Tamara Holder Talk: Tamara Holder, Esquire
General Information

Tamara N. Holder is an Illinois defense attorney and TV/radio legal analyst. She has no shortage of opinions, many of which she shares with you here.

Criminal Defense * Criminal Record Clearing * Governor's Pardons * Discrimination * Police Brutality * Public Policy

www.xpunged.com

 



Entries in al-Qaeda (2)

Tuesday
06Oct2009

A PORTION OF MY INTERVIEW WITH AN ARMY SOLDIER ON THE FRONT LINE IN AFGHANISTAN -- RECENT TALIBAN ATTACK WAS ON HIS POST & KILLED 8 OF HIS BUDDIES

Gun inside of Afghanistan postBelow is a brief portion of my interview with my childhood friend's husband, who is on the front-line in Afghanistan. He just lost 8 troops this weekend. He answered these questions last week, before the big attack this past weekend.

According to Fox News online: (Entire article here.)

Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. troops and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said Sunday.

The fierce gunbattle, which erupted at dawn Saturday in the Kamdesh district of mountainous Nuristan province and raged throughout the day, is likely to fuel the debate in Washington over the direction of the troubled eight-year war.

It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American troops were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, plans to shift U.S. troops away from remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of his new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians.

My friends, this ain't no joke. Reading about the deaths is one thing, watching the war is another. Imagine being my childhood friend, the wife of an Army soldier, who constantly prays, worries and hopes for the safety of her husband and the father of her kids.

Just this past weekend, I spent some time with my friend and their two absolutely precious children. As I took turns spinning them around until I got too dizzy to stand, I thought about my friend's life and the path it has taken. She's such an incredible mom -- a "single" mom of sorts -- and yet she holds herself together so well. She smiles. She giggles. Her kids are happy and fun. Crazy to think at the very moment I was lifting her son into the tree I used to play on as a kid, the Taliban was plotting an attack on her husband's post. 

Maybe Gen. McChrystal and Obama should talk to the troops on the front line. Is that such a novel idea?

I was going to write a blog about my interview with my friend's husband but I'd rather just post some of his quotes, given the fact that he just lost 8 of his buddies. For the safety of the Army, I have chosen to leave out certain portions of the interview for now.

Something must be done. Time is of the essence.

Another image taken in Afghanistan

Direct from a soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan

More troops: "Troops is tricky because it depends how you use them and what troops are being sent, I feel the answer is yes. But let me explain my answer. What most people fail to realize is that two types of Soldiers exist here Combat and Support. Combat Soldiers (Cavalry Scouts like myself and Infantry) are the ones that go out find the enemy and kill him -- well, we do when it is convenient for the Afghan Army/Government . Support Soldiers are cooks, supply clerks, admin and so forth they make sure the Combat Soldiers get water, food , bullets or whatever they need. Support Soldiers are just as important as Combat Soldiers, but what is needed here is more Combat Soldiers. When some politician says and this is just an example not actual numbers "we are sending 20,000 troops to Afghanistan" only a small percentage are actually combat troops. It does no good to send Troops if all they do is stay in the FOB and do nothing."

Afghan attitude: "Personally I would prefer and so would other Soldiers to have ten well trained, disciplined and motivated ANA Soldiers willing to fight for their country next to me during a fight. Instead of fifty ANA that might shoot me in the back because they don't want to be there or their leaders are taking half their pay and they might get a better deal from the enemy."

Winning: "First of all "winning" is a word we do not use around here to much. Our president (which a large majority of Soldiers I know did not vote for) said that we are not here to win, that is very confusing to a Soldier that is trained to fight and win wars. At times it seems that he places Afghan politics in front of U.S. Soldiers lives. Another confusing issue is the U.S. strategy here if there is one, a U.S. general said, "So we don't get to shoot at those that are shooting at us, that is not always bad." Now, would he have said that if he had seen his friends torn to pieces by those bullets? I have seen it. I want to shoot back and so do my Soldiers. Since we are at the receiving end and not him."

Thank you, my friend, for answering these questions.

Now, please watch this video - my friend's husband is a soldier filmed in the video.

In the first, one Army troop says, "We're in a bowl." Another is asked, "Why are you here?" The response, after a nervous chuckle is, "My boss told me to come here." The video shows the troops getting shot at and the journalist saying, "We don't know where the shots are coming from," as they seek cover in the mountainous area.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Wednesday
23Sep2009

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