Have We Learned Kiddies?

It was announced today that the last combat brigade has left Iraq, leaving appx. 56,000 non-combat soldiers behind. This announcement startled me a bit not because the decision is so atrocious but because you don't really hear anything about Iraq in the news anymore as Afghanistan is getting worse and worse by the day.

This is a curious development and devastating to liberals.

Afghanistan was the good war. It was approved by the UN and it became a joint NATO operation. It had all the telltale signs of a liberal wet dream. A community of nations coming together in agreement and harmony to vanquish a common enemy.

Iraq was the savage war of choice, unilaterally spearheaded by cowboys in DC and London and looked down upon by most of the world.

Which one has been going better? If liberal world view ideology was correct, Afghanistan should be a Utopian example of what can be accomplished through a little peace, love and understanding. The only problem is that Afghanistan is sliding back into a hell hole because the liberal world view doesn't exist. The initial part of the war went well because the United States is so good at destroying the enemy. The UN and NATO were more than happy to step aside while we kicked ass and we were happy to do so. However, when the time came for the real work, the political and societal rebuilding combined with security, they pretty much took a pass there too. With the exception of the Brits, who have been solid of course. The rest though didn't want to fight, they didn't want to provide security, they didn't want to pay for anything. They wanted the US to act unilaterally only with there approval and under the umbrella of the idiotic NATO/UN rules of engagement which are designed to lose wars.

There were no such illusions in Iraq. That was the killing war, the Shock and Awe war. Now don't get me wrong, the aftermath of combat operations didn't go well and the insurgency that followed was a horribly bloody affair. The difference was that the Iraq war didn't have to follow the intergovernmental, bureaucratic nonsense that they did in Afghanistan. While the UN and NATO happily sat on their ass and watched Afghanistan crumble, the US/UK coalition in Iraq made the tough choice to increase troop levels and increase violence to end the insurgent threat. No meetings or UN resolutions but more bloodshed. That's what stabilized Iraq.

If Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Somalia haven't taught the lesson, let Afghanistan do it. Intergovernmental agencies like the UN and NATO don't exist to get anything done. They exist to give all the nations of the world cover for doing nothing. It's an excuse to let bad things happen while world leaders talk endlessly about international law (which doesn't exist), treaties and the rights of mankind. It reflects most leftist programs on any level as they only give the appearance of compassion without the trouble of actually having to do anything.

I applaud what the coalition has been able to do in Iraq but it troubles me what is going on in Afghanistan. It would be far better to pull out of there now if it's only going to be fought on NATO terms. If the soldiers there aren't allowed to aggressively kill the enemy, they are simply providing life sized target practice for Taliban fighters which is an unacceptable situation to simply allow to exist in a war zone limbo. Let them do what they were trained to do or get the hell out of there and get ready for the next war, which will surely come after this particular display of weakness.

Voluntary Quagmire

Recently it has been in the news that American forces are turning over areas of Iraq to Iraqi military forces. Despite a predictable rise in insurgent (fanatical Muslin terrorist) attacks, the transition has gone smoothly.

While this is news now because the handover is becoming official, in reality American forces have been pulling back from some time now, allowing Iraqi forces to take the lead on and responsibility for securing cities.

Yet since the pull back began violence had started to flare up again, this time in Afghanistan. The Afghan war has been on the back burner for at least a couple of years but it seems Taliban/Al-Qaeda forces have decided that they have been regrouping long enough and have started the offensives again.

The real question is why NATO forces, especially with American forces from Iraq available, aren't kicking the hell out of these terrorists as we speak.

I know President Obama isn't exactly a warrior but the Afghan war was the one everyone agreed on in the beginning, so what's up?

I realize that chasing Ahmed through Waziristan isn't like invading a city but it seems that we know about where they are, after all, they have to be fairly close to kill U.S. soldiers.

Also, our forces obliterated that country with relative ease deposing the Taliban, even our limited forces should be kicking some serious ass.

I can't believe the problem is the military. Destroying things and killing people is what they do best. So the problem must be political and that problem lives in the White House.

After all that bitching from liberals about how W. forgot Afghanistan they are willfully doing the same thing. Why? Easy. Liberals in the American government have decided to burn all their political capital and our country's money on their social restructuring programs. If they committed to an Iraqi-esque surge or some special offensive, they would have to justify that to the American people. The administration has already burned every bridge with Republicans, even the moderate, sissy ones who became star-struck with Obama during the campaign. If they commit the money to really fight the war in Afghanistan, all the radical, anti-war leftists will be howling for their heads as well. Essentially, Obama decided turning our country into a European Socialism was a more pressing need than giving our troops the tools they need to fight the war and fulfill our promise to the Afghan people.

The second reason is Obama's warped foreign policy views. I'm sure he thinks his hands are tied given that many of the terrorists are in Pakistan now, specifically the border/Waziristan area. Following his pattern of letting unstable countries full of fanatics do as they please, he'll just wait until the Pakistan situation plays itself out then do something, maybe.

There are a few problems with that. First, Pakistanis lie to the U.S. all the time. They have no interest in clearing Waziristan. They can barely control the "civil" parts of the country. Besides, some Pakistani leaders like having those nut jobs around. They can be useful in the right circumstances. Secondly, they can't clear Waziristan if they want to. They have no control over that area. In reality, that part of the world is just a void. Not existing in a country, not sovereign, no recognized government. Just a black spot full of militants, plotting and planning their next violent action.

President Obama shouldn't give it any legitimacy by treating it as a territory issue with Pakistan. What he should do is break out the A-10's, B-52's and B-2's and give that a whole area an old-fashioned Dresden style bombing. Might as well see if you can bomb somebody back further than the stone age.

Putting this conflict on the back burner during the Iraq war is one thing but it's embarrassing that the Taliban has been able to regroup. The only reason Afghanistan is a third world country is because he we haven't defined a fourth yet. We should be mopping them up by now.

It's time to get it in gear, bloody some noses and let our troops put this thing to bed.


(Baitullah Mehsud, head Waziristan tribal terrorist. Planned assassination of Benazir Bhutto.)