Post by jgaffney on Jun 23, 2009 14:37:23 GMT -5
For those of you not familiar with the acronym, "AFPAK" stands for the combined area operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The enemy straddles the border, so should we.
This is from the Investors Business Daily:
Al-Qaida says it will use Pakistan's nuclear weapons against the U.S. if it ever gets the chance. We're not surprised. Nor would we be surprised if it eventually got the opportunity.
'God willing, the (Pakistani) nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans, and the mujahedeen would take them and use them against the Americans." So says Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al-Qaida's top commander in Afghanistan, where the terror group has found a friend and ally in the Taliban.
If you think 9/11 was bad, just wait until al-Qaida gets a nuke, which is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Based both in Afghanistan and Pakistan's untamed northwest frontier, al-Qaida in April launched a major offensive into Pakistan's Swat Valley, engaging in fierce fighting with Pakistani army forces.
Swat is just 60 miles from Pakistan's capital of Islamabad. If al-Qaida beats the Pakistan army in Swat, what will keep it from marching on Islamabad and gaining control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal — said to number as many as 55 warheads? If you said Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency, guess again. It's riddled with fundamentalist al-Qaida sympathizers.
If that is not frightening enough, this morning we have another little jewel. This is from the Wall Street Journal:
The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan is finalizing a far-reaching change in tactics that will generally require U.S. troops taking fire in populated areas to break contact rather than risk civilian casualties, military officials said.
Exceptions will be made when the lives of U.S. and allied personnel are in danger.
The rules being crafted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal are the clearest indication yet of how the new U.S. command team in Afghanistan plans to reduce civilian fatalities, a cause of public anger against U.S. efforts there.
Military officials in Kabul said the "tactical directive," to be released this week, came in response to incidents such as one last month that killed dozens of civilians. Under the new rules, the incident's deadliest strikes wouldn't have been authorized.
"We don't want another Granai," a senior military official in Kabul said, naming the village where last month's incident occurred. "The tactical gains simply don't outweigh the costs."
"The tactical gains simply don't outweight the costs"? What about the costs of al Qaeda getting their hands on a couple dozen nuclear warheads? They have already shown us that they can sneak into America and hide among us until time to strike. You don't need a missile to deliver a warhead, just a pickup truck.
We here on the Left Coast have been lucky so far in that the terrorists seem to focus their efforts on the East Coast. Someday, however, they will discover the utility of an attack in California. Do you know anyone who lives in LA? How would it affect the economy of the Bay Area to have the Golden Gate or Bay Bridge taken out? How about both simultaneously?
The terrorists have already shown us that they are not above dragging innocent civilians into the battle to maximize innocent casualties and, hence, world opinion. It has worked very well for them so far in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. Most of the progressives here, on this very board, fell for the tactic, hook, line and sinker. Ordering our troops in Afghanistan to break off the fight if civilians get in the way will guarantee that the terrorists will drag more civilians into the fight. In the heat of battle, how is a poor Cpl supposed to distinguish between an innocent civilian and a terrorist fighter in a burka?
This just guarantees that Obama's war in Afghanistan will not be successful. Al Qaeda's dreams of getting their hands on a nuclear device just got a little bit closer!
This is from the Investors Business Daily:
Al-Qaida says it will use Pakistan's nuclear weapons against the U.S. if it ever gets the chance. We're not surprised. Nor would we be surprised if it eventually got the opportunity.
'God willing, the (Pakistani) nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans, and the mujahedeen would take them and use them against the Americans." So says Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al-Qaida's top commander in Afghanistan, where the terror group has found a friend and ally in the Taliban.
If you think 9/11 was bad, just wait until al-Qaida gets a nuke, which is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Based both in Afghanistan and Pakistan's untamed northwest frontier, al-Qaida in April launched a major offensive into Pakistan's Swat Valley, engaging in fierce fighting with Pakistani army forces.
Swat is just 60 miles from Pakistan's capital of Islamabad. If al-Qaida beats the Pakistan army in Swat, what will keep it from marching on Islamabad and gaining control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal — said to number as many as 55 warheads? If you said Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency, guess again. It's riddled with fundamentalist al-Qaida sympathizers.
If that is not frightening enough, this morning we have another little jewel. This is from the Wall Street Journal:
The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan is finalizing a far-reaching change in tactics that will generally require U.S. troops taking fire in populated areas to break contact rather than risk civilian casualties, military officials said.
Exceptions will be made when the lives of U.S. and allied personnel are in danger.
The rules being crafted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal are the clearest indication yet of how the new U.S. command team in Afghanistan plans to reduce civilian fatalities, a cause of public anger against U.S. efforts there.
Military officials in Kabul said the "tactical directive," to be released this week, came in response to incidents such as one last month that killed dozens of civilians. Under the new rules, the incident's deadliest strikes wouldn't have been authorized.
"We don't want another Granai," a senior military official in Kabul said, naming the village where last month's incident occurred. "The tactical gains simply don't outweigh the costs."
"The tactical gains simply don't outweight the costs"? What about the costs of al Qaeda getting their hands on a couple dozen nuclear warheads? They have already shown us that they can sneak into America and hide among us until time to strike. You don't need a missile to deliver a warhead, just a pickup truck.
We here on the Left Coast have been lucky so far in that the terrorists seem to focus their efforts on the East Coast. Someday, however, they will discover the utility of an attack in California. Do you know anyone who lives in LA? How would it affect the economy of the Bay Area to have the Golden Gate or Bay Bridge taken out? How about both simultaneously?
The terrorists have already shown us that they are not above dragging innocent civilians into the battle to maximize innocent casualties and, hence, world opinion. It has worked very well for them so far in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. Most of the progressives here, on this very board, fell for the tactic, hook, line and sinker. Ordering our troops in Afghanistan to break off the fight if civilians get in the way will guarantee that the terrorists will drag more civilians into the fight. In the heat of battle, how is a poor Cpl supposed to distinguish between an innocent civilian and a terrorist fighter in a burka?
This just guarantees that Obama's war in Afghanistan will not be successful. Al Qaeda's dreams of getting their hands on a nuclear device just got a little bit closer!
