During last night's State of the Union Address that Barack Obama delivered to Congress and the American people, he promised that the Afghan War would be done by the end of 2014. At that time, while the United States would no longer be at war in the central Asian country by decree of Barack Obama, tens of thousands of American troops would still be in Afghanistan waging war, as reported by the Cybercast News Service on Feb. 12, 2013.
During the course of his annual address to the nation, Obama gave a war strategy that could best be described as schizophrenic.
A War By Any Other Name...
The Commander-in-Chief drew thunderous applause as he confidently stated to millions of Americans:
"And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over!"
From that particular moment, Obama's both short and long term strategy became rather discombobulated:
"Beyond 2014, America's commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change.
We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counter-terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates."
Isn't That What We've Been Doing Since Day 1...?
As cited, the Government Accounting Office places the number of American troops in Afghanistan at this moment is roughly 66,000.
As of Jan.1, 2014, there will remain approximately 33,000 American souls still fighting "the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates" in Mr. Obama's non-war.
Fighting "al-Qaeda and their affiliates" is exactly what American troops did when they first arrived in-country to engage, close with and destroy the enemy back in 2001.
What's The Definition Of Leaving...?
During the singular 2012 Vice Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan, the Veep stated unequivicatably as he promised to the American people: (See video, above left)
Notice the absence of descriptors such as victorious, vanquished, defeated, destroyed, conquered, subjugated, crushed, annihilated, subdued, overcome, routed, overpowered ?
I think those kinds of phrases are fine if the locals are 100% with you, and/or a foreign invader is the main enemy. Where it's more or less a civil war, where a significant chunk of the population supports the enemy, and that population can't be driven out or massacred, under Western laws of war, I think it's good to employ a few neutral-sounding terms.
PCorrectness-Deniability + Dialecticism as concept(s) are not solely a US or Western or even Demolefty invention.
No need to fight when the post-2014 Talibunnies + aligned can legally or electorally be part of the AFPAK Govts + in charge = oversignt of both AFPAK Public Polices as well as Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal.
Come 2014 or ASAP after, IN THE TALIBAN'S, ETAL. VIEW THE JOB OF THE AFPAK GOVT-ARMIES + US-NATO ADVISORS IS TO PROTECT + DEFEND THE "GOOD TALIBAN" + ALIGNED WHILE FIGHTING THOSE SELECT ANTI-TALIBAN, ETAL. - I.E. THE "BAD TALIBAN" + ALIGNED - WHOM REFUSE TO JOIN IN THE NEW POWER-SHARE WID THE AFPAK GOVTS.
2014 AFPAK = 1876 US "WILD WILD WEST", + the AFPAK Govts = 1876 US Govt. has declared that any + all Hard Boyz = Indian tribes whom are NOT on a Fed-controlled reservation will be declared "hostile" ["enemy(s) of the state"] + as such at high risk of Army-led search-n-destroy attack iff not tote destruction. THE NEW POST-2014 "GOOD TALIBAN" WILL HELP THE AFPAK GOVTS-ARMIES + US-NATO FIND + HUNT + KILL? THE "BAD TALIBAN"???
The question is whether the US believes the post-2014 "Good Taliban" will end up oer time as 2013 = not-1975/post-Saigon NEW US BFF VIETNAM, or another ANTI-US, NUKE-WANNABE ANTAGONISTIC IRAN???
California is both crushing the old economy before the new one is really ready to take its place and it is inhibiting the growth of the new service oriented businesses that could provide jobs for its army of unemployed and unskilled workers. The transition between a manufacturing economy and an information one is going to be tough, especially on blue collar and unskilled workers. California hasn't really thought through the problem of transitional employment and in California's case the high local population of unskilled immigrants makes the issue more urgent.