Insurgency? WTF? It's A Friggin' Jihad, Stupid

It saddens me that leaders are so stupid. How many times do they have to get kicked in the head, before they think to themselves, "Hey, maybe I should move my head."

Friggin' idiots:


KABUL, Afghanistan - Military force alone is unlikely to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, a top U.S. commander said Thursday, noting that most insurgencies end with a political solution.

Maj. Gen. Robert Cone, who is in charge of equipping and training Afghan security forces to take over from international troops, said the local units were making good progress, but declined to say when they would be strong enough to allow foreign forces to go home.

Violence is soaring in Afghanistan despite years of counterinsurgency operations by international troops and millions of dollars spent in equipping the country's army and police units.

Cone cautioned that military force alone would likely not be enough to beat the Taliban and other militants battling foreign and Afghan government troops.

"You can say you defeated them in a single campaign ... but again given the complex nature of this environment, they might be back again the very next year," he told a media conference in the capital Kabul. "I think the real issue is probably not a military solution in the long term."

President Hamid Karzai earlier this year said he had met with unspecified Taliban militants to try to reach a political settlement, but he did not elaborate on the extent of the contacts.

Cone, who arrived in Afghanistan in July, said the "military will have a significant impact on the overall solution, but in reality most insurgencies are dealt with by political solution in the end."

Hundreds of former members of the hard-line Taliban regime, including a sprinkling of former senior commanders and officials, have reconciled with the government since they were ousted from power in the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.


Pastorius note: And, this is good news?


But current rebel leaders have apparently refused to hold talks, and in the past year, thousands more fighters have joined the insurgency, which this year alone has left more than 3,900 people dead, especially in southern and much of eastern Afghanistan. The exact number of insurgents is unclear.


Alright, now let's look at the definition of insurgency:


in·sur·gen·cy [in-sur-juhn-see]

1.
the state or condition of being insurgent.
2.
insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.
3.
rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.


The question is, are we in a war against Islamofascism, or not? Bush says we are (of course, he stopped using the word, but we know what he thinks).

If we are in a war against Islamofascism, then that is NOT an insurgency going on in Afghanistan.

If we are only at war in Afghanistan, and our sole purpose in Afghanistan was to oust a bad government, and then replace it with a better government, then ask yourself, why are we also at war in Iraq?

Remember? We are at war in Iraq, because we can not allow WMD's to get into the hands of tyrannical regimes, who might allow them to get into the hands of "terrorists" (i.e. Islamofascists).

That was the reasoning behind the war in Iraq.

For God's sake, I wish Patton was alive so he could slap this guy around a few times. How did we get "Generals" like this anyway?