Michael Crowley at the New Republic argues that Osama, if his rhetoric is taken to its logical conclusion, is exiting Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. Crowley raises two questions, none of which have obvious answers. The first is that the fight in Afghanistan is likely to be much larger than most of Obama’s supporters realize. Using John Nagl’s troops to population yardstick as a measure, Crowley finds that Afghanistan will be a major undertaking in itself.
But his second question is more important. Is Afghanistan the strategically important target? Or is it Pakistan? And if so, then Nagl’s cost estimates don’t even begin to convey the scale of the resources that will be necessary for Obama to defeat Osama.
The linchpin of Obama’s case for escalating the war in Afghanistan is that, unlike Iraq, it’s in our strategic interest. But, the closer you look at that premise, the blurrier it can get. The tale of Rauf’s demise illustrates that our strategic interest may best be served by focusing on Pakistan. The inconvenient fact is that, since September 11, Pakistan, and not Afghanistan, has emerged as Al Qaeda’s true home. “Al Qaeda isn’t in Afghanistan, they’re in Pakistan,” says Kenneth Pollack. Pakistan offers the Taliban sanctuary, which in turn allows Taliban fighters to escape annihilation by NATO forces who can’t chase them across the border. Adds Pollack: “It’s clear that you cannot solve the problems of Afghanistan without solving Pakistan.”
But “solving” Pakistan is an entirely different project than winning in Afghanistan. It is a matter of diplomacy and foreign aid, not large contingents of ground troops. It requires boosting the economy of a country now teetering near bankruptcy. And it entails, as Obama’s team has acknowledged, a new push to soothe the extreme tensions between Islamic Pakistan and its Hindu rival, India. Hatred for India foments radicalism on the margins of Pakistani society. And it leads Pakistan’s notorious intelligence services to provide support for the Taliban, which it sees as a buffer against creeping Indian influence within Afghanistan. This problem, of course, grew exponentially more confounding once the first shots rang out at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus last week and is unlikely to be solved by more American troops in Afghanistan.
… All of this raises the question of whether a major troop escalation is truly worth the costs. According to a recent Washington Post report, military planners are debating whether a smaller U.S. contingent, based around Special Forces and military trainers for Afghan security forces, and complemented by Predator drones, can achieve a reduced set of U.S. goals–namely, preventing Al Qaeda from reconstituting.
When I asked John Nagl about such a scenario, he bristled at the thought. Nagl still believes that Afghanistan is a good war for both moral and strategic reasons. “I think that, without a very substantial commitment to the government of Afghanistan, there’s a very real chance that the Taliban returns to power there,” he says. “I think that would not be good for the stability of the government of Pakistan. And I am personally unwilling to let a regime that throws acid in the faces of little girls who go to school take power.”
But the circumstance that al-Qaeda’s forces are currently in Afghanistan/Pakistan still leaves open the question of whether their ouster from these countries will effectively end the Jihad against America. Afghanistan and Pakistan may simply be the Fort Braggs of the Jihad, yet driving them away from these places does not necessary destroy or weaken the wellsprings of the ideological system from which they spring. Much of that foundation is is really based and funded from the Middle East.
Personally I think Obama — or at least some of his supporters — may have seen Afghanistan as a surgical replacement for a decades-long fight against radical Islam. But they may find, as cancer surgeons often do, that way leads on to way and that Afghanistan and Pakistan, rather than being doors to be closed, are merely portals onto a vista they never hoped to see.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
33 Comments
1. Roderick Reilly:The Obama crowd is ill-equipped to deal with the Afghanistan/Pakistan debacle — less so even then the people they are replacing.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:21 pm 2. a Duoist:If every Taliban were caught or killed; if every Al Qaeda were caught or killed; if every Hezbollah or Hamas were caught or killed; if every Ba’ath Socialist in Syria or every Qom cleric in Iran were caught or killed; if every Pashtun in the Pakistan ISI were arrested, tried, and convicted, the problem would not be solved.
The radical philosophers of political Islam–Wahhab in Saudi Arabia, Mawdudi in Pakistan, Qutb in Egypt, and Khomeini in Iran, have completely ‘flipped’ traditional Islamic morality, just as Peter and Paul did to classical morality with Christianity.
Your metaphor of inoperable spreading cancer is very apt, Richard. We–the West–as the surgeon will never be able to end the spreading cancer. It will have to be the body–moderate Muslims–who discredit and stop the nihilism of duoicidal (suicidal homicide) doctrines from making murder a form of heroism, a virtue.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:34 pm 3. Cannoneer No. 4:Democrats claimed to support the Afghan Campaign, it was the “Good War” we were supposed to be fighting and Bush took his eye off the ball to go invade the peace-loving, sovereign Westphalian nation-state of Iraq in an unjustified war of choice for oil.
Of course that was all a steaming pile of rendolent bovine excrement, but those who were disgusted with the objectively pro-Islamofascist, anti-Bush, anti-war propaganda should not be too quick to start believing those people now. B. Hussein talked tough on the campaign trail. He doesn’t have enough ass in his britches to invade Pakistan and take out Osama, which, by now, would not impede AQ’s operations all that much while providing the Muslim street with excuses to burn KFC’s.
Prepare your hearts for the fall of Kabul. Your fellow citizens pissed on the graves of every American who died in New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Afghanistan since 9/11 when they voted in Benito Hirohito Shitler to be Commander-in-Chief of armed forces they no longer care about, during a war they want us to lose.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:11 pm 4. Ruby:Afghanistan was a convenient rhetorical device for the run up to the election. The story was that Bush took troops and materiel out of Afghanistan to fight an optional side-show in Iraq, but vote for Mr. Obama and he would get us back to where we were in 2002 before Bush got a wild hair over Saddam. Now we’re sliding into a recession that will be deeper and longer than 1981-82, approaching the Depression of the early 1930’s and there’s no money to stay in Iraq OR double-down in Afghanistan. People are thinking more about butter than guns these days. If Kabul falls, no biggie, just put everyone on the No-Fly list that comes from Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran and you’re good to go.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:47 pm 5. Cannoneer No. 4:America cannot bring security to the rural population of Afghanistan if every time they interact with that population they treat them as potential enemy fighters. The military believes “force protection” is the job number one and I have listened to officers wax eloquent on the subject of protecting their men and woman no matter what because this country is not worth the noble sacrifice that their young troopers would represent if they lost life or limb here. I have used all my self control to avoid kicking these idiots in the teeth which is what they deserve. That kind of thinking will lead to our defeat just as certain as day follows night. It is ridiculous and based on an inflated self centered egotism which I find alarming. Infantry officers are paid to think – to think about the best way to beat those who ask for it while maintaining the cohesion and high morale amongst their troops. The job of military leaders is to spend blood, American blood, and spend it wisely in pursuit of the missions and objectives given them by their civilian masters. I know what those masters have said is our mission in Afghanistan. I also know the current American TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures) do not in any way support the mission they have been given and in fact do the exact opposite by alienating the very population we are supposed to be “winning.” I might be being a little harsh here but how else do you explain the performance of our military to date? Sure they can fight like demons against the Taliban in the south but the Taliban in the south are not the same ones who currently own every province around Kabul except Laghman which is only half Taliban. So what difference does it make killing hundreds of Taliban in the south while a majority of the population (not in the south) falls to Taliban control. — Tim Lynch, posts here as Tim san.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:58 pm 6. wretchard:One of the reasons I fear that Obama “doesn’t get it” is his insistence that we need to “reboot” America’s image in the Muslim world. He’ll do this by emphasizing his Islamic connection, by using the middle name no one dared utter during the campaign and doubtless by uttering some mea culpas.
So is his strategy to go after the training grounds of al-Qaeda and apologize to the ideology is represents? I know that is an oversimplification. But if so, what is his strategy then?
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:07 pm 7. whiskey:He has no strategy because he has no clue. Obama is not very smart man, with not very smart advisors, who have no clue about the world.
Immersed in the racial resentment of Chicago, he blames America for the world’s ills, is determined to stage a national apology to Islam and claim he is a “Muslim” of some sort or another. [In sympathy, racial solidarity, or what have you -- which will of course prompt Americans to decide he's with the enemy. Since at this point Muslim = enemy to most Americans, for obvious Bombay-related reasons.]
He has to release all the 9/11 planners and so on, and everyone else at Guantanomo Bay, He must “end” any sort of profiling of anyone from Muslim nations or who might even be suspected of being Muslim. His own framework for viewing the world demands it.
He is on course to get America hit, and hit hard. It might be by a Bombay type strike, with only a few thousand to 5,000 dead (if we are “lucky.”) It might be with bioweapons with the casualties in the hundreds of thousands. It might be with a nuke or two with the death toll in the millions.
But it’s going to come, along with wholesale surrender in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama and Dems will Own this disaster, in all aspects.
Lest anyone doubt how stupid Obama is … please note how Rev. Wright, his spiritual mentor and advisor, thinks Dec 7, 1941 is when America nuked Hiroshima. Yes, Obama is that stupid. All he knows is his hatred (well-concealed) for Whites. That’s his mental model for the world.
Most Dems are not much better. Their idea of how the world works comes from TV’s “West Wing.” Yes they are that dumb.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:32 pm 8. Cannoneer No. 4:His strategy is to keep fooling the rubes and diverting everybody’s attention from what his puppeteers are really doing.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:40 pm 9. Lifeofthemind:For your long term health I do not recommend starting a drinking game revolving around Democrats saying “But can he do that?” every time that Obama does something as outrageous as what whiskey and Cannoneer No. 4 envisage. My prediction is that US foreign policy will be run out of the NSC and the UN. American troops will be deployed within 6 months to protect Palestinians from those nasty Israelis. We will go down to 7 active carriers, two fully deployable. Strategic land based weapons will be taken off alert status and half will be deactivated.
Dec 10, 2008 - 8:28 pm 10. rrpjr:What Bush failed to act upon, Obama won’t even acknowledge, and certainly will not act upon: the threat of Islam in our own culture, that is to say, western culture. This is the war we are losing. At times I wonder why radical Islamics would ever consider another large-scale act of terror. For they are winning this other, quieter war. Why risk it? Why stir up public fear and awareness? In Europe, they’re winning hands down — chipping away at traditions and cultural prerogatives, steadily extracting concessions. In America, the same strategy has more natural obstacles, but gains are still being made, however more slowly. Book are not published, historic presumptions of free speech are challenged on college campuses, communities alter laws and customs, businesses adopt new holidays and drop others, networks censor progams, schools change curricula, a double standard in how Judeo-Christian traditions and Muslim demands are balanced becomes ever more sickly clear. I’d swap total withdrawal from Afghanistan for a clear and courageous confrontation of this inner threat. But it needn’t be an “either-or” deal. And the latter “war” costs nothing. But it takes what no leader (certainly not Obama) seems to have.
Dec 10, 2008 - 8:36 pm 11. Leon:Unfortunately, I believe that the problem is not (only) Islam, but liberalism. So to defeat Islam you have to defeat liberalism first. But Obama IS liberalism. So… It’s going to be hard.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:31 pm 12. marymcl:rrpjr – I don’t believe it is or even can be an either/or deal – the one is but a reflection of the other. It’s the same war, and while it may not be the only one in the world, it’s everywhere nonetheless. But the very idea of a jihad against America is just too apocalyptic for too many people, and for reasons that seem to be both instinctive and shallow. I don’t know what will snap the country out of it.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:35 pm 13. Alexis:In 2002, the Bush administration made a strategic decision to give Pakistan time to crack down on al-Qaeda. In essence, the Bush administration gave Pakistan rope to hang itself, and then Pakistan promptly hung itself with that rope.
Pakistani leaders wasted a major opportunity to get the Americans out of their hair. Instead, the ISI let the problem fester in the belief they would restore their “strategic depth”. The problem Pakistan faces is that its strategic depth isn’t truly measured in distance. It is measured in time. And Pakistan is running out of time.
As unpopular as the liberation of Iraq has been in Pakistan, it is precisely the liberation of Iraq that gave Pakistan the breathing room it supposedly needed to crack down on the Taliban. Pakistan could have solved this problem long ago, but it has consistently refused to do anything more than public relations stunts. Time is running out for Pakistan.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:35 pm 14. Sticky B:Maybe a little to blunt for the more sophisticated crowd here, but I think this whole argument is moot. The guy was nominated and elected by a strong anti-war segment from both coasts. A group of people who don’t believe that anything is worth fighting for, at least not anything American, and that every conflict can be bargained away satisfactorily. Absent a catostrophic attack on a solid blue city, I don’t think he’d be willing to buck his constituency even if he himself personally believed in peace through strength. But that’s a moot point in and of itself, cause I think that when the dust is settled, the guy is a pussy. And America will get 4-8 years to see how the world’s rogue leaders behave when there’s a big overgrown softie who’s nominally supposed to be in charge. At least on paper.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:58 pm 15. Utopia Parkway:Perhaps Pakistan will be Obama’s Waterloo. As Terrasita/4 puts it, Afghanistan and Pakistan were important talking points during the election. Mr O seems like he needs to prove his military bona fides so will continue to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I don’t think he understands what it will take to win there, and how many Muslims he’ll have to kill. While he’s busy rebooting those Muslims, Patraeus will be busy killing the enemy.
The most curious thing of all is that Big O hasn’t been rebooting his cabinet with a bunch of left wing change freaks. He’s been filling his cabinet with a bunch of old timers. This I could almost call, um, good. Big O’s base is already saying that he’s cheated them, that he’s not the man of change that they expected. It’s certainly confusing.
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:08 pm 16. jaymaster:I think we should invade Iran before they get their nuke.
Draw a line near due north from Dubai to Ashgabat (in Turkmenistan), and move in. Head north, defend west. We can surely do that. Let the Iranians move their forces east to interdict, and see what happens next….
Then again, there’s a fairly level part of Pakistan dangling between the south end of Afghanistan and the Indian Ocean. If the Pak’s can’t keep their shit together we would be equally justified in taking over that territory. Maybe in unison with the Indians.
We can do this stuff. It just takes political will.
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:26 pm 17. Subotai Bahadur:Hussein Pasha has no bloody clue as to either what he is doing or what he has gotten himself into. Let us leave aside the matter of us not having the resources to deal with Afghanistan, especially over the objections of the Pakistanis. Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. What percentage of the supplies for the Multi-National Force in Afghanistan goes through Pakistan? Let us keep in mind that there is still an excellent chance of an war, possibly nuclear, on the Sub-Continent between India and Pakistan. Further note that India quoted Hussein Pasha’s campaign formulation of national interest trumping Pakistan’s sovereignty. The Paks are less than pleased with him for bringing that up. The Indians do not think kindly about his waffling once they quoted him.
However, let us leave aside for the moment the multiple burning fuses on the Sub-Continent. Let us instead consider that much of the Ummah considers him to be a Muslim. And that he intends to be inaugurated under his full name [which means, I suppose that those of us who are relatively melanin deficient compared to him are no longer defined as racist for using his middle name]. That he further intends to make a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capitol that supposedly is going to change the Islamic view of us, immediately after inauguration.
This ties into the question of his religion. Yes, he claims to be a Christian now. And in our country, one’s claimed religion is what counts. No problem here. But in the Ummah there is a problem. Once again, leaving aside questions as to his citizenship [a large subject to lay aside, I grant], it is still undoubted from his own words and from documentary evidence, that he attended a Muslim school for at least a year in his youth. He was listed there both as an Indonesian citizen [required to attend government supported schools in Indonesia] and as a Muslim. Further, it is unlikely to the point of being less likely than me winning the Lottery; that in a Muslim religious school as a first grader he avoided being taught and publicly reciting the Shahada. For those whose knowledge of Islam is sparse, the Shahada is the statement of who the Diety is by name, whether he has any competition, and who speaks for him. That recitation is what constitutes conversion to Islam, if he was not one already.
As I noted throughout the campaign; regardless of professed religion today, to Muslims he was a Muslim and is now an apostate. All Muslims have an absolute religious duty to kill apostate Muslims, on sight. Once again, throughout the campaign I was noting that this might make diplomacy with Islamic countries problematic.
But there is more. It took a while to find it again [h/t to LC Cheapshot911 at Misha's site], but earlier today I watched a sermon by an Egyption cleric translated by MEMRI [Middle Eastern Media Research Institute, the most trustworthy watchdog of Islamic media extent] broadcast on Egyptian state TV.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fda_1228405584
In it the cleric called for Barack Hussein Obama to explicitly convert to Islam and return to his Islamic roots. And for him to convert the United States. And for him to withdraw all US military forces from any Muslim country. According to the cleric, Hussein Pasha would be doubly rewarded by Allah for doing so. And if he did not, there was the explicit threat that there were plenty of Muslims who loved death a lot more than Obama loved his miserable life. That last is not a paraphrase.
This Marxist foreign national who is about to be installed in the White House has absolutely no conception what kind of a [the only appropriate descriptive phrases that come to mind are not appropriate to this venue] he is getting into. He is about, I am sure, to get an object lesson.
If you have an evil and bloody mind, bring popcorn. It will be entertaining to watch if it were not so tragic and going to result in so many needless deaths.
Subotai Bahadur
Dec 11, 2008 - 12:35 am 18. Belmont Club » Obama Vs Osama | Sip Form - My Friendly Blog:[...] Crowley finds that Afghanistan will be a major undertaking in … View original post here: Belmont Club » Obama Vs Osama [...]
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:01 am 19. ridgerunner:W: Much of that foundation is is really based and funded from the Middle East.
If George Bush had been a cancer surgeon, he would have seized the Saudi oil fields as reparation for 9/11 and to reduce funding of the Jihad. That region is lightly populated and could have been held until the last well was dry.
Invading an Islamic country for any purpose related to nation-building is a fool’s errand, not withstanding the brilliant performance of U.S. forces in Iraq. After Obama has met his Waterloo, at great cost to the U.S., we will elect a leader with a sharp and ready scalpel.
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:32 am 20. Ruby:Ridgerunner: After Obama has met his Waterloo, at great cost to the U.S., we will elect a leader with a sharp and ready scalpel.
When I talk to God I tell him I hope our President, no matter who he is, never has a Waterloo, and that the United States never suffers a defeat in battle. I hope he puts it into the heart of our leaders only to wage just wars to roll back tyrants rather than initiating the use of force based on a fear of what somebody might do someday, as called out in the Bush Doctrine. The lives of my fellow citizens and loved ones and the people I protect come before party politics.
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:04 am 21. dan:the irony of the mumbai operation is that it appears to have been designed in order to force india to go to war with pakistan, but in order to really resolve the pakistan problem – which is also the afghanistan problem – we need india’s help. without a massive political spasm of anger against pakistan, india will not wage the more or less total war we would need them to wage in order to crush the tribal-ISI-gov’t cabal resposnible for this mess. india would not have to absorb pakistan; it could withdrawal and practice a form of occupation/reconstruction a la the USA in Iraq/Kosovo/Germany. that would actually be a pretty good project, I’d think.
maybe it was a CIA operation – seriously? maybe we’re learning some new tricks?
i don’t say that as a conspiracy theory, i say that because why would someone want india and pakistan to go to war? yes pakistan would move its troops to the East, but are they really fighting the tribals? it sure doesn’t seem like it. maybe the chaos would allow al qaeda to steal nukes? but honestly, if the ISI really does back al Qaeda (as it seems), then couldn’t they pretty much give al Qaeda nukes if they wanted to even in peace time? and even if the purpose would be to set off a nuclear exchange in south asia, what would that accomplish? contrinbute to the normalization of the use of nuclear weapons? distract the world media eye from other corners? but nuclear weapons use would liekly be further demonized and those places are already out of the media spotlight?
i just can’t see the drawback – from the USA/anti-jihad point of view – of having india crush pakistan. someone help me.
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:38 am 22. ridgerunner:I hope Obama avoids a Waterloo, but I don’t expect it. I said nothing about party politics. I referred to a future leader with enough of a strategic vision to realize that Saudi Arabia is our enemy via Wahabism and enough grit to deal with that problem.
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:41 am 23. twobyfour:@ 20. Ruby
You are a fascinating example of cognitive disonance.
Dec 11, 2008 - 9:30 am 24. Wadeusaf:Obama is smart enough to recognize that Pakistan is the biggest stumbling block to Afghanistan, and has said as much. I do not claim to have any clue about how he will deal with Afghanistan or with Pakistan other than he has been listening to much more than telling General Petreaus.
It may be that with the Russians tossing their weight and approval about the sub continent, an appeal to the Chinese and Baloki’s is in order. What is that big ol deep water Pakistani port being used for anyway? If the Pakistani government cannot find the resources to reign in the Islamists, then India, China and/or the US will have no choice. It is in all three of our interests to cooperate in this area, if only so we can continue to compete.
That is the message that needs to be heard in Islamabad.
Dec 11, 2008 - 9:39 am 25. Unsk:Obama may have appointed more moderate economic and foreign policy advisors that expected, but is he listening to them?
From the seriousness of his $700 billion New Deal Redo stimulus package, I doubt it. Who’s responsible for that huge pile of crap? Surely not those wizards of finance he appointed. In the true Democrat patronage fashion-Chicago style, that pile of crap is just a unbelievably huge give-away Christmas gift to all the clamoring Democrat constituencies that helped elect him and a huge lump of coal for the rest of us.
Obama may be a stylish, glamour boy- con man who has mastered the art of looking good on the Campaign Trail, but more and more it looks beyond that face man status -he’s another stuck on Socialism Democrat Studpid empty suit who just rips a familiar page out of the Democrat playbook when he’s in trouble.
Those moderate appointees may have just been another Obama ploy to look good- to look post partisan for a while.
Dec 11, 2008 - 10:36 am 26. RWE:I have said all along that Afghanistan Does Not Matter.
As long as the guy in charge in Kabul is not giving us the finger when we say we need to go blow the crap out of the bloomin’ outback that is all we need.
The Left’s focus on Afghanistan is simply a reflection of their “It’s a law enforcement problem; just go get the people directly involved in 9/11 and then forget it.” It’s their excuse for avoiding true strategic thinking.
Dec 11, 2008 - 10:51 am 27. PiltdownMan:#20 Ruby -
“The lives of my fellow citizens and loved ones and the people I protect come before party politics.”
I agree with that, but if we wait until we get “rolled” by a tyrant, wouldn’t we be waiting until *more* fellow citizens and loved ones find themselves in harm’s way?
Dec 11, 2008 - 11:41 am 28. Demosophist:I’ve been putting off getting married until I figure it’s safe to honeymoon in Kashmir, but at this rate my backup plan is to honeymoon in the Pleiades.
Dec 11, 2008 - 12:51 pm 29. Fred2:Boosting the Pakistani economy may simply boost their ability to be terrorists, instead of to fight terrorists. The very poorest countries of the world do not make trouble.
The goal in Afghanistan is not to install democracy, it is to install an alternative (Pashtun) leadership that is willing and able to turn over al-Queda and defeat the Taliban. Also, with al-Queda gone, the Taliban might, by then, be tolerable.
The “Root Cause” of the problem is the excess wealth of the radical Muslims derived from oil money. Dry up the oil money and it all fades away.
The West is funding it’s enemies, this must stop.
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:18 pm 30. Lorenz Gude:Yup, Fred 2, I agree. O has the mandate to make radical changes re energy. I agree with the late Michael Creighton on global warming – we don’t know, but we do know we should change our energy policy radically to stop funding jihad. An infrastructure program to run our auto fleet on electricity asap could save American lives two ways – at home and abroad. Killing the US economy as I believe the Greens want would be – ah – counterproductive.
Dec 14, 2008 - 2:09 am 31. NahnCee:“As I noted throughout the campaign; regardless of professed religion today, to Muslims he was a Muslim and is now an apostate. All Muslims have an absolute religious duty to kill apostate Muslims ..”
I’ve been thinking that to Muslims, they think that underneath he still *is* a Muslim and he’s just been lying to the infidels to cover it up, which is perfectly acceptable in Islam. Once he’s inaugurated as Prez, he’ll step into the nearest phone booth, throw off his pinstriped suit, and emerge in a white robe with a big “M” on the chest, saying “Aha! Fooled you all, silly kaffirs!”
And start killing us all, and allowing mass Muslim immigration into the U.S.
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:15 pm 32. Subotai Bahadur:#31 31 NahnCee
I gotta admit, that I had an image pop up after reading that piece. If Hussein Pasha ends up adopting that as his real name, I had a vision of a reprise of George II’s recent press conference in Baghdad. However, instead of shoes flying towards the occupant of the White House, I imagined a hail of pork chops.
On a more serious note, I do not rule out the possibility; however I suspect there will either have to be a rather large supplemental appropriation for the Secret Service, or the new Civilian National Defense Force will have to establish a special unit to defend His Oneness. They would need a name. Tradition is important. How about Schutz-Staffel? It means “protection” or “guard” “Unit”. I do believe that a similar unit was assigned to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini when he was an honored guest in Berlin from 1941-45.
In point of fact, the likelihood is that Hussein Pasha’s Muslim background, covert or expressed, can do nothing but add to the miseries we are going to have to endure for the foreseeable future.
Subotai Bahadur
Dec 15, 2008 - 7:03 pm 33. gaetano:Obamma was the fastest con man to take over U.S. and now will become the fastest president to get impeached.
Dec 18, 2008 - 5:21 amSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.