Skip to comments.‘Madrassas Are Emptying’ for Final US Fighting Season in Afghanistan
Posted on 07/20/2013 7:21:43 AM PDT by kristinn
COMBAT OUTPOST WILDERNESS, Afghanistan The Taliban and its allies are plotting a bloody and spectacular end to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.
Foreign fighters are pouring into the eastern part of the country to take on U.S. and allied forces in what will likely be the final fighting season for American troops here.
Pakistani-based terror groups like the Haqqani Network and others are calling upon every house, every family to send fighters into Afghanistan, Afghan army commanders stationed at the American base in Paktia province told The Hill.
The madrassas are emptying" in Pakistan, added Lt. Col. David Hamann, who leads the American Security Force Assistance Advisory Team (SFAAT) at Combat Outpost Matun Hill.
The influx of foreign insurgents ahead of the White Houses 2014 troop withdrawal deadline comes just as the administration is facing mounting public pressure to end the war quickly.
The administration is struggling to decide whether to leave any troops behind after 2014, and has revived the zero option postwar plan that would leave no troops in the country post-2014.
The offensive by terrorist groups in a fighting season that continues until snows fill mountain passes this fall suggests they hope to take back the country as swiftly as possible, and will not waste any time waiting for the U.S. to leave.
It also suggests terrorists want to impose as much pain as they can on the U.S. in the months remaining.
While there is always an influx of foreign fighters as part of the annual fighting season, this year looks different, according to Lt. Col. Mohammad Ebrahim, commander of the Afghan army's 6th Kandak.
Pakistani militants in North and South Waziristan are ordering every family in those regions to send all fighting-age males into Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
They've already got their guy in our white house. Not to mention congress and cabinet positions.
It should have been. President Bush was more focused on high-intensity Iraq than low-intensity Afghanistan. That will weigh on his legacy.
What strikes me as especially silly is all the efforts directed toward reducing supply.
And comparatively little done toward reducing demand.
Bush ‘declared victory’ (quit while ahead) and left A’stan, for the most part. But intense pressure to get out of Iraq and go back to fighting the ‘good war’ in A’stan, under impossible ROI, ensured it would become the mess it has.
Unless we are willing to radically change the ROI, we will not eliminate enough madrassa cannon fodder to keep our men there one more day. (Even if we do open up ROI it may not be worth staying one more day.)
We should have left Afghanistan the second Bin Laden assumed room temp.
Yeah, sometimes PBS almost gets their collective cranium extracted from the Southern end of their digestive tract almost far enough for them to see daylight.
>>What strikes me as especially silly
Supply + Demand = What?
Exactly the same reason the Petrocrats fund environmentalist groups, BTW.
He said so. HIS own display proves it LONG, long ago.
“And the Truth will make you FRee”
Obama: “ get as many out as you can, the rest, shut off
support and put a media blackout on the entire region we’ll
say they died in transit and blame it on an out of date
safety video and sequester.”
I said from the start that we should have sealed that eastern Afgany border. It’s always been a source of non-help from the genius Pakis. A few thousand claymore mines and some hilltop sharp shooters would have been a good start. Wouldn’t have taken that much and it would have kept a lot of cheap shot fighting out of Afganland. Failure to do that always meant to me that we weren’t really in-to-win.
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford-—Bush-1, Clinton,Bush-2, Obamuzzie——It is all their faults. Failure to utterly destroy an enemy who has taken a cheap shot at us is half-assed at best. Each failure of leadership has left us with even more enemies. The only security is the willingness to use overwhelming force against aggressors. As with Travon: throwing the first punch can get you killed. Anything less at the national level is lazy, gutless, and even suicidal. God bless napalm-——Semper Fi
I wish I could remember where I read it, but someone once said that countries should go to war reluctantly, but wage war fiercely.
With the possible exception of Reagan, every President since 1945 has pretty much ignored that advice. We go to war fiercely, then wage it reluctantly.
Don’t forget to thank the filthy sowdis for funding all of those mucho-crap-in-genes centers!
The war in Afghanistan is ending the only way it was ever going to: with the nation reverting back to tribal warfare, chaos and ethnic conflict.
The fault here is with those who thought that "nation-building" in such a hellhole was ever going to work.
The local Pashtu will fight us forever because its where they live and there's nothing else to do. Are US troops supposed to stick around and die for another 12 years? 100 years? Because that's how long the Talibs will fight. How many US troops are you willing to lose for the sake of whatever it is you think we're fighting for at this point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.