Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani has left the country for Tajikistan, senior interior ministry official says https://t.co/WPTOR8Oz9D pic.twitter.com/vneyf8QfJf
— Reuters (@Reuters) August 15, 2021
Sunday, August 15, 2021
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
LOL!!!
He was a president and not a leader. That is true about almost every politician. None would go down with the ship. All would be the first into the life boats. It is amazing so many people in modernity consider their politicians as experts and let these politicians talk them into destroying their means and liberties.
Ron
Name one leader, just one
There's none. All corrupt all selling us out to corporate interest groups
Why Ron? Why should Afghani go down with the ship? While American troops were there, Afghan Special Forces were willing to make heavy contact and bleed. Still however ground was being lost. Those districts and provinces were lost inn 2014. The Taliban were cagey enough to not take the 34 provincial capitals and thus give the US a fig leaf.
Everyone in every provincial capital except a few in Kabul knew they lived in Fort Apache, The Bronx. If they left a provincial capital to go to another one, they caravanned. So that tells you, who owned what.
The Democrat leaders said they were willing to win the war if and only if they were in charge of the economy. They wanted to raise taxes back to the halcyon days of the 90% marginal rate. They did not get it. So one may conclude the Democrats were not behind winning the war.
Put it this way. The Democrats would allow the US to win the war only, if they were allowed to kill America.
And of course the Democrats were doping famous one variable analysis.
Democrats were not interested in winning the war. The State Department were not interested in winning the war. Blinken and other like him would rather pucker up and face the klieg lights for 2 or 3 weekends than to do any spadework in Pakistan and negotiate those guys until they cave. The Pentagon was not fully invested in winning. 20 years and no win? Where was the Revolt of the Admirals? We had one in the 50s? 20 years and no win, where was the Revolt of of the Admirals for the 21st century?
Military members are supposed to obey the "lawful orders" of the duly elected president? They cannot retire en masse 20 to 100 of them and give the political "leadership"(?) Hell for dereliction of duty? They feared their pension being taken away? If their pension was taken away what does that say of the political class?
When 28 of 34 provincial capitals fall in 8 days, because no one is fighting you do not fall on your sword.
Falling on your sword might work as an argument, if a unit the size of a battalion or a division was willing to take 20% casualties and run out of ammunition before surrendering.
Correction
And of course the Democrats were doing famous one variable analysis.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was willing to go down with the ship. He destroyed Iraq and assisted the rise of ISIS, but he was brave (I think. It could have been something else). Around the time of the surge Shia military were taking over Basra no doubt with Iran's help. Maliki headed to Basra and American generals told him it was a suicide run. The American generals were going to do something about Basra, but they had to go all McClellan first.
So Maliki goes to Basra, mixes it up and survives. American generals were amazed. Maliki was willing to take a bullet. He was willing to go down with the ship. He is the difference. He was joining or commanding Iraqi Army units that were willing to bleed.
So Maliki was willing to down with the ship. I'll give him that although I hold him in the same regard as the Son of Sam.
Afghani going down with the ship would be as effective and as stupid as Theon Greyjoy going down with the ship at Winterfell. You saw what his troops did to him, right?
Post a Comment