He's only repeating himself..... but (by satellite)....from another location.... now from in the Afghan kennel....

Maybe he whispered to the dogs !! Okay okay..... I only want to pledge my life to Obama, 'at's all..... Donah////

omg... par ardua.... ad astra !

Pakistan is a vital ally in the AMERICAN war on terror.

Many Pakistanis are not really happy about this.

One of the major groundrules which we have generally abided by has been to let the Pakistani army deal with the high mountain areas, since they have been fighting there for a long time already, they know the terrain and because sovereignty issues are VERY important to the ALL Pakistanis who really aren't all that comfortable at being seen at AMERICA'S poodle.

So, generally TACT means that you do not make such DECLARATIONS in-your-face defiantly.

Aside from weakening the Pakistani goverment and the likelihood of the continuation of their cooperation (it makes them look even more like poodles), it calls into question show AMERICA treats its allies (which has not be really encouraging in Iraq and elsewhere).

IT'S RUDE. IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. GET OVER YOURSELF.

How do you think "condescending" makes your point?

I agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski's warning to Obama (in Financial Times July 21st) that the US risked being seen by the Afghans as an occupier, if substantial additions are made to the US forces in that country. As the author observes in this excellent piece, the stability of Pakistan would be put at risk if an aggressive cross-border counter-insurgency strategy is adopted.

In my view, achieving even minimal stability in Afghanistan is impossible without the assistance of Iran. And what is John McCain doing about this problem? He claimed today that Iran was threatening Israel with a Holocaust! Is he an idiot?

Posted Sun 20 July 2008 02:38 PM on Military.com

I get nervous when both candidates and the current Administration seem to agree on a new strategy regarding anything; in this case it is the idea of surging more troops into the Afghan Theater.

Most Americans had been led to believe that the Afghan adventure was a success. Now, out of the blue, we are being told that a sudden re-emergence of Taliban/al Qaeda military activity is taking place, resulting in US casualties and possibly signaling a renewed insurgency in that country.

We are being told that elements of the Taliban and al Qaeda have established a sanctuary in the largely ungoverned FATA territory in Pakistan, allowing them to flow troops into Afghan to create general mischief and death.

Obama, a late-to-the-party McCain and Bush all agree more troops are needed in theater, ASAP. Their solution is more US soldiers, and more effort--military effort--by the Pakistani government to neutralize the Qaeda/Taliban enclaves in FATA.

I am a civilian, but a civilian old enough to remember the Viet War, and when Nixon accepted the view that the war could not be won unless the US cut off the flow of North Viet men and materiel traveling through Cambodia. That produced widening of the war into the latter country, at enormous materiel and human casualty costs, without winning the war in the end.

What do you military guys think about this latest--and late--concern with the Afghan Theater? Do you think surging more Americans, most of them coming from the Iraq Theater, into harms way in Afghan is a viable strategy? Is the US occupation of Afghan doing any good in the overall War on Terror (WOT)?

Is the Afghan culture even more primitive than what we encountered in Iraq, as far as tribal wars, clan feuds that have gone on for centuries, warlords and drug cartels? In other words, does Afghan society make Iraqi society look like a model of modern thinking in comparison.

I ask these questions sincerely.

I do not want more US soldiers used as expendable pawns in mis-begotten stretegies of our civilian leadership.

[Note: I got a reply to this post from a member-veteran (I am a life-long civilian) on Military.com that he allowed me to post on my blog. It is a viewpoint on the mess that I have never seen or heard expressed anywhere else.]

Obama's knowledge of the region is fairly impressive. Perhaps the dynamics in the tribal areas escaped his purview. I suspect Ghani's warnings did not fall on deaf ears.

Obama is a pragmatic, intelligent and reasonable person. He has shown to be consistently circumspect on events, issues and life.

Furthermore Obama does not have a reactive type personality. He thinks things through before acting therefore I feel confident he will make the right decisions -- at least better than McCain who is reactive and ready to command war at the drop of a hat.

Although Iam concerned about his stance on Iran. Obama seems to believe Iran is a nuclear threat which our intelligence agencies say otherwise. So whether he is courting the Jewish vote remains to be seen.

I've read several transcripts of Obama's interviews and his personal writings on foreign policy. I agree with his overall premise and philosophy on the most part. The willingness to talk and negotiate with adversarial foreign leaders and the manner in which he approaches foreign policy is by far more humane and reasonable than Bush's and certainly McCain's.

Granted I have some reservations, but based on what I've read and observed I feel confident Obama will always respond in a way that is commensurate to any given situation.

Whether Obama heeds Ghani's warnings will become apparent soon enough.

Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?

By THOMAS SCHWEICH 9:58 PM ET

The Taliban are not the only ones benefiting from the opium trade. Drug-related corruption pervades the Afghan government. A former Bush administration counternarcotics official explains the war within the war.

Sounds like Obama may have read the memo. Wonder what the catch-phrase will be...

Will the poppy fields of the Wizard of Oz be invoked?

Saving the world, coming right up.

Link at my sig

Pakistan is a vital ally in the AMERICAN war on terror.

More like a useless "ally", happy to take American money, not so happy to put boots on the ground and flush out the terrorist Islamic nutjobs who have become the de facto rulers of Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

It's about time someone called them on this. Obama is clearly delivering a warning - this kind of crap won't be tolerated come January. Either you deal with them or we will - and you can handle the consequences.

The Bush Administration should have done this 5 years ago, but then Osama and company have proven politically-useful boogeymen. Why do you think we let them get away in the first place?

We need to put a lot of boots on the ground in Afghanistan too, probably quadruple the number of soldiers we have there today, along with billions of dollars a year in aid and investment. That would stabilize the security situation, reduce the number of clumsy, civilian-killing airstrikes being conducted and prove to the Afghans that this new administration is serious about stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan. That more than anything would marginalize the Taliban and remove Afghanistan as a base of operations for international terrorists.

Unfortunately, Bush's Iraq folly has given them a brand new place to setup shop and recruit more martyrs, but there's little anyone can do about that now.