The President’s Afghanistan policy

From The Victory Girls:

Obama: More Troops to Afghanistan
by ROS on NOVEMBER 20, 2013

To the (not so) wayback machine!

“This November, you get to decide the future of the Afghanistan war,” Obama told some 13,000 people at a rally on the campus of the University of Colorado Boulder.

“We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I’ve set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014. Gov. Romney doesn’t have a timetable.

That was the “promise” made by the Perpetual Campaigner in Chief last September in order to sway the sheeple in his favor. However, as my beloved Jonn over at This ain’t Hell tells us, NBC is reporting that we are to maintain a presence of forces and a blank check in Afghanistan for an indefinite period of time, or as quoted, “many years”.

So, while our own military has its programsbenefits and pay cut, we’re going to be supporting theirs.

More at the link.

Unlike Ros, I am not upset that the President is (apparently) going to beak his promise on this; if the conditions require that we stay longer than 2014, then that is what the conditions require. And cutting and running from fighting against the terrorists simply tells the terrorists that, even if we get the upper hand on them for a while, if they can just stick it out, they’ll eventually outlast us.

But Ros quoted a completely head-scratching section:

No detention or arrest shall be carried out by the United States forces. The United States forces shall not search any homes or other real estate properties.

Now, what the heck does that mean? As I read it, as long as the Islamists and the Taliban are hiding out in a house, we’re not going to go in there and get them. I would expect that there would be a rule of engagement here which would make the obvious exception of when the Islamists fled from a firefight into a house, or when our forces are being fired upon from within a home, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that we will have our soldiers there, in harm’s way, and they won’t be allowed to search for them unless the enemy are out in the open.

Your Editor supports the war against the Islamists, but if we are going to fight a war against them, we must actually fight them. If the initial reports are correct, the Commander-in-Chief’s policies will just get more of those he commands killed, without actually going after the enemy.

2 Comments

  1. When you use the term Commander-in-Chief regarding this son of a Marxist it sends shivers up my spine ( something one can’t do to a leftist do to lack of spine ). And when you mention rules of engagement I think back to my rules of engagement: 1. kill the enemy, 2. don’t let the enemy kill you. Very complex back in the day.

  2. Shivers or not, Barack Hussein Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. It is regrettable, but even with such a nincompoop in charge, I would not sacrifice civilian control of the military just to avoid idiots like him.

Comments are closed.