Speaking on the eight-year anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack, top US commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal says that he sees no indication of any large al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.
Gen. McChrystal’s comments come at a time when the Obama Administration is facing an increasing revolt over the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and officials have used the “threat” posed by al-Qaeda as their primary justification for continuing the conflict.
Seemingly oblivious to having already dismissed the conflict’s ostensible raison d’etre, the general continued to defend the war, maintaining that it was winnable given increased effort and insisting that, while he had no evidence to back it up, he “strongly believes” the war has prevented other terrorist attacks.
Gen. McChrystal has recently presented a “new” strategy for the war, roughly five months after the Obama Administration’s previous “new” strategy involved a massive increase in the number of troops in the nation. It is widely expected that McChrystal will soon request another 20,000 troops for the war, on top of the previous escalation.
On March 27, 2009, "the President announced a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that is the culmination of a careful 60-day, interagency strategic review. . .The strategy starts with a clear, concise, attainable goal: disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Whats-…
Six weeks after the White House announced that elimination of al Qaeda was Job One, on Sunday, May 10, 2009, General Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/10/petrae…
Mission Accomplished! Al Qaeda must have hoped on a c130 and headed back to Langley.
It was considered "polite" for Soviet apparatchiks, when amongst each other, to feign belief in the ridiculous charges leveled against old Bolsheviks in the show trials of the 30's- charges that often had them being spies for the British before even the revolution itself. Likewise- our foreign policy elite must feign belief in the purposefully undefined blob that is "Al Qaeda". This is a "Terrorist group" that is defined so loosely that quite literally anyone DC wants to put in a cross hair can be called a member of it.
All of them know it is bullshit. All the big press big shots know that AQ is simply a catch all label DC uses at will to justify its wars and crimes abroad. But it would be profoundly impolite and un-serious to actually point this out publicly. All good Beltway players and wannabes must profess belief in and genuflect before the most inane lies about "Al Qaeda" if they want to stay a member of the club.
Keep your chin up, things are going to be different once November hits, because we're going to have a new president…one that can usher in a radically different era of hope and change! The economy will be fixed and everyone will get a pony and that big, bad meaniehead Osama Bin Laden will be dead dead dead. Just remember to vote Obama in Nove… Oh wait, that's right. It's September 2009, NOT 2008.
My bad!
Drunkenatheist, I don't blame you for drinking. What I cannot understand is why Barack Obama is given credit for brains. It seems to me that he is not at all profound in his thinking; very superficial. Otherwise, why would he have allowed himself (and us) to become committed to war in Afghanistan? Why would he have appointed as his advisers the very people who are responsible for the bubble of financial paper and the opponents of regulation?
As a strategist, I think our President is inept. His strength is in oratory. He makes good speeches. Otherwise, there is nothing to him. He'll go back to Chicago in 2013 much as LBJ went back to Texas in 1969. Our country will be in much worse shape by then.
Drunkenatheist, I don't blame you for drinking. What I cannot understand is why Barack Obama is given credit for brains. It seems to me that he is not at all profound in his thinking; very superficial. Otherwise, why would he have allowed himself (and us) to become committed to war in Afghanistan? Why would he have appointed as his advisers the very people who are responsible for the bubble of financial paper and the opponents of regulation?
As a strategist, our President is inept. His strength is in oratory. He makes good speeches. Otherwise, there is nothing to him. He'll go back to Chicago in 2013 much as LBJ went back to Texas in 1969. Our country will be in much worse shape by then.