Petraeus: Progress in Afghanistan will take time

Petraeus: Progress in Afghanistan will take time

WASHINGTON (AP) - Progress in Afghanistan only began this spring and needs time to take root, Army Gen. David Petraeus said in comments broadcast Sunday that were aimed at shoring up American support for the war.

Petraeus, who’s been credited with a successful war strategy in Iraq and who took charge of U.S. and NATO military operations in Afghanistan in July, described an “up and down process” of seizing Taliban-controlled territory and creating “small pockets of progress” that he hoped will expand.

The goal, he told NBC’s “Meet the Press,” is to keep al-Qaida and other extremist groups at bay while the Afghan government has a chance to take control and earn the trust of the local population.

“We’re here so that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for transnational extremists the way it was when al-Qaida planned the 9/11 attacks in the Kandahar area,” Petraeus said in an interview taped in Kabul, the Afghan capital.

Full Story Here:
Petraeus: Progress in Afghanistan will take time

What the Soviet Union did to us in Vietnam, we returned several times over in Afghanistan when the Mujahideen, backed by the CIA, and pretty much unlimited U.S. funds to supply weapons, kicked Russia OUT of Afghanistan and helped bring about the fall of the Soviet Union.

Now, we are the military force on the ground in Afghanistan.

The Mujahi, the plural is mujahideen, literally translates to “struggler”, “justice-fighter” or “freedom-fighter”, and that is what they were called when they were fighting the Soviets, the Mujahideen, being the primary combatants.

Today they are called rebels, insurgents, Taliban, al-Qaida or whatever other name happens to fit the description the press and DoD offer. The fighters are the same, only their names and opposition have changed.

Petraeus’ comments come as U.S. support for the 9-year war is slipping and the death toll is climbing. July was the deadliest month for U.S. forces, when 66 troops were killed.

I seem to remember, back in 2002, we were doing quite well in Afghanistan. We were making great strides. We had the Taliban on the run and were close to taking them out permanently, as well as killing or capturing Osama bin Laden.

We were fighting Taliban, former mujahideen, that were still armed with weapons that WE had provided them when they were “freedom fighters”. Their weapons were old and worn, but well maintained and still very deadly, but we had the might of the United States military, and the will of We, The People was strong.

We wanted revenge for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and we were getting it too.

Then George W. Bush took his eye off the ball and we traipsed off to Iraq. For reasons that I am not now, nor ever will be convinced were legitimate. But that’s another story.

Petraeus and other military officials have warned of more combat casualties as additional U.S. troops are sent to the fight. Last fall, President Barack Obama authorized 100,000 troops in Afghanistan - triple the level from 2008.

Obama’s Democratic supporters have reluctantly swung behind the plan, but lawmakers are beginning to question whether Afghanistan can be won.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear; the war in Afghanistan CAN be won. But it won’t be won if we continue to tie the hands of our troops and saddle them with a ridiculous set of Rules of Engagement that embraces all the tenets of political correctness.

Couple that with orders that basically translate to ‘You take casualties if necessary, but incur NO collateral damage’, as opposed to following the teachings of Sun Tzu in his The Art of War writings, and you have a decent picture of what our mid-level field commanders and troops are up against.

Petraeus said in the interview that the war only recently has been given the right “inputs,” or resources: more U.S. and Afghan troops to take over Taliban territory and more civilians to restore services to the population.

I’m sure Petraeus is aware of this, but it bears mentioning, the Afghan army is as infiltrated with Taliban and al-Qaida as was, and IS, the Iraqi army.

The armies of Muslim nations are Muslims 1st. That is the fact of the matter. They’re not troops as we are used to seeing troops. They are not dedicated to God and Country. They are Islamic Holy Warriors and no matter what affiliation the Afghan government (Karzai) claims them to be, they are, first and foremost, Muslims, and sworn to killing the infidel. That would be OUR guys.

Petraeus described Afghanistan as a tough and enduring fight that would require its “character and its size being scaled down over the years.” If the U.S. loses, there would likely be a bloody civil war followed by a takeover by extremists. If the U.S. succeeds and Afghanistan stabilizes, the country could become the region’s new “Silk Road” with the potential to extract trillions of dollars worth of minerals, he said.

Do you remember the cries of the libbers when we went into Iraq? ‘No blood for oil‘ and ‘It’s all about the oil‘, all that nonsense?

Now there’s trillions of dollars in minerals being brought into play in Afghanistan. What are the libbers going to say about that revelation?

If the U.S. loses, OR, if the U.S. pulls out, even with a decisive win, there could still be a bloody civil war followed by a takeover by extremists. That is the nature of the beast. Whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other Muslim nation. It’s the way things are done in nations like that. It’s the way things have been done for centuries. We’re not going to change them.

When asked about the rocky U.S. relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Petraeus denied there were serious problems and defended Karzai as a leader trying to curb corruption. Petraeus said he and Karzai usually talk once a day, sometimes more, and take walks in the garden behind Karzai’s house.

I wonder? Do they follow those walks with a ‘chest bump’ or a ‘man hug’? 😕

Hamid Karzai is nothing more than a victorious WAR LORD. He was the choice of G.W. Bush, he was the most well educated individual we could find in the whole damned nation. And he cleaned up pretty well too.

Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai is facing hard times. As his brother fights accusations that he’s involved in the country’s rampant drug trade, an increasing number of Afghans are disappointed by their government. Many are starting to think about potential presidential successors. SOURCE

As I said, a War Lord, and I am only speaking MY opinion, but Karzai has to get his operating capital from somewhere. Just sayin’…

Iraq has bled us dry, and we scored NO oil for the effort. Afghanistan brought the Soviet Union to it’s knees a few years ago. We can’t keep walking this path to a politically correct settlement, we need strong leaders and a decisive victory.

Otherwise, we will be seen as weak and ineffectual, and fair game for any 2-bit Islamic faction that comes along.