Friday, November 12, 2010

Binocular Snapshot for 11/12/2010

LastDayWatchers as you continues to view in your LOUPE and see The Failures mount up

Taliban kill 18 in suicide assault on police headquarters in Karachi

"The Taliban took credit for a deadly suicide assault on a police headquarters in Pakistan's southern city of Karachi today. Eighteen people were killed in the attack and more than 100 were wounded.


A Taliban assault team attacked the Crime Investigation Department headquarters in a secured area of Karachi


Taliban fighters armed with assault rifles attacked the building and battled with police before a massive truck bomb was detonated inside the CID compound. The truck bomb, which is estimated to have carried more than 2,000 pounds of explosives, destroyed the building.


Police have confirmed that 18 people have been killed and 115 have been wounded. The death toll may rise as others may be trapped in the rubble of the building"

Rethinking an Afghanistan Exit Strategy

"With an Afghanistan policy review due next month, the Obama administration needs to decide whether the war in Afghanistan is succeeding and, if there is no progress, should think about starting to draw down troops earlier than July 2011


it's quite clear that, absent a much better situation in Pakistan, we cannot prevail in Afghanistan--and that has repercussions for Central Asia as well.


That's not a very upbeat summary.


Let's face it, the Obama administration was handed a pretty poor deal from the previous administration. 


We're sympathetic of that. However, we're not sure--at least the majority on the committee aren't sure--that waiting and waiting is necessarily going to change things in our direction. After all, the president, rightly or wrongly, indicated he wanted to begin a withdrawal process in July 2011. This has led enemies of ours to believe we are short of breath. This has led friends of ours, particularly certain politicians and women's groups in Afghanistan, to be scared to death. So that's the hand that we were dealt from the president, and that's what dictated our discussions."

All God wants is repentances, however all God get is excuses

"Q: Let's go to Afghanistan. You write that you decided to "put boots on the ground and keep them there until the Taliban and al-Qaeda were driven out and a free society could emerge." We're still there 10 years later."

Bush: Sure we are.


Q: What happened?


Bush: We were in Korea for years after the armistice divided north and south.


My point is that it takes a while for democracy to emerge. There's been some positive developments in Afghanistan, a constitution, a couple of elections. But unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is broke. It's a really poor country. And it is influenced mightily by its neighbors.


The fundamental question facing the country is whether or not we have the will, and whether or not future presidents have the vision, to help this democracy succeed. I hope we do. But no question, it's going to take a while.


I walk the reader through the progress and the failures. One failure was that the military operations were affected by an ineffective coalition brought about by the fact that many of our NATO partners, parliaments, would not provide funding if their military became shooters. In other words, if they were in combat.


This created a haphazard approach. It took us 18 months to figure out that would not be effective. Therefore, I ordered more U.S. troops in about the same time we were surging in Iraq. I call it the "silent surge" because nobody paid attention to it.


I praise my successor for making a decision that I thought was a good decision, which was continue to fight. It will be interesting to see what life is like there five years from now or 10 years from now.


Q: When you say it may take a while, how long do you think it's going to take in Afghanistan? How long in Iraq?


Bush: That's hard for me to predict"

Repentance brings life, excuses bring death, here are the consequences "A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood"

"It's difficult not to lay the blame for this dire situation at the feet of former U.S. President George W. Bush"

The Bush administration was eager to hold up Lebanon as an example of its successful Middle East policy: "We took great joy in seeing the Cedar Revolution. We understand that the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the street to express their desire to be free required courage, and we support the desire of the people to have a government responsive to their needs and a government that is free, truly free," Bush said in April 2006. 


However, when push came to shove, the president did little to help his Lebanese allies when they needed him most.


Judgment day came May 7, 2008, when an emboldened Hezbollah, alarmed that the government was moving to control the group's illicit private communications network, invaded the streets of Beirut and the Chouf mountains to the south, forcing Lebanon's democratically elected leaders to concede to a power-sharing agreement at the point of a gun. 


The result was yet another capitulation by the Bush administration, which signaled its acquiescence to the Doha agreement, signed on May 21 of that year, formalizing Hezbollah's veto over any government decision -- including its own disarmament.


But if the Bush administration opened the door to Hezbollah's takeover of Lebanon, President Barack Obama's administration is holding that door ajar"

Reread the post The Iran Symbol, The Falsifiers and the Republican Prophecy as it will shed light on the failed actions (or better yet non-actions) in Lebanon and then ask yourself why did the May 15th Prophecy point to this?

100% accurate again! written at LastDayWatchers

Recomended Reading

Did Bibi Win the Midterms?

"Likud's Republican allies in the United States would be quick to give Netanyahu cover should he reject such an offer; you can only imagine what Cantor would tell Imus this time around. But would that be politically wise?


After all, Gen. David Petraeus has openly stated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contributes to anger at the United States in the Islamic world -- not exactly a startling insight, but certainly proof that American security interests are not synonymous with Israel's. Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have taken up this theme. Are Americans really going to choose Netanyahu and Likud over their civilian and military leaders? At what point does allegiance to an intransigent ally look like special pleading, or like the subordination of national security to partisan politics?


Is it possible, in other words, that not only Netanyahu but his Republican die-hards are playing a dangerous game?"