BILL O'REILLY WRONG, "IF WE PULL OUT ON AFGHANISTAN, THE TALIBAN WINS."

Bill O'Reilly Interviews Obama (Courtesy of Fox News)Last night, Bill O'Reilly suggested we give Gen. McChrystal the troops he needs -- that if we pull out of Afghanistan now, the Taliban wins.

No so fast, Mr. O'Reilly. This isn't entirely about the Taliban. We have the al-Qaeda problem too, don't forget - remember those are the people who killed us in 9/11? Um, yeah, they were not the Taliban.

What Does Obama Think?

Seems like Obama may not agree with O'Reilly. (That's not a surprise!) This isn't about winning or losing to the Taliban. In July, Obama told ABC News, "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."

And just last Sunday, Obama told David Gregory of Meet the Press, "And we are going to see how this is fitting what I think is our core goal, which is to after the folks who killed 3,000 Americans in 9/11 and who are still plotting to kill us - al-Qaeda. How do we dismantle them, disrupt them, destroy them?"

Protecting Afghanistan from TWO Groups: The Taliban AND al-Qaeda

McChrystal's report begins with the stated goal to "to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat al-Qaeda and prevent their return to Afghanistan.'' And that it's "his mission" to protect the Afghan government from the Taliban.

al-Qaeda = Pakistan
Taliban = Afghanistan

McChrystal is essentially saying that we are protecting Afghanistan from not only the re-entry of al-Qaeda from Pakistan but also protecting them from their internal Taliban.

The purpose of our mission in Afghanistan has changed. Our original goal was to destroy "terrorist" training camps so that we would be protected from attacks on American soil. Now, it looks like the entire goal is to protect Afghanistan & the Afghan people, NOT the American people or others who live in the free world. 

"Stability in Pakistan is essential, not only in its own right, but also to enable progress in Afghanistan,'' McChrystal reports. "Nevertheless, the insurgency in Afghanistan is predominantly Afghan.''

Geez, this is getting awfully confusing! If stability in Pakistan is essential, how is the United States and its allies going to accomplish such stability? And is it our job to do so? How long is that going to take?

More Troops

Obama approved 21,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, on the advice of Gates and other senior defense and military leaders. That will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a record 68,000 by the end of this year, working alongside 38,000 NATO-led troops.

Before we send an additional 30-40,000 more troops into Afghanistan, we must re-define the mission, purpose and goals.

Biden's Idea Back on the Table

Looks like Obama may reconsider Biden's idea that adding additional troops may not be the answer. Biden suggests we re-evaluate the Pakistan/al-Qaeda issue before sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Mr. O'Reilly, sending more troops into Afghanistan for the purpose of defeating the Taliban is not proper answer.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Comments

[Daniel Williams]

I believe it is fair to question the conventional wisdom (always a good idea) that the efforts of the Bush White House post September 11 are responsible for not being attacked since.

Our poor track record in the Middle East of responding to attacks (Beirut, 1993 World Trade Center, USS Cole and various embassies) only emboldened bin Laden and his acolytes. They believed their attack on New York would be the straw that broke the camel's back, sending us screaming for the exit. When Bush responded (correctly) with overwhelming force, I believe bin Laden was truly shocked.

We have not been attacked on our soil since September 11 simply because bin Laden knows in his dirty little heart that another attack would unite all Americans, even the doves, in demanding our government rain down on his parade with every thing we've got. This would complicate, if not completely derail, bin Laden's desire to install an Islamic caliphate throughout the Middle East - his stated goal all along.

Instead, bin Laden reverted to the successful strategy employed against the Russians: wear 'em down and wait 'em out. It took 10 years for the Russians to see the light (or acknowledge the darkness) and exit the region. We are now in our 9th year in Afghanistan, and no closer to achieving any modicum of victory - and a good argument can be made that we're worse off.

It is often said that you can't reason with a sick mind, and few minds are sicker than those who wish to control the Middle East. Withdrawing from Afghanistan may cause many a pause, but staying, and especially with the current strategy, is fraught with equal dangers.

The best solution is to withdraw from all areas and let the regional games begin. Pakistan and Afghanistan will fall to the bad guys, and Israel will be mortally attacked. And when attacked, Israel will retaliate in a nuclear barrage, turning the entire region into a charcoal briquette with no winners. And we all know power abhors a vacuum.

A consortium of the West, with the possibility of including China, could don the haz-mat suits and pump the region dry at 40 bucks a barrel - setting aside a few dollars to repopulate the region with all the saner heads that left long ago. And just maybe those new inhabitants will see the folly of religious rule, rejoin the international community and allow everyone to sleep with both eyes closed.

Of course, I smoke a lot of pot, so what the fuck do I know...