Hillary to Pakistan: US taxes everything that moves...

Hillary said two things of note to the Pakistani press:

“I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where [the leadership of Al Qaeda] are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.”

That’s to the point. But do the “really want to?”

and

“We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.”

She put this statement in the context that taxing everything that moves is a very good thing and that Pakistan ought to start doing the same to address the demands their population growth will place on their infrastructure needs. What if Pakistanis, as many in the US, don’t want to tax everything that moves and doesn’t move? Is Pakistan’s national government the only entity over there capable of producing anything for the public good? That is the philosophy of our own politicians. It is not a good thing that our politicians are exporting their sense of human helplessness that only a national government can overcome.

Here is the story from Pakistan’s “Daily Times”:

LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. “I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” she added.
“Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,” Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in Lahore, AFP reported.

“The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she said.
“You do have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don’t know what you’re going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now,” she said.
“If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together” then “there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment”.

It is true that Pakistan needs to get its security system in order before we “have a mature partnership.” Unfortunately I believe their security system is just about where most of their population wish it to be – applying “rope-a-dope” on the United States.

Nazis are new US partner in German coalition

That is the moral equivalent of what Obamaniac wants to do in Afghanistan with the Taliban:

“The official…added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.

The assessment comes from an official who has been involved in the president's discussions with his war council about Afghanistan strategy.” From Fox News “Politics.”

So, did we get it wrong these past several years.? The Taliban is really not so bad? We will now suck up and partner with them to form an Afghan government? You have got to be kidding! Read this excerpt from Wikipedia:

In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. He came without any invitation from the Taliban, and sometimes irritated Mullah Omar with his declaration of war and fatwa to murder citizens of third-party countries, and follow-up interviews,[97] but relations between the two groups became closer over time, and eventually bonded to the point where Mullah Omar rebuffed its patron Saudi Arabia, insulting Saudi minister Prince Turki and refusing to turn over bin Laden to the Saudis as Omar had reportedly promised to earlier.[98] Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that Al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the slaughter at Mazar-e-Sharif.[99] Taliban-Al-Qaeda connections, were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he may have helped finance the Taliban.[100][101]

Perhaps the biggest favor Al-Qaeda did for the Taliban was the assassination by suicide bombing[102] of the Taliban's most effective military opponent mujahideen commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly before 9 September 2001. This came at a time when Taliban human rights violations and extremism seemed likely to create international support for Massoud's group as the legitimate representatives of Afghanistan.[102] The killing, reportedly handled by Ayman Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad wing of Al-Qaeda, left the Northern Alliance leaderless, and removed "the last obstacle to the Taliban’s total control of the country ..."[103] After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[104]

The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan,[105] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[106][107] Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.[108][109] Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan.[110]

Yes, indeedy. The Taliban is now our friend. Is there any wonder why Army chaplains in Afghanistan are seeing a huge upswing in troops who are confused about their mission and losing heart? This sentiment is typical…

“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.””

Does our mission sound fuzzy or inane to you? Yes, me to. That simply means our leadership sucks.

These kinds of unfathomable revelations are what cause normally well-adjusted people to consult with chaplains and turn religious in general. The astounding things in religion that require faith to believe are more solid and rational than the goings on in world politics - especially the goings on of the Obama administration. Hey, this may be the one positive "change" coming out of this radical in the White House - an increase in religious faith.

The General Vs. The President - Update

Update:

While this original blog post assumed some connivance by the "media", this could be either White House or Military connivance. Here's an article detailing some interesting speculation of how and why the story was leaked.

McChrystal is deadlocked in a battle with Obama to get the resources to carry out the mission the President directed only five months ago. Obama is indecisive - balking - perhaps changing his mind. The General is frustrated, perhaps angry, and growing desperate to not lose excessive troops and fail in the mission. Any manager caught in the catch 22 of being responsible for completing a project and having essential resources withheld midstream can relate to the General's problem. I still believe it is a waste of lives, time, and money to attempt to change the "hearts and minds" of those dark-age souls. There is nothing to build on. The most we need to do is empower the CIA and special forces to keep an ear to the ground over there to track what is brewing that could directly impact our nation.

Here is my original post...

Why does the Washington Post have this much information? Here are my side bar comments to the latest Washington Post review of a confidential US war strategy document:

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 21, 2009

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

An urgent, confidential assessment? Hardly. How do these things get “obtained?”

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

This is great. The public and the enemy get to review this confidential assessment at the same time as the President. Peachy!

…he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

“Corrupt government?” Sounds familiar. Corruption is relative, like everything else - a matter of degree. The Afghan government must be really corrupt.

He provides extensive new details about the Taliban insurgency, which he calls a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda and systematically reaches into Afghanistan's prisons to recruit members and even plan operations.

Muslims “recruit members” from within the prisons? They do the same thing in US prisons. Why should it be any different in Afghanistan?

McChrystal's assessment is one of several options the White House is considering. His plan could intensify a national debate in which leading Democratic lawmakers have expressed reluctance about committing more troops to an increasingly unpopular war. Obama said last week that he will not decide whether to send more troops until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."

After 8 years in Afghanistan our leaders don’t have clarity about what the strategy is going to be? After 9 months in office, our President doesn’t have absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be? How bazaar is that? How can we explain that? For starters, I take a look at the Obama book “The Audacity of Hope.” In it he speaks of his Muslim heritage, but not once in the extensive multi-hundred entry index to that book does the word “Islam” or “Muslim” appear. And nothing in the context of the reasons we are in the midst of two wars. This gives me a sense that he is either oblivious to the nature and threat of that fascist movement or he is deceptively part of it.

The commander has prepared a separate detailed request for additional troops and other resources, but defense officials have said he is awaiting instructions before sending it to the Pentagon.

Sounds like a General butt protection measure. Don’t send what he really recommends until the recommendation is approved. That’s creepy. Sound eerily like the Vietnam methodology: another freakin’ political war. If that’s the case, get our asses out of there! Hussein Obama has already declared he has no intention of winning.

Senior administration officials asked The Post over the weekend to withhold brief portions of the assessment that they said could compromise future operations. A declassified version of the document, with some deletions made at the government's request, appears at washingtonpost.com.

Asked to “withhold brief portions of the assessment?” It sounds like the trustworthy Post has the entire classified document. Again, how do they do that? Why?

Here is the essence of the decision to be made. McChrystal makes the distinction:

McChrystal makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: "[I]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."

“Without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.” From the sounds of the “new strategy” the mission shouldn’t be resourced either. The new strategy is to spend our resources (several hundred billion over the next several years) on making the Muslims in Afghanistan happy. The problem with that is we have to become like them for them to become happy. Becoming “like them” means we have to become Muslim or become subservient to their religion, their culture, and their Sharia law.

How about a different “new strategy.” Learn about the historical fascist teachings of Islam and understand that that “religion” is in the midst of an Islamic reformation that is reinstituting Muhammad’s original teachings and militaristic practices of the dark ages. Then decide what we want to stand up for – decide whether our own values and religions and culture are worth standing up for and fighting for. This is where our confusion lies. Only after we do that will we have the motivation to really defend and fight for what we believe in. Until then, we our pi—ing our resources away.

We have a lot to do to keep our own house in order. We don’t even have enough understanding of Islam to do that.

There is a lot more to the Post article. Read it here.

I Don't Blame Musharraf

Pakistan is a "moderate" Islamic nation, it has been our ally in the war on terror (which really should be renamed, more accurately, "the war on the religion of hate and intolerance") and it has lots of nukes.

There has been increasing terrorist activity by the Jahadi wing of Islam in Pakistan (blowing up non-Muslim businesses, etc.) not to mention their hosting (involuntarily???) Al Quida in the Paki-Afgan mountains. Our nation has urged President Musharraf to do something meaningful in response to this recent run up in Jahadi activity in his nation.

So now Musharraf is doing something: clamping down on dissident activity, e.g. civil rights attornies, the media, and others who are making his fight against terrorism difficult.

And the United States and Britain are objecting. Michell Malkin calls this a "train wreck".

It appears we are expecting Musharraf to fight Islamic terror in the same way we do... without knowing who the enemy is and without teeth. And we will withhold our billions in aid if he does things his way and not our way. Wow. Yes, trainwreck.

Do I need to spell out the likely outcome if we bribe him to do things "our way?"

If he insists on doing things HIS way...

* We will withhold our billions in aid and the radicals Musharraf was resisting will fill the vacuum
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

Or, if he bows to OUR demands...

* He will be ineffective in his fight against the radicals
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

We don't yet, as a nation, realize who the enemy is, and thus we haven't discovered the measures necessary to combat it. And we want to handcuff Musharraf in the same way we handcuff ourselves. I hear the train a comin'...