U.S. Cannot WIN A Lasting Permanent Victory!
Obama NOW Faces Five Choices in Afghanistan:
(A) Send enough troops to win temporary Victory
(B) Send enough to let Taliban control Countryside
(C) Bring troops home while they can safely pull Out
(D) Do whatever he must do to please a Far left Base
(E) Blame It All On Bush, Conservatives, and Capitalism
Eventually, I believe our President Obama will choose (E)
Since it will pacify his Liberal Base until he can carry out (D)
Thereby satisfying the Liberal Left by eventually ordering (C)
Besides, always pick (C) if you don’ t know
the correct Answer!
November 23, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Begin Excerpt 1 from THE JERUSALEM POST
British FM: Without NATO troops, Afghanistan would go back to square one
November 21, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Afghanistan would go “back to square one” if NATO forces were to withdraw at this point in time, British Foreign Minister David Miliband told the Guardian on Friday.
According to the report, Miliband said following a visit to Kabul for the inauguration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai that without international support, the rebuilding of the country would be sabotaged at the hands of insurgents.
“The costs of staying are real, but they are less than the costs of leaving,” he was quoted as saying.
Begins Excerpt 2 from THE JERUSALEM POST
‘Afghan debacle rules out US-Iran war’
November 18, 2009
Yaakov Lappin , THE JERUSALEM POST
The US is too bogged down in Afghanistan to engage Iran militarily over its nuclear program, an ex-CIA South Asia expert and current adviser to US President Barack Obama said in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.
Bruce Riedel, a senior Brookings Institute and Saban Center fellow for political transitions in the Middle East and South Asia, addressed scholars and journalists at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies.
He warned that the US was fighting a losing battle against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, and that Washington would soon have to make difficult choices on beefing up troop levels there.
“Israelis need to understand that there’s going to be a huge drain on resources, attention and capital, and that will have implications,” Riedel told The Jerusalem Post before his talk.
He acknowledged that those implications would primarily affect the Iran question.
During his address, Riedel referred to the US’s commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and said, “We’ ve got two wars.
You’ve got to be bold to say, let’s start a war against a third party, particularly when the third party can hit you in the first two fronts.”
The US has learned that it “can’t fight two medium-sized wars simultaneously,” he said.
Riedel retired from the CIA in November 2006 after 30 years of service. In 2007, he was asked by then-senator Barack Obama to be an expert volunteer adviser on counterterrorism.
“In June this year, the president called,” Riedel said. Obama asked him to assemble a strategic review of US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“The president has inherited a disastrous war that is being lost,” Riedel said. ” Pakistan, next-door to Afghanistan, is being destabilized.
Pakistan is the fastest growing nuclear arms state in the world, and has more terrorists per square kilometer than any other country,” he continued.
Riedel said the scenario that kept him up at night was the potential for a jihadi sweep to power in Pakistan via a violent coup.
“That is the nightmare outcome,” he warned. Such a development would certainly destabilize the entire world, Riedel said, and would have severe implications for Israel, too.
“Pakistan would be a patron state sponsor of terrorism.
Hamas would find a lucrative Sunni sponsor,” he added, noting that a jihadi Pakistan would be a more attractive patron to Hamas than its current sponsor, the Shi’ite Islamic Republic of Iran.
“We’re losing… It’s getting worse in Afghanistan,” Riedel said.
The US could either remain in its current position, which would, in effect, mean that the Taliban would control the Afghan countryside and NATO forces would control the cities, or a decision can be made to withdraw, Riedel added.
“President Obama has ruled that [a withdrawal] out. I think correctly,” Riedel said. But the option of a troop surge was not simple either, he noted.
“Every soldier sent to Afghanistan costs the US a million dollars a year. Thirty thousand soldiers cost $30 billion. Extremely large resources are involved,” he said. “America is broke.”
Riedel’s Afghanistan review ended with the conclusion that recent recommendations by US Gen.
Stanley McCrystal, to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan, should be tried.
“Within 18 to 24 months, we will know whether Obama inherited a dead patient on an operating table,” Riedel said. “The question of sending more troops will define Obama’s first term in office.”
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site.
However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.