Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on October 8, 2009

US soldiers in Afghanistan are experiencing severe morale problems, Obama administration wants to view Taliban as allies

How twisted is this?

Our soldiers in the Afghanistan theater are experiencing all-time morale lows, but the Democrat lawyers and community organizers in the White House, rather than increase their troop support in the theater as requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are now discussing that, hey, the bloodthirsty Taliban could be our allies, our friends, part of Afghanistan’s future. They’re no longer our enemies… let’s sing Kumbayah…

Are they nuts? What kind of Afghanistan/Taliban future are we talking about, Mr. President? Last time I looked, except for bomb making and some sophisticated weapons, these terrorist scum dogs live in the 9th century where women (wives and daughters included) are abused, have no voice or value, are treated like property, and are squashed or killed like squalid bugs at whim. They are bloodthirsty, religious zealots who want all infidels blasted from the face of the earth and anyone in that country living to a ripe old age is rare. It looks like a future of death and depravity, not one of promise.

From Associated Press:

President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.

The sharpened focus by Obama’s team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.

Though aides stress that the president’s final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

From Times Online, American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not…

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”

Sergeant Christopher Hughes, 37, from Detroit, has lost six colleagues and survived two roadside bombs. Asked if the mission was worthwhile, he replied: “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.”

The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months into a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Talaban.

[...]

Though aides stress that the president’s final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal… Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said…

Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government — though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban…

Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.

Taliban members willing to renounce violence… who are they kidding here? Is this like the “reformed” terrorists released from Club Gitmo who have returned in droves to their former terrorist lives?

Hot Air disagrees, and has capsulized our president’s 180-degree turn in Afghanistan thusly:

…They’re looking for any way they can to avoid giving McChrystal the troops he says he needs to secure the country, so they’ve come up with a way out. If the people we’ve been fighting for eight years aren’t the enemy, then the country no longer needs to be secured from them, does it?

[...]

In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.” Much like how he was focused during the campaign on “the good war” in Afghanistan rather than “the bad war” in Iraq. I wonder how long it’ll be before he decides that not everyone who’s in Al Qaeda is an enemy either — or, better yet, that AQ’s been “substantially defeated” or something, which has been the unstated thrust of all those WH-leaked pieces in the press lately about how weak Bin Laden’s gang has become. Why, I’ll bet in a year or so we’ll be told that they’re so weak that we can start pulling out of Afghanistan altogether. Things sure have improved over there since Bush was president, huh?

Not everyone in Washington is backing this stance of Obama’s. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates appear to be two who still recognize the lethal dangers of the Taliban.

FOX News: Official: Obama to Send Enough Troops to Keep Al Qaeda at Bay:

Vice President Biden has argued against increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, saying Pakistan poses the greater threat, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both warned that the Taliban and Al Qaeda remain connected. If the Taliban were to regain control of large parts of Afghanistan, the country could serve as a sanctuary for Al Qaeda fighters, advisors have said.

A State Department spokesman said Thursday that Clinton believes the Taliban and Al Qaeda are both a threat and the U.S. is fighting the whole idea of killing in the name of religious extremism.

For a grave, detailed explanation of what we face with al Qaeda and Taliban, read this post at The Long War Journal. I’ve provided portions of it here. It’s lengthy, but comprehensive, valuable reading.

The Long War Journal: Analysis: Al Qaeda is the tip of the jihadist spear
By Thomas Joscelyn & Bill Roggio
October 8, 2009

Today, in Washington, there is a debate over how to proceed with the war in Afghanistan. One school of thought that has reportedly gained prominence is based on the belief that America should focus its resources on counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan, and especially Pakistan, instead of a counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign in Afghanistan. According to this line of thinking, the US should expand its campaign of airstrikes in northern and western Pakistan, while downgrading the contest for Afghanistan’s future.

This approach is driven in part by an assumption that al Qaeda is a narrow problem that can be neatly disentangled from all of the other geopolitical issues, including especially the rise of Islamic extremism, plaguing Central and South Asia. If we focus our efforts on Osama bin Laden and his not-so-merry band of men, proponents of this approach argue, then we can adequately protect America’s interests while avoiding getting further enmeshed in a potentially disastrous Afghan conflict. The Taliban and their fellow insurgents, then, the argument goes, are not our principal concern and we should not be overly concerned if they regain power in their one-time Islamic Emirate.

General Stanley McChrystal and other top military officials do not believe the strategy outlined above is adequate. The McChrystal plan for Afghanistan calls for America to wage a counterinsurgency campaign similar to that which evolved in Iraq. Underlying the McChrystal plan is the belief that if the US and its coalition partners prevent the Taliban and its allies from returning to power in Afghanistan, then this will necessarily weaken al Qaeda’s allies and, in turn, al Qaeda itself. In the military’s view, al Qaeda is not a standalone problem but instead one head of several on a jihadist hydra.

[...]

It is remarkable that anyone would argue that a Taliban safe haven in Afghanistan would not necessarily lead to an al Qaeda safe haven there given that the two currently enjoy the same safe havens in Northern Pakistan. After the two jointly established the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan in 2006, for example, it should have become painfully obvious that they had not given up on their combined territorial ambitions.

Just as in pre-9/11 Afghanistan, these safe havens are home to broad cooperation between the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Taliban hosts camps for al Qaeda’s paramilitary army, as well as al Qaeda’s external network – that is, those terrorists responsible for striking the West. By some estimates there are more than 150 training camps, of various sizes and configurations, in the tribal areas in Northwestern Pakistan.

Senior al Qaeda leaders are routinely killed at Taliban safe houses, training camps, and compounds during U.S. airstrikes. Numerous Taliban leaders, including the Haqqanis (a father and son team who are based both in eastern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s tribal areas, as discussed below), Hakeemullah Mehsud, Mullah Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadar, Omar Khalid, Mullah Fazlullah, and Faqir Mohammed host al Qaeda’s leaders and foot soldiers. These Taliban commanders conduct cross-border operations in Afghanistan, and aid al Qaeda in doing so as well.

Related reading:
Moderate in the Middle: Memo to Obama: The Taliban ARE our enemy. The Taliban are terrorists. The Taliban are enemies of the Afghani people.
Radio Vice Online: Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal
Michael Yon, Big Hollywood: Afghanistan: Electrification Effort Loses Spark
Registan.net: HIGs are Pigs
Brigadier General (R) Anthony J. Tata, Big Government: Note to the Commander in Chief: Make a Decision–Boots on the Ground Report
Frugal Café Blog Zone: Bluntness & “Speaking Plainly” Speech on Afghanistan from Gen. McChrystal Angers Obama, White House and Tragic: US Soldier Deaths Rising in Afghanistan, Obamas Go on Date After Returning from Denmark and Jonathan S. Landay: ‘We’re Pinned Down:’ 4 U.S. Marines Die in Afghan Ambush
The American Pundit: White House: On Second Thought, The Taliban Isn’t Really An Enemy and Report: Obama Mad That McChrystal Is Showing Leadership
The Snooper Report: Obama Surrenders In Afghanistan and Afghanistan: Do We Win Or Do We Lose
Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan
Flopping Aces: 8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Fiercest Battle Since Wanat
Are You Freaking Stupid?: General McChrystal given a stern talking to for daring to point out the truth and not Obama’s version. and Afghanistan has become a war run by Obama’s political needs, not the military. Places politics above soldiers lives. and Obama before: Afghanistan the “war that must be won”, Obama now: Meh, not so much

Categories: Bless Our Troops, Government, International Relations, National Security, Social and Political Climate
Tags: Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Al Qaeda terrorists, Barack Obama, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, military, morale, Obama, Taliban, terrorism, terrorists, troop morale, troops, war, White House