Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Robots and Robber Barons
- The PSY Scandal: Singing about Killing People v. Constantly Doing It
- Study: World's Mighty Giants Dying off at Alarming Rate
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
- Study: World's Mighty Giants Dying off at Alarming Rate
- The Mass Media Favorites Fall Out of Favor
Popular content
Today's Top News
These Colors Cannot Run... Afghanistan
Last week, some members of Congress sent President Obama a letter that urged him to "reconsider" his order deploying 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Everyone in the House of Representatives had ample opportunity to sign onto the letter. Beginning in late February, it circulated on Capitol Hill for more than two weeks. The letter was the most organized congressional move so far to challenge escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
But the list of signers was awfully short.
- California: Bob Filner, Michael Honda
- Hawaii: Neil Abercrombie
- Kentucky: Ed Whitfield
- Maryland: Roscoe Bartlett
- Massachusetts: Jim McGovern
- Michigan: John Conyers
- North Carolina: Howard Coble, Walter Jones
- Ohio: Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich
- Tennessee: John Duncan
- Texas: Ron Paul
- Wisconsin: Steve Kagen
We desperately need a substantive national debate on U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the Obama administration says that the problems of the region cannot be solved by military means, the basic approach is reliance on heightened military means.
One of several journalists in Afghanistan on a tour "organized by the staff of commanding Gen. David D. McKiernan," the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl, wrote a March 23 op-ed in support of an invigorated "counterinsurgency strategy." With journalistic resolve, he explained: "Everyone expects a surge of violence and American casualties this year; no one expects a decisive improvement in the situation for at least several years beyond that."
The commanding general, Diehl added, does not anticipate that the Afghan army "can defend the country on its own" until 2016. In effect, the message is to stay the course for another seven years: "The thousands of American soldiers and civilians pouring into the country deserve that strategic patience; without it, the sacrifices we will soon hear of will be wasted."
And so, with chillingly familiar echoes, goes the perverse logic of escalating the war in Afghanistan. "Strategic patience" -- more and more war -- will be necessary so that those who must die will not have died in vain.
In contrast, the letter from the 14 members of the House (eight Democrats, six Republicans) lays down a clear line of opposition to the rationales for stepping up the warfare.
"If the intent is to leave behind a stable Afghanistan capable of governing itself, this military escalation may well be counterproductive," the letter says. And it warns that "any perceived military success in Afghanistan might create pressure to increase military activity in Pakistan. This could very well lead to dangerous destabilization in the region and would increase hostility toward the United States."
More than 400 members of the House declined to sign the letter. In effect, they failed to join in a historic challenge to a prevailing assumption -- that the U.S. government must use massive violence for many more years to try to work Washington's will on Afghanistan.
An old red-white-and-blue bumper sticker says: "These colors don't run."
A newer one says: "These colors don't run... the world."
Now, it's time for another twist: "These colors won't run... Afghanistan."
But denial and evasion are in the political air.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


50 Comments so far
Show AllWhat a stupid stupid country we are.
What an embarassment.
Our collapse will be spectacular.
Great comment! They can put it on America's tombstone.
Afghanistan:
Throughout history Afghanistan has been a black hole that consumes all the blood and treasure that invaders and would be conquerors have poured into it. Lotsa luck!
This is exactly the kind of stupidity that got us where we are. Afghanistan is NOT a black hole. It is a proud old country with millions of fine people living there. Or at least they will live there until the next bomber, with or without a live pilot, flies over and murders them.These brave people have endured 8 years of brutal mayhem. And none of them ever did anything to harm the monster that's attacking them.
Over seven years ago our miserable excuse of a Congress gave to Bush the authority to wage an unwinnable war.
For over seven years nobody in our miserable Congress has ever explained what they meant with their words 'preventing future terrorism' and how we can ever accomplish that, in order to declare victory.
Most of those pathetic failures are still in office. No surprise that they won't even sign a letter to end this madness, since that would be an admission that they were wrong and that they are the pathetic miserable scum that most everybody thinks they are.
2010 - time to sweep out the House.
2010 - time to sweep out the House.
____________________________________
Yeah, just like in 2006, when desperate progressive anti-war voters lavished time and contributions on those "new and improved" Democratic candidates to ensure long-overdue institutional resistance to our lawless and depraved Warmonger-in-Chief-- up to and including impeachment!
It's hard to feel confident about sweeping out the House using the Wicked Witch of the West Pelosi's broom.
ยท Yr Obd't Servant
The commanding general, Diehl added, does not anticipate that the Afghan army "can defend the country on its own". . .
Have you noticed that (beginning in Korea in 1950) the United States always, always goes into places where the indigenous military can never defend its own nation? And under equipped enemies with bolt action rifles and no boots always kick our asses.
Isn't it funny how people who "can't defend themselves" keep shooting at us?
That's because the "indigenous armies" we try to prop up are essentially puppets of the US, and therefore are considered collaborators with the occupiers.
Another excellent statement, Norman Solomon.
For what it's worth I've contacted my Congressman, Bruce Braley, and urged him to sign on to this letter. If he hasn't signed it by now... A few years ago, he likened his politics to Dennis Kucinich who did sign it.
What an evolutionary leap it will be for humans to wholly support MLK's "programs of social uplift" over militarism, racism, and poverty.
Someone's keeping an eye on the prize...thanks.
smipypr
Yes, indeed, Congress is still stuffed with dipsticks. They will go to their states and districts, and tell their constituents how tough it is in Washington. The economy is heading to hell in a first-class handbasket; we are paying to keep the same mooks working at the banks who broke the banks. We have the same basic batch of generals running the day-to-day military operations throughout the empire. When people, now on the alleged left, start talking about throwing the bums out - ala Newtie in '94, they better be careful what they wish for. Do we really want, or need, a few dozen freshman representatives in the House? They will not be in any position to accomplish anything - House and Senate leadership would likely not go to anyone new or different. Unless the Democratic leadership can grow a collective spine, nothing will change. After all, they are accessories to the Bush administration's war crimes. I just can't see them all at the podium, in front of the cameras, saying "We were wrong. Here's how we're going to make it right."
Good post!
Hello All,
My congressman, Peter Welch, a useless poser who staked his political "character" on ending the conflict in Iraq and bringing the troops home, is not on the list of signers. Remarkable. I probably just misunderstood his intentions when I foolishly backed him. He must have meant that he would work tirelessly to get our troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan! Imagine that, the will of the people betrayed by yet another careerist.
Don't feel so bad. I voted for Obama. Now that was a clusterfuckup!
Meh, it's not like the other choices were all that great either...
Can't even run itself properly without making its own population miserable (and worse), so how is it gonna run another country?
The whole thing would be risible, if it weren't so sickening and so profoundly pathetic.
How about the U.S. learning to mind its own business and putting some genuine health- and happiness-promoting order on its own turf? Even Obama, who is now the captain of a sinking Titanic, is constantly mouthing the U.S. as world leader refrain. What will it take for that self-deceiving talk to stop? Will it finally come to an end when the ship is at the bottom of the ocean under several thousand feet of water?
Sioux Rose
ABENDLAND: And how about them numbers in Iraq? Sure, so successful, just makes you want to rush out there and conform Afghanistan to the same glowing results.
I think the MIC is so deplorable in its sociopathic absence of conscience as to figure, "Gee, we have this 100,000 troops all the way on this side of the world. Imagine how expensive it would be to send them home. Let's just take them the shorter distance to the next proximate theater of war. Afghanistan is IT!" For all those in uniform who study the history of past wars, with evidence that Afghanistan so aptly qualifies as the graveyard of imperial nations... intelligence and foresight have NOTHING to do with these plans. It is indeed about the ghastly money machine that has made of mass murder a plausible plan for profit.
I'm sorry. We are unable to have elections resulting in genuine health and happiness promotion at home at this time. Please hang up and dial again in the next fake election cycle. The current occupant reflects the current gang's adventurism abroad. Bush had Iraq. Obama has Pakistan. Their ambitions are not bridled by your desire to live a decent life in what was the richest nation on earth before it was taken over by serial schemers. Your problems are insignificant. Even worse, by expecting your government to govern on your behalf, you are, in Obama terms, a nativist.
Poet Alan Ginsberg once said that he wanted written on his tombstone "He gave great head." The tombstone of the dead US Empire can read "To the American People: They Gave Great Head."
Afghanistan = Tar Baby
Hey all you optimistic rational, compassionate thinkers the MIC has a new horror show behind the curtain, fun and profit for every demented contractor, and the unemployed can kill people close to home. Mexico, yes sunny Mexico short supply lines and fabulous beaches. The next nation our imperial stormtroopers will uplift to hell on your tab.
Major corporations that supply the massive military industry are intentionally spread throughout the nation, in nearly every state. The congressional reps in those areas are not going to vote against their districts economic interest, namely keeping the war games going. If there's no enemy and no war, then no war toys and less jobs. That's the bottom line of the current US economy. It not about bullshit security, it's about keeping the funds flowing into a war economy funded by the War Party.
So very true, Rebelnow: this is the insiduous way in which the military has been made indispensable, beyond reproach and question, and unchallengeable to so large a constituency in this country. Through this set-up, the military literally holds the country hostage.
The amazing and deeply depressing thing is that this predicament has been known and publicly described since the height of the Cold War, as this citation by Hannah Arendt from that time makes plain:
"It is no secret that the billions of dollars demanded by the Pentagon for the armaments industry are necessary not for 'national security' but for keeping the economy from collapsing."
quoted from Hannah Arendt, "Responsibility and Judgment" (NY: Schocken Boooks, 2003), pp. 272-73.
"..those who must die will not have died in vain..."
Vietnam = 56,000 dead Americans for what? McNamara's apology wasn't good enough, Kissinger never visits any graves, and our military considers people of differing skin color and cultural diversity "THE ENEMY"
"WAR...what is it good for...absolutely notin!"
Peace
The American public is getting the government it wants. We here at CommonNightmears say differently, but nothing changes. So who is to blame? The American public.
Get it?
Obama promised to escalate and win the war in Afghanistan before (Norman Soloman and)I voted for him. He is keeping his promise. I'm not complaining. I don't want another 911.
Bush languished in Afghanistan with his vague mission of promoting "freedom and democracy". Obama has clarified what our mission actually is:
"Making sure that al-Qaeda cannot attack the US homeland and US interests and our allies. That's our number one priority."
How can anyone argue that his goal is not worthwhile?
You're like an annoying mosquito that keeps buzzing in my ear, probably relatively harmless, but annoying as hell, unless carrying a virus, like malaria.
JoeDope is a pest, indeed.
"Making sure that al-Qaeda cannot attack the US homeland and US interests and our allies. That's our number one priority."
You disagree with this?!? Really?
Yes, I totally disagree with and disapprove of the phoney war on terror.
It is a huge distraction from the really serious problems facing us: the collapse of our economic arrangement, the depletion of the aquafers, the degradation of the soils, the accelerating rate of destruction of species, the disappearance of rain forests, the growth of deserts, the huge accumulations of dust in the atmosphere, the warming of the atmosphere (global warming, as it is also called), the depletion of the oil reserves, et cetera.
Those are the life and death issues that stare us in the face, not a few Islamist fanatics, whose organization was enabled and funded by the United States during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when it served its own purposes.
Actually, Al Qaeda still serves the purposes of the United States, for how else can one explain that Osama bin Laden has not yet been stopped (either by being arrested or killed)?
We should also make sure that the Poles cannot attack our homeland, so I think we should bomb Poland. Also, we should also make sure the Virgin Islands can't attack us, so we must bomb the Virgin Islands. And we must make sure there is no mine shaft gap.
I get it. 911 didn't happen. We were never attacked. 3000 people didn't die. Therefore there is no threat of terrorism.
To JoeHope,
As far as I can see, no one here is denying that commercial airplaines were slammed into buildings on 9/11 and that nearly three thousand people died in the damage done to the Pentagon and in the destruction of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2.
That is not at all what is being questioned. What is under question is what sort of measures should be taken when something such as that happens. I happen to think that it does not warrant invading and occupying two countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people that have nothing to do with the crime, driving about three million people into refugee status, and making lethal incursions into a third country. That is not, for example, how England handled Irish terrorism or Spain handles Basque terrorism, or India has handled numerous acts of terror committed on its soil.
The next thing that is being questioned is, given the measures that were in fact taken by BushCo, why it is that the people allegedly guilty of orchestrating the attacks of 9/11 have only been selectively arrested, when we now know that Osama bin Laden could have been captured at Bora Bora at the end of 2001.
Et cetera, et cetera.
You should know these things by now, if you read the comments of your fellow Common Dreamers. These points have been rehearsed in this forum over and over again. The feeling one gets reading you sometimes is that you are playing dumb and repeating the same lines because you just don't want to change your opinions and prejudices.
"That is not, for example, how England handled Irish terrorism or Spain handles Basque terrorism,"
Afghanistan was practicing state sponsored terrorism. We are only talking about going after al Qaeda and the Taliban, not ordinary Afghans or their democratically elected government. Remember, we are also there at Karzai's request, it is not just an occupation.
In the both cases you cited it WAS necessary for both Spain and Britain to physically send troops and intelligence operatives into the areas where the terrorism took root (Basque region/N.Ireland). If they were being attacked by Pakistan, then they would have to enter Pakistan to deal with the threat. You have made my point for me. You cannot fight terrorism at a distance. You have to go there and drain the swamp.
At Karzai's request! What a joke. A guy who used to work for an American oil company and who was put in place by the U.S.!
I suppose that you are pathologically in denial about the way in which this country's foreign policy operates.
That is it for now; I have spent enough time on you.
U.S. imperialism out of Afghanistan!
Thank God there is Al Qaeda, otherwise the military-industrial complex would have to invent it.
I noticed a few weeks ago that a military man said that we could not win Afganistan militarily and so whatis the point and when Obama used that shit word "homeland " for my country he told me right there that he was going to assume that we are all idiots and we still need a daddy figure to keep us safe.Bullshit.Tony
Omigod, joehope says the truth. He and Norm Solomon voted for Obama who promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan!
Congrats, joehope, I didn't think you had it in you. At least you admitted and embraced your error as if it were the right thing to do, unlike Norm, who acts like he never even heard of that Obama guy.
Alas, Norm, it's like you never were a delegate for Obama. Why don't you follow joehope's lead and embrace the change we all can believe in - more senseless war?
-TIA
To be fair, I don't think Mr. Solomon is 100% anti-Obama. But he certainly has become more critical of him AFTER the election, especially about subjects that Obama was talking about BEFORE the election (when Mr. Solomon didn't raise much of a protest).
I've always respected Mr. Solomon, but his sudden backstabbing AFTER the election makes his work BEFORE the election seem almost propagandist rather than sincere. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he helped elect Obama (as a delegate no less) but I've lost some of the trust I had in him.
If he really feels the way he does now, I just wonder why he didn't vote for Nader or McKinney. I guess even he realized what a joke they are!
joehope, that's positively brilliant! I can't stop laughing.
Maybe Norm will clarify this dualism. I sure don't get it.
-TIA
there is no war to worry about. MoveOn said so. None of the powerful (so called) liberal newspapers even report about the wars anymore. They don't exist just keep bowing to Obama. Don't dissent, just agree.
"joehope March 24th, 2009 9:23 pm
I get it. 911 didn't happen. We were never attacked. 3000 people didn't die. Therefore there is no threat of terrorism."
Sure 9-11, not 911, unless you dial it on your phone say, happened. And sure there's a "threat of terrorism", but the question is where from? The threat is from within far more than it is from external actors!
Did you also have difficult graduating from grade 1 elementary or primary school to move on to grade 2, too, hopelessJoe or JoeTheHopeless?
============================
"lord_buckley March 24th, 2009 8:27 pm
We should also make sure that the Poles cannot attack our homeland, so I think we should bomb Poland."
I thought you were going to say that "we should bomb the North and South Poles". Hey, the loonies running Washington, the govt, are insane enough to believe that the No. and So. Poles might attack us and therefore dumb animal enough to wage war on these Poles, where virtually no human exists, except for researchers, f.e. Oh-oh, maybe those researchers are looking into how to turn ice into nuclear missiles. We should bomb them pre-emptiviely then.
Of course the people ruling Washington are not quite that dumb; but they're perhaps borderline to it though.
================================
"Abendland March 24th, 2009 6:20 pm
U.S. imperialism out of Afghanistan!
Thank God there is Al Qaeda, otherwise the military-industrial complex would have to invent it."
The CIA beat the MIC to the creation of Al Qa'ida; the CIA working with the Pakistani ISI, perhaps, but still the CIA was key orchestrator in this.
And the Bush-Cheney administration made sure that many, very many Al Qaeda members were allowed to flee Afghanistan, calling off U.S. troops, etcetera, to make sure the flight would happen; fleeing from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It's a little vague in memory for me right now, but I believe to recall that Pat Tilman's unit was on the trail and close to plenty of high-ranking Al Qa'ida members who were allowed to flee because of the orders from the Bush-Cheney administration, I believe through the Defence Secretary, so Rumsfeld, stating the orders for the U.S. troops hot on the trail of Al Qa'ida heads to back off.
There have been plenty of articles about this latter little feature and I think some of it was mentioned in articles about the ... apparently assassination of Pat Tilman by some jerk U.S. military sniper at close range and with Pat Tilman quite full in view and unmistakably of the U.S. forces. Perhaps Kevin Tilman had mentioned the above in one or more of his articles; but there were other people who also wrote about the above flight of Al Qa'ida, that it was ensured by the Bush-... administration.
Anyway, the war on Afghanistan is not about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which were only a basis upon which the Bush-... administration could claim to Americans as justification for launching war in Afghanistan, all while Bush said, prior to the launching, so prior to Oct. 7, 2001, that the Taliban had had nothing to do with the attacks in the U.S. on 9-11-01.
The war is just another part of the "full spectrum dominance" project the U.S. has on its books. Those don't necessarily or explicitly say that the U.S. is to war on Afghanistan, etcetera, but do specifically speak of achieving "full spectrum dominance" in the DoD's or Pentagon's Vision 2020 project. That's about establishing full spectrum dominance by expanding militarism of the U.S. into space or outer space, but the whole project really does consist of full spectrum dominance in global planet Earth terms; politically and economically, which of course requires the military strong arm.
It's about spreading empire, western imperialism, with the U.S. as top "tough guy".
"Anyway, the war on Afghanistan is not about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks,"
What!?
I just don't know where to begin. I mean, sure, you're right about how Bush made use of 911. He perverted it into a power-grab for himself and the Republicans. It sickens me to no end. he didn't care about catching Bin Laden. He didn't care about Afghanistan. When I think of how many ways he sabotaged everything, I become enraged. So I do agree with your assessment of Bush.
It's almost like you don't want to admit that Bin Laden attacked us using Afghanistan as a base. You don't want to admit that terrorism is a real threat. All of this talk of "full spectrum dominance" and "spreading empire, western imperialism" have nothing to do with 1) Why Bin Laden attacked us and 2) what our reaction SHOULD be (not what Bush's reaction was). Obama is not Bush.
"the Taliban had had nothing to do with the attacks in the U.S. on 9-11-01."
That is so far detached from reality, I don't now how to respond. I'm amazed. Facts, logic, rationality would be wasted on you.
It does not follow from
--the fact that Al Qaeda also happened to be located in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks of 9/11 and during their preparation
--that the war being waged by the U.S. in Afghanistan is about 9/11.
Try to derive the second sentence from the first in a natural deduction system of first-order predicate logic. Show us, JoeHope, how you master logic and reason. Give us a standard deduction, with translation into proper logical symbolism and full justification of every move in the derivation. And don't add any other premises to the derivation!
Two more points:
Why is it that only Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the U.S., if it was really after Al Qaeda? Why did the U.S. not attack every single country where Al Qaeda is located? As it turned out, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was in Pakistan.
The Taliban did not commit any acts of terrorism against the U.S.: none of the hijackers on 9/11 were members of the Taliban.
"Why is it that only Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the U.S., if it was really after Al Qaeda? "
Simple, the Taliban supported and harbored al Qaeda, Germany for example, didn't.
According to you, then, it is not Al Qaeda that mattered to the U.S. (which is precisely what I have been claiming), but whether the Taliban gave their support to Al Qaeda, a nice pretext for invading and occupying Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda is to be sought for 9/11, it must be sought wherever it is. The fact that the U.S. went after Al Qaeda selectively shows that it had other purposes when it invaded Afghanistan, a fact that is further strengthened by the fact that the invasion of Afghanistan was planned before 9/11 (see the evidence to that effect supplied by Chalmers Johnson, "The Sorrwos of Empire," pp. 180-181, and Nafeez Mosadeqq Ahmed, "The War on Freedom," pp. 55ff and 68ff).
Incidentally, the invasion of Iraq, too, was planned before 9/11, as we now know from the testimonies of Paul O'Neill, Bush's former Treasury Secretary, and of Richard Clarke, Bush's first National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism.
Furthermore, the Taliban did not support Al Qaeda, but gave Al Qaeda hospitality, which is not the same thing. In fact, the Taliban were ready to hand bin Laden over to the U.S. after 9/11, if the U.S. was able to furnish verifiable evidence that bin Laden had organized the attacks of 9/11. The U.S., of course, never came up with such evidence (the White Paper promised by Colin Powell has yet to be produced) and the F.B.I. to this day does not have sufficient evidence to attribute the attacks to bin Laden and, as such, its Web site's most-wanted-men page does not seek bin Laden for the attacks of 9/11.
We're in complete agreement.
The U.S. needs Al Qaeda to justify its policy of endless war, and it selectively arrests or kills members of Al Qaeda every once in a while to appear as though it cares.
The policy of endless war is now enshrined in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," a document published by BushCo in September 2002 and drafted by none other than our old pal Philip Zelikow (the man has a gift of alwas popping up in the right places!), who later was appointed to being executive director of the 9/11 Commission and who made darn sure the 9/11 Report was tailored to the wishes of his pals at the White House ("Hey Philip, Please make sure there isn't a word about the collapse of WTC 7 in the report." Signed: Your pal Dick).
The official assessment of the events of 9/11 is to be found in section 8 of "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America":
"The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities."
The elites in power see 9/11 as having granted them vast new opportunities!
Remarkable, these alchemical transmutations that take place in the lofty spheres of government: here is an event endlessly described as a tragedy in the mainstream media and in the broad public utterances of our politicos that has been turned into an opportunity in a document what most Joes don't read.
Now, we wouldn't want to close down such a gold mine of opportunities by wiping out Al Qaeda, would we?
By the way, is Obama doing anything to change the policy of endless war and that very "exclusive" assessment of 9/11?
Norm, you mean, your Congressional rep didn't read your letter saying, "No" to an Afghanistan war escalation?
Golly gee! :(
Oh well, better luck next time in another three years or so. But what a rush that Obama campaign was, eh? All of the balloons and streamers paid by Goldman Sachs and AT&T. And you were an Obama delegate!
Now let's turn all of the frowns in this thread upside down. :) Sure, the United States may be bombing innocent people to bits, but a little positive emotions never harmed anyone, right? And the Democrats are in power now so everything's changed that we can believe in. Yes we can pretend, and feel good again.
-TIA
The Taliban controls most of Afghanistan. Pakistan would have imploded if Chaudry had not been reinstated. Zardari did it at gunpoint, figuratively. The Swat Valley is Sharia administered & militant Islam there is set to pour 50,000 fighter into Afghanistan in the next 12 weeks. The US is bracing for this Spring Offensive. A tactical challenge. But what the US is REALLY fighting, Strategically, is this- To stop militant Islam's sweeping from Kabul to Cairo. From Khandahar to Khartoum. From Syria to Iran. And their eye is off the ball because the spark that will ignite this will be Israel's attack on Natanz and Iran's response.
That firestorm may have blowback that burns Tel-Aviv and changes MY dynamics for good. Palestine is not deceased. She is being held down and raped, yes, but her resurrection is coming.