If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Obama and the Demofiends are about to jettison another erstwhile ally to the winds of cowardice and political expediency. I lived through the last such betrayal when a hugely Democratic Congress cut off funds to help Saigon defend itself against the onrushing Vietcong and North Vietnamese regulars. The end came swifty, with the nightly news full of footage (black and white film was used in those days) of helicopters fleeing the rooftop of the U.S. Embassy as our rats evacuated the sinking ship of freedom along the South China Sea.
This time the Fiends will betray Hamid Karzai, his capital of Kabul and the entire people of Afghanistan as they refuse to pay the price for freedom, in that country and on our shores, where Osama bin Laden and company will soon reappear. (Certainly, Osama wouldn’t set foot here except as conquering hero, but his minions will be back once Afghanistan is secure in Taliban/al Qaede hands.)
This time, you can be sure there won’t be any Boat People, but there will be ships and airlines ferrying our troops and our allies’ troops back home.
I imagine Obama will set up some kind of face-saving surrender, such as supposedly "training" and equipping Afghani forces to defend the country as we systematically pull our troops out. Then we’ll leave behind a contingent of "advisors" that can be rapidly evacuated as the Taliban descend on Kabul.
This time, however, there will be no dramatic television footage. The evacuation will take place stealthily, under the cover of darkness, and Western journalists will be in tow.
Look for this to happen sometime after the 2010 election unless (a huge unless) the Republicans reseize control of at least one house of Congress.
In other words, the Fall of Saigon Redux is dead certain to happen.
Posted by farleft | Posted on 30-04-2008
Category : Liberal Antidote
Tags: Afghanistan, Taliban
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Courtesy of Stratfor
The Taliban’s April 27 attack against a ceremony commemorating Afghanistan’s independence has gotten a lot of media attention. One reason driving the coverage is that the attack took place during an event broadcast on live television that was attended by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and an array of local and foreign dignitaries, including the U.S. and British ambassadors and the NATO commander in Afghanistan.
The strike, which left three people dead, has also resulted in severe criticism of Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak and Interior Minister Zarar Ahmad Moqbel, with some Afghan lawmakers calling for their resignations.
Clearly, the attack underscores the Karzai regime’s continuing struggle to achieve stability in Afghanistan: the attack was the third assassination attempt against him in his four-year presidency. It is also a reminder — like the massive suicide bombing that occurred in Baghlan province Nov. 6, 2007, and the Jan. 14 attack against the Serena Hotel in Kabul — that Taliban militants have expanded beyond their traditional operational strongholds in Afghanistan’s South.
Posted by farleft | Posted on 26-02-2008
Category : Liberal Antidote
Tags: Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Musharraf, Taliban
By George Friedman
Courtesy of Strategic Forecasting
There has been tremendous controversy over the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which consistently has been contrasted with Afghanistan. Many of those who opposed the Iraq war have supported the war in Afghanistan; indeed, they have argued that among the problems with Iraq is that it diverts resources from Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been seen as an obvious haven for terrorism.
This has meant the war in Afghanistan often has been perceived as having a direct effect on al Qaeda and on the ability of radical Islamists to threaten the United States, while Iraq has been seen as unrelated to the main war. Supporters of the war in Iraq support the war in Afghanistan. Opponents of the war in Iraq also support Afghanistan. If there is a good war in our time, Afghanistan is it.
