President Barack Obama recently insulted the armed forces of the United States that he "leads" by stating flatly that we are losing the war in Afghanistan and "floated" the idea of negotiating with "moderate" elements of the Taliban:
Mr. Obama pointed to the success in peeling Iraqi insurgents away from more hard-core elements of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a strategy that many credit as much as the increase of American forces with turning the war around in the last two years. “There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region,” he said.
This is the first known time that the Commander-in-Chief has used the word success with respect to the war in Iraq, ironically though, only in the context of a prelude to surrender in Afghanistan.
Let us review:
Firstly, we have not been attacked since 911. The main purpose of our invasion of Afghanistan was to prevent such attacks. Yet, we are "losing"? Secondly, a major portion of the "hard core" al Qaeda elements in Iraq were trained and harbored under the auspices of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The same Taliban that made Osama bin Laden a free citizen in the terror nation-state they ran before September 11, 2001 an from which the 911 attacks were launched. The same Taliban, many of whom have fled to Pakistan and the same that Senator Obama and most elected Democrats in Washington said President Bush had taken his eye off of to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq. Candidate Obama also famously stated that he reserved the right to go after the Taliban in Pakistan.
But now President Obama wants the new "focus" in the "good war" to be compromising with those that carried out the 911 attacks rather than bringing them to justice?
Who should be surprised? Not anyone that has been watching the new president recently insult or closest ally that has lost over 300 soldiers fighting with us in the war on Terror and appease enemies like Iran in his first press conference by essentially blaming the United States for their turn to terror 30 years ago.
And as to Pakistan, who the President implied wasn't a strong enough ally against the Taliban and al Qaeda? They recently destroyed a major Taliban stronghold near the Afghan border and their new democratically elected President, Asif Ali Zardari (pictured above) explicitly rejected compromise with oxymoronic "moderate Taliban":
Pakistan's fight against terrorism is relentless. Since the election of a democratic government last year, we have successfully conducted military operations in our Federally Administered Tribal Areas and other parts of the country, capturing or killing high officials of al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as hundreds of their fighters. In the highly volatile Swat Valley, our strategy has been to enter into talks with traditional local clerics to help restore peace to the area, and return the writ of the state.
We have not and will not negotiate with extremist Taliban and terrorists. The clerics with whom we have engaged are not Taliban. Indeed, in our dialogue we'd made it clear that it is their responsibility to rein in and neutralize Taliban and other insurgents. If they do so and lay down their arms, this initiative will have succeeded for the people of Swat Valley. If not, our security forces will act accordingly.
I wish my country had a President that sent such a strong message to our enemies as does Pakistan.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com.