October 12, 2012 | 0 comments
October 5, 2012 | 6 comments
October 3, 2012 | 2 comments
March 1, 2012 | 4 comments
January 24, 2012 | 9 comments
Last night Greta Van Sustren had a brief yet insightful interview with Henry Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger gave a measured dose of approbation for the President’s speech with a few caveats. The entire interview is just a few minutes and worth watching.
Dr. Kissinger emphasized that this should be a counterinsurgency battle, focused on local regions, in the hope of securing local tribes and communities now — the goal that at some future point, a centralized governance will be possible. The main reason for the Soviets’ defeat in Afghanistan, Dr. Kissinger states, was their failure to recognize the futility of trying to impose a centralized government on a region that has never been unified. Eventually, Russia, China, and India will also need to be brought into the political process in an effort to recognize their interest in a secure and stable Afghanistan. This will require diplomacy and this will require time.
Which leads to the essential concern in Obama’s new strategy. A full-blown commitment becomes impotent given an arbitrary or illogical timeline. If we are to see success in that region, rooting out and neutralizing the Taliban, time-lines need to kneel to tenacity. Additional troops are only one part of the Afghanistan solution. Time is the other.
As Dr. Kissinger implied, a commitment to withdraw troops after 18 months is disconcerting; at best, it should only be seen as aspirational — it should be seen as “a hope rather than a commitment.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?