Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan . . .

AfghanistanbombWhile the surge is seeing success in Iraq, U.S. military and State Department leaders are worried that past successes in Afghanistan are slipping away. As a result, they have begun top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, the New York Times reported. Concerns include a rise in attacks by the Taliban and al-Qaida, a weak and corrupt government, soaring poppy production and inadequate NATO forces.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

18 Comments

  1. The Phantom
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    We just need to surge! Surge the troops out of Iraq and back to Afghanistan to finish the job that should have been done before going on “Bush’s Awesome Adventure”!

  2. Ed Friedemann
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    “While the surge is seeing success in Iraq,”

    That is so outrageous as to be funny. Talk about festering propaganda, jeesagehovafats…

  3. The Phantom
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    It can’t be Al-Quida, we’ve got them pinned down in Iraq!

  4. Ben
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

  5. mrbill
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Democrat Omnibus

    1. Over 11,000 Wasteful Pork Projects, Second Highest Earmark Total in History2. Overspends by $24.3 Billion in Gimmicks, Largest Spending Bill in History3. Weakens Border Security, Reduces Fencing4. Cuts National Security to Pay for Liberal Social Programs
    5. Cuts Abstinence Funding…Increases Planned Parenthood Funding6. Cuts Labor Oversight… Increases Funding to Labor Unions7. Cuts Funding for U.S. Marshals Service That Enforces Sex Offender Registry8. Allows Government to Sue Businesses that Require English in the Workplace9. Spends Millions to Help Solve Energy Problems… in NORTH KOREA10. Increases Funding for National Endowment for the Arts

  6. CapnAmerica
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    The “success” of the surge is more like going back to what it was before the surge.

    Wow.

  7. CapnAmerica
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    OMGosh!

    24 billion in overspending.

    That’s ten weeks in Iraq.

  8. common sense
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Come on guys, To: The Phantom, you say mission accomplished like it wasn’t. That is a common misconception, the first mission (reason we went to Iraq) was to remove Saddam. Is he still in power? NO, then that is mission accomplished, but in doing that mission we have created another one that we are still fighting today!!

    And yes, there is success in Iraq, it is odd huh. To hear all the doom and gloom from your liberal media, you would think thousands die there every day. Yet from alternative media, and from friends returning from the front lines you hear about all the good news. Way to go Bush, way to not fold under liberal pressure. God bless America,

  9. The Phantom
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    If the elimination of mixed neighborhoods was the mission, then by all means mission accomplished. That would explain the drop in number of murdered bodies found daily.

  10. Mary Caruso
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Yes, common..we will continue to see “sucess” in Iraq as long as we have so many American troops over there..there is no effective leader or government to take the reigns..maybe we should just annex Iraq and run the government ourselves, it could be the 51st state, the next star on our flag…
    I certainly don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel yet, do you?

    “God bless America”

    Maybe instead you should be saying:”God, help America”

  11. J R
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Afghanistan?

    We don’t care about Afghanistan.

    They don’t have any oil.

    We would have already left that nation to whatever chaos would befall it. Since bush clearly has lost interest in bin Laden.

    Afghanistan is valuable to the US only because it sits on the opposite shoulder of Iran.

    You know? Just across from Iraq?

    Once we’ve done what we want to do to Iran, we’ll cast Afghanistan adrift. Probably Pakistan will end up with it.

  12. Mary Caruso
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Didn’t you hear Bush when he said he was no longer concerned about bin Laden?Good for Bush that he’ll be out of office the next time bin Laden blows up one of our buildings and the responsibility will fall into someone else’s lap. What a moron we’ve had for president the last 7 yrs. The damage will never be repaired in my lifetime or yours.

  13. David B
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    I remember the stories about Taliban abuses before Bush’s Mideast Folly. I welcomed going in to get the WTC bomber’s homebases and clear out the Taliban. Then, of course, it all got sold out…

    We could have done some good there…. probably too late now….

    Now when Iran is running the rubble of Iraq…. God forgive us.

  14. David B
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    And thanks for the cut and paste without attribution from the National Review . . .

  15. David B
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    At least they saved the huge tax breaks for the big oil companies!!!! God knows they are hurting. LOL!!!

  16. common sense
    Posted December 19, 2007 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Yes Phantom, I cant argue with that. The government in Iraq is still corrupt and virtually non existent. They could not get their people to co operate if their life depended on it. For that I have no solution but I know failure by withdrawal (spell check that one!)is not an option for as soon as we depart another group will move in. Then we are in a worse position than we are now!

  17. writerdog
    Posted December 19, 2007 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    “Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer — a Martian — and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein’s rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question”Charles Krauthhammer’s explanation as to why Iraq and not Afghanistan.

  18. Ben
    Posted December 19, 2007 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately senseless, even though you claim that withdrawal is not an option you don’t suggest any other options. You admit that you, just like Bush, have no clue what to do except ’stay the failed course’