted an assignment to Kunsan Air Base, Korea flying the F-4D as a Weapons Systems Officer. He was also the Air Show Coordinator and in 1986 the Project Officer for the Ramstein Air Base Open House: Flugtag. He retired August 1, 1990. Since then Richard has kept busy with his own small computer business. He has maintained his interest in foreign affairs and occasionally posts on the Asia Times on Line blog: The Edge. Richard also writes on a site that I contribute to, World Threats.

1. President Obama stated on Friday that Iran was cheating on nuclear obligations. Do you believe that Iran is likely to stop building the facility near Qom?

No. They do not care if their facility is public or not other than it becomes a known target. The Iranians have a goal and a plan to get there. They believe that nobody will challenge them because of the threat threat they pose to 40 percent of the World's oil and support from Russia and the People's Republic of China. I believe the Iranians are wrong.

2. Do you believe that the Obama Administration will approve extra combat troops for the NATO mission in Afghanistan?

This is a tough call. Both the Army and the Marines are suffering from continued deployments with no end in sight. Units are being deprogrammed from Iraq and reprogrammed for Afghanistan. They all need a rest. They all need to get their equipment fixed. The huge backlogs at Anniston and Barstow of vehicles requiring total refurbishment is a whole lot larger than it should be. They all need to retrain to be combined arms soldiers and not cops.

My personal answer is to leave Afghanistan.

3. Do you believe that Russia will now back strong sanctions against Iran?

No. We haven't given them enough yet. They want Ukraine and Georgia. They may be talking about tougher sanctions but that is what we bought with the cancellation of the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.


4. Do you believe that Venezuela's nuclear program is for nuclear weapons?

Yes. I don't believe that they will get to it.

5. What is the largest relatively-unknown threat to American security in the next ten years?

I won't talk about a relatively unknown threat but a roundly ignored threat: Hezbollah. As we found out in the last few days, there are illegal aliens here from the Middle East. Smadi, the Dallas bomber, is from Jordan. We have no idea who is in this country. The good news is that the FBI managed to find this guy before he found a real terrorist cell and used real C-4 instead of modeling clay. Anybody remember the Holy Land Foundation? They were located in Dallas.

Hezbollah is Iran's Ace in the Hole. They are worldwide. They are being allowed into Nicaragua without documents. They have been in South America in the tri-border area of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil since before the Jewish Center in Buenos Aries was allegedly bombed by a group including the current Defense Minister of Iran. They are now able to freely roam Venezuela.

Cross-posted at World Threats.

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Obama's New Plan for Iraq: Release the Terrorists and Hope that They Don't Go on a Killing Spree

First, let me preface this with a statement. I understand the importance in counter-insurgency warfare to appear to be both merciful and tough. I understand that sometimes you have to release people who may have attacked you and re-integrate them back into a peaceful, productive society.

But still, everyone has their limits.

And today, when savage terrorists massacred at least 70 Iraqis, 300 veteran terrorists are set to be released. So are these simply poor farmers who were arrested wrongly? No. Were they people who just launched a rocket or placed a roadside bomb because they needed to feed their family? Probably not.

Instead, they are members of the Iranian-funded Asaib al Haq, who not only have launched attacks on Allied and Iraqi forces, but who led uprisings last year. Fortunately their group was almost annihilated by Maliki's swift offensives.

So all's well with the decision? Not exactly:

"The last thing the Iraqis need right now is for the wholesale release of members of this group just when the Iraqi security forces are trying to learn to walk," one official told The Long War Journal. "I see no indication the Asaib al Haq [League of the Righteous] is sincere about reconciliation; US troops are still being attacked by these Iranian surrogates."

Also released are members of the Iranian Qods Force, who have been coordinating attacks in Iraq for years. For example, Mahmoud Farhadi is one of the three leaders of the Qods Force in Iraq. ... And he's being released.

And this is in conjunction with another decision made by the White House to not bomb terrorists when they are in the Air Force's sights. Great.

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

New Obama Plan in Afghanistan: Let's Not Kill the Terrorists

I know that public relations are a large part of any war effort, but this new attempt to lessen the image of American "war crimes" is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard yet from the Obama Administration.

According to some in the Defense Department, when the Air Force sees terrorist activities in the mountains of Afghanistan, instead of dropping bombs on them, we may just make a noise to scare them away!

I know that there's been a lot of hullabaloo about the United States "massacring" Afghan civilians, but this attempt will keep terrorists alive that will then turn around and attack Afghan civilians or ISAF troops.

No offense, but this plan sounds like a total crock. If we're serious about winning in Afghanistan, we need to send more troops and accelerate the training of local forces. If we're not even going to kill the enemy anymore, what are we doing?

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

Obama: Um, Maybe We Don't Need to Win in Afghanistan

Well, then-Senator Obama made headlines by stating that victory in Iraq was impossible and that the Surge was doomed to fail. Seeking to build on that model, he realizes that he has one chance to pin the War in Afghanistan on President Bush in case we "lose" there.

The current President has made a good move by sending more troops to the country, but has mysteriously failed to garner widespread international support for more troops-- considering how everyone now loves America again.

The President is afraid that violence will rise and the American public will see him as escalating the war. If he sets expectations low and blames everything on Bush now, he may receive a pass if things don't go as well.

His strategy might work, but how will that work for morale. Is it really so great for forces on the ground if their Commander in Chief says that there's a substantial chance that under his watch you will not "win" the war.

The President is attempting a "nuanced" view on the matter, but take a look at the subject:

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

I'd bet a clean $50 that he didn't know about the details of the surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. Must'a been Rahm Emanuel's doing. Maybe that's the problem to begin with. We have a President who doesn't know much about foreign policy, but thinks he does. What he does think is often in the "post-America" model.

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

Obama to Give Taliban 'Recognition' for Cease-Fire

Hajjaj Keveshadze
IRNA
5/3/2009

President Barack Obama of the United States of America is going to offer the Taliban fighters of Afghanistan and Pakistan a deal. This deal is to give them official recognition in exchange for the stopping of fighting.

Dr. Ali Jafaradze of Tehran University believes that this deal is meant to encircle Iran, "With American influence in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, they mean to crush our nation with American imperialist zeal."

According to the secret plan, which our spies intercepted on April 30, Obama plans to visit Karachi and meet with Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban. He will then offer the Taliban vast regions of Baluchistan in Iran so that the Taliban will stop attacking the American ally Pakistan.

Obama is afraid of the influence of Iran in the region. He is also afraid of our peaceful nuclear program, meant to spread cheap electricity to the entire Middle East, thus defusing American influence.

While in Karachi, Obama may meet with Osama bin Laden and coordinate attacks against Iranian targets. Members of the Mossad may also attend this top-secret meeting.

President Ahmadinejad says that he will not be intimidated by these reports.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

President Obama's Lackluster Foreign Policy

President Obama promised a new approach to foreign policy.So far, he's delivered on his promise, with results to show. After lambasting the Bush Administration's 'unilateralism,' he hasn't wooed our allies, and in fact, has inadvertently annoyed South Korea, Britain, and Japan.

But no matter, at the NATO Summit, the President was supposed to show that President Bush was unable to build meaningful coalitions. He conveniently forgot that, in terms of countries sending troops, President Bush commanded the first and second-largest coalitions in history. But no matter.

Instead, we got a small amount of non-combat troops for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. While this is a positive development and the President had the right idea, it goes to show that the world will not take him as seriously as our former President. President Bush was able to get the world to send over 80,000 troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, and Lebanon. Without a convincing rationale (to Europeans) for the Afghan Surge, the President's agenda is falling flat.

In North Korea, the People's Republic has decided to push the envelope by launching a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile. It crashed unceremoniously in the sea. But the President did not order the shooting down of the missile or for strict sanctions. Instead, the UN will meet....

The President needs to realize that calling our country 'arrogant' sometimes feeds into anti-US propaganda. Fahreinheit 9/11 was watched by Hezbollah and shown in Cuba. We need to stand forthright. If our goals are noble, we must not diminish them.

So, Mr. President, take some advice from our last Commander in Chief and show the world some backbone. The self-depreciating phoniness will only go so far.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

We Must Send More Troops to Afghanistan

There is controversy stirring over a report that the President is considering sending 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, along with the 21,000 reinforcements he as already committed and the 38,000 in-country. To all of the detractors, I must clearly state that the idea of sending troops to Afghanistan is the correct one.

Especially in the Pashtun areas of the south, American and ISAF presence is far too limited. About 70% of the population of the country are friendly Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks. Only in the south of the country, about 20% of the land area of the country is the volatile Pashtun regions. One of the problems is that the Pashtuns in Pakistan, supported by al Qaeda and elements of the Pakistani intelligence services, are supporting the Taliban.

While these extra troops may help the situation, the President and his staff must make sure that they also send a strategy. General David Petraeus is well-known for executing a counter-insurgency effort in Iraq that turned the war around. We must make our focus on protecting the population, not just eliminating the Taliban. We must split the population from al Qaeda and the Taliban and give them reason to side with us. If they want to fight alongside us, that's great, but we cannot give them weapons in case they plan to use them against us. It was this strategy with the Awakening in Iraq that helped the Iraqi-Coalition forces defeat al Qaeda and their allies.

These 29,000 extra troops, along with a potential of thousands of European forces, could help turn the tide. We must make sure that we do not give up the fight. Out of Afghanistan came the plan to attack the United States. With a power vacuum and the return of the Taliban, al Qaeda will not only come back, but come back with the belief that they have defeated the United States.

Also cross-posted at World Threats.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

McCain Calls for Victory

Senator John McCain, war hero, has called for victory in the fight in Afghanistan. Rather than giving up, the Senator has called for the United States to redouble our efforts in order to try and crush al Qaeda and the Taliban. In an op-ed, McCain and Joe Lieberman are prescient with their words:

Loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan is counterproductive for another reason: It exacerbates suspicions, already widespread in South Asia, that the United States will tire of this war and retreat. These doubts about our staying power deter ordinary Afghans from siding with our coalition against the insurgency. Also important is that these suspicions are a major reason some in Pakistan are reluctant to break decisively with insurgent groups, which, in a hedging strategy, they view as integral to positioning Pakistan for influence "the day after" the United States gives up and leaves Afghanistan. That is why it is so important for the president to reject the temptations of minimalism in Afghanistan and instead adopt a fully resourced, comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy, backed by an unambiguous American commitment to success over the long term. In doing so, he must invest the political capital to remind Americans why this fight is necessary for our national security, speak openly and frankly to our nation about the difficult path ahead, and -- most of all -- explain clearly to our fellow citizens why he is confident that we can prevail.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below: