About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

WINNING IS THE ONLY OPTION

Monday, December 07, 2009

One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!…Winston Churchill

Before and after US President Barack Obama’s speech on Tuesday, NATO allies — and Germany, in particular — were expecting to get the call to commit more troops to the fight in Afghanistan. But instead the US government says it will not pressure Germany to send more combat troops, and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the German business daily Handelsblatt on Thursday that the US wanted “political commitments, rather than numbers” from its NATO allies. (Since when do politicians defeat the enemy)
Holbrooke added: “Britain has already announced an additional 500 troops; other countries are preparing their own contributions. What’s crucial is that there is cooperation within NATO.” Source:Der Spiegel

There are currently roughly 4,300 German soldiers in Afghanistan, and Berlin says it won’t consider increasing that figure until after an international conference in January. Holbrooke, in turn, has insisted that the US is not disappointed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In contrast to that report in the German paper, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday that alliance members would send at least 5,000 troops to back the newly announced US increase of approximately 30,000 soldiers. Washington has asked Germany to provide 2,000 more troops, France and Italy 1,500 each, and Britain 1,000, according to French officials.It woul appear the right hand does not know what the left is doing! A bad thing in war!

On Thursday, Italian Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa confirmed that Rome would send around 1,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, raising its presence to roughly 3,700. La Russa told the Corriere della Sera newspaper that the previously reported figure of 1,500 extra soldiers was “a maximum quota which we would never reach.”

NATO officials say several other nations have announced plans to send more troops, including Georgia (900), Poland (600) and Slovakia (250). Portugal is keeping the pledge it made earlier this year to send 150 troops from its “rapid deployment” force to join 100 military trainers already in Afghanistan, according to Defense Minister Augusto Santos Silva.

Similarly, following the Obama speech, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Berlin was prepared to increase the number of police trainers it sends to Afghanistan, and France has also stressed its commitment to building up local police forces. Turkey also says it is looking at whether it should boost its training role in Afghanistan. However, Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul has made it clear that Turkish soldiers will not be part of any combat operations.
It appears to me that we will continue to fight the Taliban by ourselves! Since the European governments appear to be more interested in Nation building than in fighting the Taliban!

Obama’s talk of a timeline for withdrawal was a misjudgment in my opinion. From USA’s experience in Bosnia, I remember how the Dayton Agreement that supposedly ended the Bosnian war committed Nato to just a one-year mandate. The people were not impressed. As many of Bosnians asked in December 1995: “Why should we support you, if in 12 months’ time you will have gone?” So we must not fall into the same trap this time in Afghanistan.
And, unfortunately, we still have troops in Bosnia to this day!

For our Armed Forces, the immediate task is to complete our mission in Afghanistan. o kill the Taliban and al Qaeda! Just in the last few days, the International community has sort of renewed its determination to succeed . And succeed we must, because defeat is not an option for the USA! Any other outcome would give a huge boost to al Qaeda and the radical Muslims who seek to change our values and our way of life, through terrorist tactics..

Talk now of a withdrawal or troop reductions in Afghanistan is premature. We must show first that we are succeeding. In particular, the World media must believe we are succeeding, and report comprehensive progress as it develops. Maybe our Mass Media will be different than they were in the Vietnam era, but I will not hold my breath until they do!
The current fixation on casualties runs the risk – if over-reported – of eroding our national will to continue. This would be a tragedy. Wars kill people on both sides. If we are not committed to killing the enemy we should bring the troops home now!

Patience is difficult for a liberal (left leaning) Democracy, but impatience, with an eye on the domestic ballot box, is what the enemy always counts on. We must not fall into that trap. For the people of Afghanistan, and the people of this country, the stakes are too high.

Obama and the NATO people say we need to win the hearts and minds of the people. But perhaps more critically, we also need to win the hearts and minds of the people of this country, too. The biggest threat to our success in Afghanistan is not the Taliban, but a loss of will by the people at home to see this vital task through. We must maintain the will to win, and break the will of the Taliban to continue.
Talk of withdrawal only emboldens the enemy!!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A DEAL WITH EVIL WILL LEAD TO CATASTROPHE

 

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

 

Danger – if you meet it promptly and without flinching – you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!…Winston Churchill

Nile Gardiner is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, AND HE POSTED THIS ON THE INTERNET. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL AMERICANS TO READ THIS POST.

In the face of rising domestic opposition to the war, mounting casualties and a clear unwillingness on the part of European allies to send additional troops for the NATO-led mission, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set his government down an extremely risky and dangerous path of negotiations with a barbaric enemy.

It is a dangerous strategy that is also backed in principle by some senior figures in the Obama administration such as Richard Holbrooke, the President’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who may be keen to use the British-led experiment as a trial balloon for a possible U.S. exit strategy as well. This is a disastrous approach that signals defeat, and one that must be firmly rejected by the next British administration, almost certainly Conservative, likely to take office in the spring of 2010.

Great Britain is the second largest contributor to the NATO-operation in Afghanistan, with over 9,000 combat troops on the ground. The British contribution in Afghanistan is roughly equal to that of continental Europe’s big four combined — France, Germany, Italy and Spain. So far 191 British troops have been killed serving in Afghanistan (more than were killed in Iraq), and hundreds wounded. In the month of July alone, Britain lost 22 soldiers in combat.

However great the bravery of British servicemen, it is being undercut by massive underfunding of Britain’s armed forces, crippling defence cuts, and by shortages of helicopters, armored vehicles, medical teams as well as basic equipment. Britain now spends less on defence than at any time since the 1930s, and is waging a major war on a peacetime budget. It is though the lack of political will in London that is the biggest threat to the British mission.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s recent speech on Afghanistan at NATO headquarters sent completely the wrong message to our enemies. In his address on July 27, the foreign secretary called for a political deal with so-called moderate elements of the Taliban in an effort to split the insurgency:

First, a political strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reintegration and reconciliation. That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, which draws away conservative Pashtun nationalists — separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally — and gives them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with their government.

In effect Miliband is saying that Britain and the United States must be willing to place cooperative, supposedly more reasonable wings of the Taliban back in local power in Afghanistan. This would be like putting the Nazis back in office after the fall of Berlin or the Khmer Rouge in charge of Cambodia again. No matter how much spin is placed on this negotiating strategy, it smacks of defeatism and appeasement, and a failure to place the conflict in Afghanistan within the broader context of a global war against a brutal Islamist ideology that seeks the destruction of the West and the free world.

British, American, Canadian and other NATO troops are not dying on the battlefields of south Asia to facilitate the return of a medieval-style government steeped in barbarism and savagery where women are treated as fourth-class citizens and individual liberty is non-existent. It would be only a matter of time before an Afghanistan dominated by “moderate” Taliban returned to its old position as a safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch attacks against New York, Washington or London.

Great Britain and the United States should have no truck with any strategy that allows a return to political power for the Taliban of whatever stripe. If this foolhardy policy is executed, it may ultimately lead to negotiations with al-Qaeda-linked groups in the region as well.

It is vital that a future British Conservative administration reverses what is a disastrously naïve approach, and commits to the complete political isolation, as well as the ultimate military defeat, of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This will require a significant increase in British defence spending to adequately fund a major military mission on this scale, as well as leadership in Downing Street that takes Britain’s great power responsibilities seriously.

As UK Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox wrote in a recent article for The Times of London,

If we abandoned our task in Afghanistan today, we would put the security of our own country in greater peril. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan for training, and to plan attacks on the West. We must not let that happen again. To throw in the towel at this stage would encourage every jihadist to believe that we lack the moral courage to see through a difficult mission. And it would gravely undermine the credibility of NATO, the alliance that has protected this country for six decades.

Negotiations with a fundamentally barbaric organization such as the Taliban will never result in anything good for the people of Afghanistan and will undercut both Britain and America’s long-term security. If NATO talks to the various wings of the Taliban, the Allied coalition will negotiate only with different shades of evil. This is a recipe for failure and defeat as well as a monumental surrender to a totalitarian Islamist ideology based on a doctrine of hatred, fear and destruction.

With the announcement that Obama is using the mess in the Afghanistan election as reason to once more delay the sending of more troops as requested by the Commander in the field. It is feeling to this veteran that the President is putting the lives of the brave men/women in jeopardy, because he would rather spend the tax payers money rewarding those who voted him into the Oval Office than he is to give the General he sent to Afghanistan, the tools he needs to win a victory over the evil Taliban. After all Obama said he has trouble with the word VICTORY!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DOES OUR PRESIDENT UNDERSTAND FOREIGN RELATIONS?

 





When the candidate Obama said he was against the war in Iraq despite the fact that all but a few Senators voted to support President Bush's invasion of Iraq to topple the tyrant Saddam. I felt it was his way of catering to the anti-war, anti-defense establishment to gain votes.
When he said he would if elected, negotiate with no pre- conditions, with Iran's President Ahmedinejad. Many including myself thought this was a bad idea since the diminutive dictator and the theocracy leader Ruhollah Khomeini had declared the USA the "Great Satan"!

Because of this, the United States has viewed the Islamic Republic of Iran as an enemy. It has done so at least since the forced occupation of the US embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 and the humiliating 444-day hostage-taking of 52 embassy staff, which included a failed rescue attempt during the Carter Administration.
Since then Iran has shared the top place on the US list of "rogue states" with Libya, Iraq, and North Korea. The United States has made numerous attempts since 1979 to reverse the Islamic Revolution and to bring down the regime that emerged from it through political and economic sanctions to no avail.

But when President Obama declared over the weekend that he was open to talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan I was convinced he and his minions know little about Foreign policy!
Iraq is not Afghanistan. (Iraq) is a country with a sophisticated cultural history and a distinct experience of administration. In (Afghanistan) there has never been a democracy and there is neither a functioning civil society nor a central power. Afghan society is structured along tribal lines. That poses both risks and opportunities. It should be possible to win over the powerful tribes that are friendly with the Taliban -- including those in Pakistan. Not every Islamic fundamentalist is a Taliban. The opportunity and challenge that faces OUR new US administration is finding those Islamists who are willing to cooperate.

In Iraq, an anti-American alliance between the local Sunni population and mostly foreign al-Qaida fighters broke up because the terror and the demand for total power eventually became unbearable to the locals. The partners became bitter enemies.

"The US military used this quarrel to present themselves as the new strong partner to the Sunni militia. This is why the invitation to Sunnis to take part in the political process in Iraq succeeded."

"This strategic innovation was not an offer of dialogue with 'moderate Sunnis,' but the willingness of the US to work closely together with former enemy fighters. Al-Qaida was not convinced and gradually pacified but rather defeated by the use of force." Source: Der Spiegel

It is far from certain that similar conditions for an alliance with the tribes exist in the Afghan mountains. And it is important to remember that Russia sent six divisions of troops into the fight( 182,000 at one time) with the Taliban, and lost after nine years and the loss of 14,000 killed!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »