Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan fight to win, retreat, surrender
Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan
- Fight to win,
- Retreat,
- Surrender
1. Fight to winObama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals
Bloomberg Politics
By Gopal Ratnam and David Lerman Feb 4, 2014 7:54 PM GM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-generals.html
The Obama administration is considering its options to withdraw some or all U.S. forces from Afghanistan as time runs out for a new security agreement, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.
“They’re planning for all options,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after a closed-door briefing today with defense officials at the Capitol. “They have to.”
See above
2. RetreatOriginally Posted by Peter Dow
Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'
‘Drop-Dead Date’
Several senators today said they’ve concluded that Karzai will never sign the agreement and are looking past him toward a successor. Levin said waiting for the next president would give the U.S. and NATO allies enough time to plan for a limited military presence after this year.
“Really, the drop-dead date is the next president,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.
American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'
What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead after the 'drop-dead date'.
Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?
That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.
How could this be?
Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.
Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.
Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.
Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "drop-dead date" policy are heading Americans into.
So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.
Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.
Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.
Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "drop-dead date" policy had gone in to operation.
Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "drop-dead date" policy.
Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "drop-dead date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "drop-dead date".
Why?
Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan, retreat, after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars to Pakistan and then go home.
The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.
The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.
I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.
But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.
We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.
We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.
Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating, that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and that we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.
We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped accountability for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape accountability for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.
So don't use the phrase "drop-dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.
Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.
That's the way to win the war on terror.
Retreating after a 'drop-dead date' is not the way to win.
3. Surrender
Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda
And here are the headlines of the next few years (maybe)WSJ: U.S. to Curb Pakistan Drone Program
The CIA has long added new targets to a longer "kill list" on a rolling basis as old targets are hit.
Now, U.S. officials say, the "kill list" is not self-replenishing, a change long sought by Islamabad. "By taking one off, we're not automatically putting one on," a senior U.S. official said. As a result, the number of targets on the list are decreasing as the CIA's drones focus on a more limited number of high-level targets that "will enable us to conclude the program," the official said.
- US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list'
- US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.
- US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.
- Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.
- Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.
- Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.
- US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".
- Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.
- US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.
- Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.
- Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.
- Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes he can?
Bookmarks