| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Why Are We Releasing Terrorists Who Kill Girls Because They Go To School? |
| 2014-06-05 |
| [TheFederalist] This cynical deal marks Obama's final abandonment of any scintilla of concern for human rights. It's a declaration that he and his administration don't really give a damn what happens to the people of Afghanistan a year from now when we bug out. Yes, I know, American foreign policy is not simply a humanitarian operation, and we can't set out to relieve all the world's suffering. But if we're going to engage in this kind of cynical trade, we'd better get something in return that's pretty damn important for our interests. So what did we get by releasing these Afghan wolves back amongst their prey? Maybe the administration thought it would be good domestic PR, and they certainly seem to have expected military families to rally around a deal that brought back a POW. Except that the POW turned out to be a deserter who reportedly renounced his US citizenship before leaving his post. But there is an even worse motive suggested by a report that US special operations knew of Bergdahl's location but chose not to mount a rescue operation because they considered the risk too high and didn't want to sacrifice elite troops for the sake of a deserter. The administration had opposite priorities. An intelligence official told the Washington Times that "the deal turned out the way it did because 'the administration wanted to close the door on this no matter what the price was.'" Now, why would they want to do that? Bergdahl had to be brought back because he was a loose end cluttering up the administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan. President Obama has to have everyone back so he can end US military operations in Afghanistan completely without being accused of abandoning a POW. The Berghdal trade is part of a strategy, not just to end the war in Afghanistan, but to get the US completely out of the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater. So no wonder we're willing to send back Taliban leaders, so long as the Emir of Qatar can arrange for a one-year delay. We don't care what happens when the Taliban's boys get back in town, because we're going to be gone. This is Obama's way of foreclosing any continuation of the war by a future administration, because once we're out, when things go wrong it won't be easy to get back in. This is Obama's attempt to make his policy of total disengagement from the War on Terrorism permanent. Does anybody remember when Afghanistan was the good war, the war of necessity as opposed to our "war of choice" in Iraq? Well, it turns out that every war is a war of choice--so long as you don't have qualms about choosing a really horrific outcome. The administration's choice is to release monsters in support of a policy that says we're no longer going to fight them. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #9 ...for the Left, it's a feature, not a bug - see Chicago. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-06-05 15:34 |
| #8 When you hear a liberal talk about negotiating with the Taliban, replace "Taliban" with "mafia". Now, how do you think that will turn out? |
| Posted by: Squinty 2014-06-05 12:37 |
| #7 Do the Paks/Qatar/Saudi/UAE still want the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan? If so the war in Afghanistan is a waste of time and lives! |
| Posted by: Slinelet Pelosi7787 2014-06-05 12:10 |
| #6 #4 Why did we elect someone as president who would do things like this? Mass Derangement Syndrome, a stuffed ballot box, and widespread corruption. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-06-05 11:57 |
| #5 Because we're a racist society that judges a man on the color of his skin, not his merits. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK's dream was sold out by the Left. Power first, power last. Play that race guilt card. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-06-05 11:46 |
| #4 Why did we elect someone as president who would do things like this? |
| Posted by: Iblis 2014-06-05 10:57 |
| #3 ...no matter what the price was. Obama's presidency in a nutshell. |
| Posted by: Raj 2014-06-05 10:21 |
| #2 Yep. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-06-05 08:01 |
| #1 War on women? |
| Posted by: Wheretle Grundy2884 2014-06-05 00:22 |