“You can’t defeat Taliban or al Qaeda militarily, only contain Them,”
British Commander-in-Chief Gen.
Sir David Richards Said it Bluntly.
I’ve been convinced of it since al-Qaeda twin tower 9/11 Attack
You can’t win a War with Guerillas in a Mountainous Homeland
Across the Vast Asian Continent And the Islamic Middle East!
US Forces are stretched Thin across the Middle East & Asia!
I’m in Favor of the Withdrawal of American Ground Troops
Since War Will begin after it regardless of when it Occurs.
We cannot Win a Guerilla war in the Middle East or Asia
But We Can Send Naval & Air Force Missiles On Military
Targets in the Terrorist Countries to Stop Aggression!
I have held the same military assessment of fighting large terrorist groups since I graduated from the Orlando Military Academy, as that expressed by the British Commander-in-Chief Gen. Sir David Richards, when he stated bluntly, “You can’t defeat the Taliban or al Qaeda militarily, only contain them…”
November 25, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Begin Excerpt 1 from DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis
West marks another military retreat at NATO summit
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis
November 21, 2010, 1:11 PM (GMT+02:00)
The NATO summit’s agreement of Saturday Nov.
2010 on staged handovers to Afghanistan security forces by 2014 is a good fit for Taliban’s longstanding fundamental demand for foreign troops to quit Afghanistan as the precondition for talks on an end to the war that will restore them to power in Kabul, DEBKAfile’s military sources report.
Taliban’s response Saturday night addressed elements left out of the NATO statement: The Americans and NATO face defeat in Afghanistan, said Taliban – notwithstanding US troops reinforcements and changes of generals – a jab at Gen. David Petraeus, who recently too over command of the war.
The Afghan insurgents took the NATO statement as the Western alliance’s admission that it cannot defeat them, had in lost the will to do so and sought only an elegant way out of spelling out the word defeat; “transition” to Afghan security forces sounds more honorable.
But even that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not willing to concede.
Therefore, the fighting will continue to rage as Washington uses the NATO blueprint for maneuvers to open indirect or direct negotiations with the Taliban for ending the war.
The insurgents will moreover press their attacks – less to seize more territory than to drive bigger wedges among Western allies, taking advantage of the badly disunited front US President Barack Obama found in Lisbon.
Exit timelines vary from one NATO leader to another.
According to the summit document, “The transition process towards Afghan control of security matters is to begin in July of next year and end with full Afghan control by the end of 2014.” The alliance also signed a document reinforcing its long-term commitment to Afghanistan’ s
security even after NATO combat operations end.
2014 was not defined explicitly as the date for ending combat operations.
One administration official said Saturday that the President would personally decide when conditions were ready for US troops to draw down. The Pentagon called 2014 “aspirational” and US Secretary of State called it “a goal not a timeline.”
Meanwhile, two of the larger NATO contingents are not waiting for any goals or timelines; they are on their way out of Afghanistan.
President Nicolas Sarkozy is getting ready to recall 3,850 French troops next year, while British Prime Minister David Cameron has withdrawn the 9,500-strong British contingent from direct combat activity. On Nov. 14, British Commander-in-Chief Gen. Sir David Richards said bluntly, “You can’t defeat the Taliban or al Qaeda militarily, only contain them…”
The Western powers are even more at odds on the Iranian nuclear issue than they are on Afghanistan. No coherent, agreed plan for dealing with Iran’s approaching attainment of a nuclear weapon has been laid out in Washington, London, Paris or Berlin – or even an agreed strategy for their nuclear talks with Iran early next month. Tehran, like the Taliban, is therefore preparing to harden its bargaining stance at those talks, encouraged by US-led Western retreats from Iraq, Lebanon and now Afghanistan to assume that Washington will continue to give way.
Begin Excerpt 2 from The Times of India
Taliban vow to throw Nato out of Af before ’14 pullout
Tags: Zabihullah Mujahid|Taliban|Hamid karzai
November 22, 2010
KABUL (AFGHANISTAN): The Taliban on Sunday vowed to keep fighting the US-led coalition and force
them to abandon Afghanistan ahead of a 2014 date set by the alliance for the transition of security to Afghan control.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in message e-mailed to the media that Nato will be unable to establish a stable government in Afghanistan by that date. He did not mention an offer from President Hamid Karzai for peace talks and eventual reconciliation _ an offer rejected by the hard-line Taliban leadership.
During the summit, Nato leaders agreed to begin handing off security responsibility to Afghan security forces in early 2011, with a full transition targeted for
the end of 2014. Mujahid said the Taliban “will not remain silent even for a single night until and unless the goal of complete freedom and the formation of an independent government is achieved. They will not wait for the time of implementation of a given decision or timetable of withdrawal.”
Begin Excerpt 3 from World News
U.S. urges China to restrain North Korea
November 24, 2010
State Department: Beijing plays pivotal role in reducing tensions after Pyongyang’s artillery strike on South Korean island
INCHEON, South Korea — The U.S. on Wednesday urged China to press North Korea to halt provocative actions against South Korea, after an artillery attack on the South that the Obama administration called a “premeditated” violation of the truce that ended the Korean War.
As the isolated North’s only ally and main economic partner, China plays a “pivotal” role in reducing tensions and has a duty to tell Pyongyang that deliberate acts “specifically intended to inflame tensions in the region” are not acceptable, the State Department said.
“China is pivotal in moving North Korea in a fundamentally different direction,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters.
“We expect China to be clear, like we are, as to where the responsibility for the current situation, the current tension lies. This is something that we feel strongly about.”
Crowley said U.S. diplomats had delivered that message to Chinese officials in Washington and Beijing in the aftermath of Tuesday’s North Korean artillery attack on a South Korean island.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to discuss the attack and the response to it by telephone with China’s foreign minister, Crowley said.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed the point of China’s importance in the process in an interview to be aired Sunday on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS.”
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.