Politico: Obama urged to cite moral obligation to Afghani people, especially women, in West Point speech on war in Afghanistan…

The UN National Human Rights Committee (click image for their page) was quite concerned in April 2008 to note many Afghan girls were still not attending school. I have not heard anything from them on how these girls will survive attempting a single day of school without US troop protection while Obama considered withdrawal of forces. The concern for human rights seem to be quixotic.

FINALLY. Someone begged, borrowed or stole a clue and these people are understanding WHY we are there. We are not there only for AQ, we are there to stop the Taliban from murdering, maiming, raping and brutalizing the women and children of Afghanistan. We made a committment, these girls have braved death to attend school under our watch. We must not abandon them now.

Our previous posts on our missions in Afghanistan and the need for more troops and a FIRM commitment to the people, and the urgent need to protect these women and children, a message someone FINALLY seems to have gotten through the Obama bubble, here.

Politico:

As President Barack Obama prepares to make the case for sending more troops to Afghanistan, some allies are urging him to return to a line of argument little heard since the Bush years: the United States has a moral obligation to protect the Afghan people, particularly women, from the Taliban.

Obama ran on a promise to restore cold-eyed calculations of national interest to American foreign policy, a reaction against President George W. Bush’s tendency to cast a confrontational foreign policy in terms of the freedoms it would achieve for nations that did not have them. And he has governed without the public appeals to human rights that marked American foreign policy ventures from Kosovo to Iraq.

But realism has proved, at times, a hard political sell. Bloodless talk about “engagement” has left the Obama administration without a compelling story to tell or argument to make. And its emphasis on process has only increased the pressure for more tangible results.

In Afghanistan, the White House was reluctant to play up the Taliban’s excesses and the plight of Afghan women while it considered withdrawing from an active role in the country’s governance. But as Obama moves toward sending additional troops – reportedly more than 30,000 more – to the country, supporters of the policy are urging him to stress human rights in an effort to revive support for an increasingly unpopular war….

Yeah, wouldn’t want to stress the brutal conditions women under the Taliban face when we withdraw when he was ready to back out of our committment, but now he feels a bit better about using the moral argument about women’s rights, which are BTW human rights, as HRC said in Beijing over a decade ago.

I have no idea how neoprogs square their ACLU concern for the human rights of Gitmo prisoners with abandoning the women of Afghanistan to the Taliban, but they do, they call it realism and pragmatism. I call it utterly disgusting and amoral, an abandonment of our duty to humanity.

That is the needle they are threading, if he raises the moral obligation we have, he will be hard-pressed to cut and run later when he takes political heat (his handmaidens in the lamestream media would be eager to assist but we loud mouthed bloggers would take note andTeam O hates that). And his own political survival is IMO of paramount importance to him, thus the presence of Emanuel and Axelrasputin at war cabinet meetings.

Advertisements

November 30, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics. Comments off.

Update: Hillary says we will not back down; WSJ: Deadly Blast rocks Peshawar after Hillary Arrives in Pakistan

(more…)

October 28, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , . Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Politics, Terrorism. 2 comments.

Hillary on Afghanistan: “if we simply leave and allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda “would come right back, and we’d be worse off in Pakistan.” & Sens. Kyl & Levin on Afghanistan strategy & FOX Panel Plus…

First some much needed humor:

Mashup by FleetwoodFactor

In this Parade piece on 24 hours with Hillary, an important insight into her position on our role in Afghanistan and the dangers posed by the Taliban:

(…)We sit at a table away from the crowd. Clinton has a hard edge to her foreign-policy views and generally positions herself to the right of her colleagues in national security. Yet she staunchly defends President Obama and his prerogatives. While she’s “not satisfied that we’re executing as we should” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, she nonetheless argues for continuing “present directions” in most areas.

When I question whether the U.S. really has vital interests in Afghanistan, she shoots back that if we simply leave and allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda “would come right back, and we’d be worse off in Pakistan. She continues: “Despite how hard Afghanistan is, we have to make progress. And what we do and what happens in Afghanistan will affect Pakistan…

As we have noted here before, the British press has reported that Hillary and Gates while keeping their positions close to the vest, want increased troop levels in Afghanistan, it is essential. The mumbling of Juan Williams on the FOX Panel Plus (clip below) wondering why we should stay in Afghanistan is just ridiculous.

When Dana Perrino, former GWB press secretary points out the important progress we have made in security that allows women to participate in the Afghan society and educate themselves (which will lead to their economic freedom and an amazing economic renaissance for Afghanistan, we see this all over the world when women are able to educate themselves and enter the economy-and Hillary Clinton is very focused on this as well) Juan Williams actually says ‘it is nice for women to rule the world but that’s no reason to be in Afghanistan” He thinks this is funny. Incredible.

WHAT HAPPENED TO HUMAN RIGHTS?

MEMO TO ‘NEOPROGRESSIVES’ AND JOURNOLISTS: WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS (Sen Feinstein gets it)

THE TALIBAN ARE OUR ENEMY AND PROVIDE AID AND SUSTENANCE TO AL QAEIDA

Continues after the break:

(more…)

October 25, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Cabinet, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 2 comments.

Sen Feinstein supports McChrystal’s recommendations and the women and children of Afghanistan…

Finally someone mentions the women and children of Afghanistan in this discussion of the mythical Taliban ‘moderates’. Feinstein wants to find Pashtoun Tribal Warlords who will work with us and she wants to support General McChrystal’s recommendations. That gives us the full Brass- Petraeus, Mullen, McChrystal, plus Hillary, Gates, and now Sen Feinstein of her powerful intelligence cmte, all on one page. Good. Support the troops, Support the Afghani people we promised to protect.

Courtesy of speakmymind02

October 11, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Cabinet, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 1 comment.

Update: USAToday poll shows Americans support reinforcing the troops; Memo to Obama: The Taliban ARE our enemy. The Taliban are terrorists. The Taliban are enemies of the Afghani people.

Update, Ace HQ:

From Goldfarb’s Tweet: A USA Today poll says Joe Biden’s brilliant strategy of leaving our troops to twist without reinforcement or plan of victory commands 7% support.

Pull out? 38%.

Give them the reinforcements and resources they need? 48%….

warning video content is disturbing and violent

HotAir:

(…)Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said…

Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government — though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban

Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.

In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.”

What happened in Basra when American troops withdrew? What happened to the women we promised to protect?

AceHQ:

(…)This is dangerous and cynical. They don’t want to be seen as bugging out, so they’re going to leave our troops in the meat-grinder without any actual intention to resource and reinforce them and give them a chance at actually accomplishing anything besides defending the Democratic Party’s interests.

Disgusting…

October 8, 2009. Tags: , , , , , . Armed Forces, Obama Administration, Terrorism. 2 comments.

%d bloggers like this: