Positively Nixonian on Obama’s part.
Furthermore, someone should tell him that ‘decimated’ means cut by 10%. That means that 90% of AQ was still active. Bravo, O.
Obama represents the Democrats perfectly. They are dangerously stoopid.
Obviously, we need to go back. But a draft and war tax should be implemented so we can all share in the fun.
Because the comeback for Al Qaeda has been armed and fueled by Obama’s incomprehensible foreign, military and strategic policies in the Middle East and North Africa, starting with arming Al Qaeda in a bid to topple Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi in the spring of 2011. Since then American arms and American money has been helping to rebuild Al Qaeda in Africa, Syria, Iraq and throughout the Arab world. And it’s not just the stability of Iraq at stake anymore: Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel are all affected.
Incomprehensible?
Obama’s plan is unfolding just as he planned it.
It’s just incomprehensible to Americans that they twice elected a President who is working for Al-Qaeda
Defeat for Iraq? Sure.
Defeat for America? Nope.
Petraeus really began attracting Washington's attention in 2003 with his command of the 101st Airborne Division in Baghdad, Iraq, and, later, in Mosul. He had written his doctoral thesis about counterinsurgency in Vietnam, and had continued to refine his ideas during tours in places like Central America and Bosnia.
Petraeus soon began enacting what is now known as the "hearts and minds" approach to winning supporters among the local populations. His approach called for more troops and more investment in nation building, which ran in opposition to President George W. Bush's strategy at the time. However, when the administration changed its course in Iraq in 2006, Petraeus's rise to the top continued.
It makes no sense to anyone except the, ahem, geniuses, in the administration. We are going to reap the whirlwind because of those idiots.
How does one sat “Tet” in Arabic?
While the author's larger argument has merit, he unfortunately miscasts the Tet Offensive as a U.S. defeat. Did we suffer losses? Of course, but when that battle was over, the enemy was no longer able to field an effective combat force. It took them close to two years after we left to mount a new offensive and breach the accords.
Why did Hillary and Obama use American taxpayer funded facilities, personnel, equipment and funds to overthrow the government of Libya? This article states that Hillary and Obama supported and supplied Al Qaeda to overthrow the government of Libya. Isn’t Al Qaeda our enemy? What if FDR had helped Hitler overthrow Switzerland? Isn’t this treason?
If this latest deliberate action with Fallujah and Ramadi were an aberration with this administration, we could call it stupid. Sadly, the motive behind this destruction of our national security interests is consistent with everything else Obummer is doing. It conforms perfectly to a much, much more sinister and deliberate agenda. Yet, this “in your face†treason is depressingly dismissed with disingenuous terms like stupid or ignorant. These euphemisms only provide a cheap excuse for not calling the acts treason and criminal. Even if no one wants to take any action against this WH traitor, we need to be honest and call him and his actions what they really are.
I'm calling BS on that assertion. 50 years ago, our foreign policy conception was containment of the Soviet Union, period. What's more since that policy became moot with our victory in the Cold War, the U.S. was on the same side as Al Qaeda in the Balkans in the 1990's giving Sunni Islamists an airforce first in Bosnia then in Kosovo (and still supports the KLA -- AQ's Albanian arm -- in the theft of Kosovo from Serbia) and in central Asia, supporting the Chechens diplomatically. It's only for the past 12 year that the U.S. has actually had a half-hearted anti-Al Qaeda policy thanks to their ingratitude expressed in the 9/11 attacks.
"These guys" are Communists and they hate us, is why.