Pamela Constable, "Beheading of third-grade girl ‘was just the spark’ for Afghan minority group": Islam Is a Religion of Peace and Tolerance?

Tweet

Will the horrors ever cease?

Pamela Constable writes in a Washington Post article entitled "Beheading of third-grade girl ‘was just the spark’ for Afghan minority group":

"The last time Ramzan Ali Tabason saw his 9-year-old daughter alive was the day he put her in a van, along with her aunt and five other people from their Afghan village. They were headed for the Pakistani city of Quetta, where the little girl, Shukria, was going to spend time with her ailing grandmother.

The next time Ali saw his daughter, in mid-November, she was lying in a coffin with her severed head stitched jaggedly back onto her neck. She and the other passengers, all ethnic Hazaras from Ghazni province, had been abducted on the highway by Taliban insurgents, held captive for 27 days and then beheaded."

Constable's article follows on the heels of Alissa J. Rubin's lead New York Times article entitled "Flawed Justice After a Mob Killed an Afghan Woman," describing the horrific murder of a woman falsely accused of burning a Quran.

But not to worry! Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, particularly toward women . . . or is it?

Alissa J. Rubin, "Flawed Justice After a Mob Killed an Afghan Woman": Care to Comment, Hillary?

Tweet

In an important lead New York Times article entitled "Flawed Justice After a Mob Killed an Afghan Woman" (avoid watching the video at the top of the article unless you have a cast-iron stomach), Alissa J. Rubin writes of the horrific murder of Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old woman falsely accused of burning a Quran, and of the lenient legal proceedings against the men who were responsible for her death. Rubin writes:

"Farkhunda’s death and the legal system’s response call into question more than a decade of Western efforts in Afghanistan to instill a rule of law and improve the status of women. The United States alone has spent more than $1 billion to train lawyers and judges and to improve legal protections for women; European countries have provided tens of millions more.

But like so many other Western attempts to remake Afghanistan, the efforts have foundered, according to Afghan and Western lawyers and officials. Afghan society has resisted more than 150 years of such endeavors by outsiders, from the British to the Russians to the Americans. This remains a country where ties of kinship and clan trump justice, and where the money brought by the West has made corruption into a way of life. The rule-of-law programs were often designed in ignorance of Afghan legal norms, international and Afghan lawyers say. And Western efforts to lift women’s legal status provoked fierce resentment from powerful religious figures and many ordinary Afghans.

Yet Afghan women most need the legal system to defend them: They are largely powerless without the support of male family members, and it is usually family members who abuse them."

However, Afghanistan is not the only country where women are subjected to such horrors which go virtually unpunished by the legal system. Although never captured on video and never disseminated on the Internet, as was the slaying of Farkhunda, "Honor killings" are endemic throughout the Muslim Middle East.

Let's also not forget that stoning to death for alleged adultery, a punishment usually reserved for Muslim women, is legal in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Yemen.

And then there's also that "minor matter" involving the lashing and imprisonment of Saudi women who have been gang-raped.

Saudi Arabia? Yes, that's the country that has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Qatar has given the Clinton Foundation somewhere between $1 million and $5 million in the past, and Kuwait and the UAE have also made hefty contributions.) But let's just ignore all that cash. After all, Hillary has placed women's rights at the center of her agenda, and we all know that she never lies.

New York Times Editorial, "Ignoring Sexual Abuse in Afghanistan": What Doesn't Obama Ignore?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Ignoring Sexual Abuse in Afghanistan," The New York Times says of Afghan officers molesting boys on American bases:

"The Pentagon’s indulgent, even complicit, attitude toward pedophiles among the Afghan militias that it funded and trained is indefensible, at odds with American values and with international laws Washington has taken the lead in promoting.

Pervasive sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan. It is especially pronounced among armed commanders who control rural regions and hold sway over the population there. The practice is known as bacha bazi, or boy play; powerful Afghan men often surround themselves with young teenagers as a mark of social status.

By instructing American soldiers and Marines not to interfere, even if the incidents occurred on American bases, the Pentagon has chosen — reprehensibly — to sacrifice vulnerable children in order to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militias it needs to fight the Taliban."

But how is this latest Obama administration scandal different from -

• Efforts by the Obama administration to ignore atrocities perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad in Syria (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, March 27, 2011: "There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.").
• Efforts by the Obama administration to ignore the resurgence of al-Qaeda (President Obama, January 7, 2014: "I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.)
• Efforts to manipulate intel to support the Obama administration's effort to downplay the danger of the Islamic State.
• Efforts by the Obama administration to ignore human rights abuses in Iran so as to facilitate the signing (actually, the non-signing) of Obama's legacy-creating nuclear deal with Khamenei.

Sickening.

New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s War in Gaza": The Blind Leading the Blind

In an editorial entitled "Israel’s War in Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/opinion/Israels-War-in-Gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), The New York Times relies on three would-be authorities: President Obama, the UN and Nathan Thrall. Regarding President Obama, the editorial tells us:

"There was no way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to tolerate the Hamas bombardments, which are indiscriminately lobbed at Israeli population centers. Nor should he. As President Obama said on Friday, 'No nation should accept rockets being fired into its borders, or terrorists tunneling into its territory.'

. . . .

Hamas leaders deserve condemnation for storing and launching rockets in heavily populated areas, cynically knowing they will draw Israeli fire to places where civilians live and play. Still, in a call with Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama was right to express concern about the 'risks of further escalation and the loss of more innocent life.'"

Of course, if President Obama says it, it must be right. No mention by the Times that the US, the UK and Afghan government forces have killed a total of some 6,500 innocent Afghan civilians in recent years (see: http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan-database).

Also no mention by the Times of US drone attacks in Pakistan. As reported in a 2014 Huffington Post article entitled "The Toll Of 5 Years Of Drone Strikes: 2,400 Dead" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html) by Matt Sledge:

"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, [the Bureau of Investigative Journalism] estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed."

Apparently unbeknownst to Obama and the editorial board of The New York Times, the Israeli Defense Forces are also seeking to minimize civilian casualties:



Of course, this does not mean that civilians are not going to be killed in a war in which Hamas uses schools to store its missiles (see: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school), but the IDF is making efforts to reduce civilian casualties, which include leaflets asking civilians to evacuate battle zones, phone calls to civilians warning of an imminent attack, and "knocking-on-the-roof" (a warning with a rocket that does not contain an explosive charge) prior to an air strike.

The Times editorial also quotes the United Nations:

"The United Nations says that of the more than 260 Palestinians killed, three-quarters were civilians, including more than 50 children."

However, the United Nations receives its casualty figures from the health ministry in Gaza, which is run by . . . Hamas. Hamas, needless to say, is actively interested in inflating the number of civilians killed for propaganda purposes.

Finally, the Times editorial refers its readers to a guest op-ed by someone named Nathan Thrall, which was published by the Times yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/nathan-thrall-how-west-chose-war-in.html). Thrall would have us believe that Israel, with the help of Egypt and the West, brought the current war with Hamas upon itself. However, Thrall's risible essay fails to mention:

• The Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

• Past suicide bombings in Israel perpetrated by Hamas operatives (425 terrorist attacks between September 2000 and March 2004, which killed 377 and wounded 2,076).

• The thousands of rockets fired into Israeli population centers from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad over the course of more than a decade.

Thrall does, of course, repeat Obama's declaration that the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable."

Truly an instance of the blind leading the blind.

Paul Krugman, "Build We Won’t": What About the Cost of the Afghanistan War?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Build We Won’t" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/opinion/paul-krugman-build-we-wont.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Paul Krugman complains about America's failure to spend on highway construction and maintenance since 2008. Krugman writes:

"Adjusted for inflation and population growth, public expenditures on construction have fallen more than 20 percent since early 2008. In policy terms, this represents an almost surreally awful wrong turn; we’ve managed to weaken the economy in the short run even as we undermine its prospects for the long run. Well played!"

Krugman's conclusion:

"What’s useful about the looming highway crisis is that it illustrates just how self-destructive that political choice has become. It’s one thing to block green investment, or high-speed rail, or even school construction. I’m for such things, but many on the right aren’t. But everyone from progressive think tanks to the United States Chamber of Commerce thinks we need good roads. Yet the combination of anti-tax ideology and deficit hysteria (itself mostly whipped up in an attempt to bully President Obama into spending cuts) means that we’re letting our highways, and our future, erode away."

Obama's not to blame for the failure to repair roads owing to Republican debt hysteria? Oh really?

Krugman fails to mention that the cost of the Afghanistan War since Obama became president in 2009 will easily exceed $1 trillion, including care for veterans. Yup, $1 trillion would have repaired a lot of roads.

Does Krugman revisit Obama's decision to escalate the ground war in Afghanistan War? No way! But why should it matter? After all, Krugman is not concerned with deficit spending.

Bowe Bergdahl: Compare Susan Rice With Afghan District Intelligence Chief

Susan Rice on Bowe Bergdahl (see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/susan-rice-bergdahl-served-honor-and-distinction_794066.html):

"He served the United States with honor and distinction."

. . . .

"Sergeant Bergdahl wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield."

Afghan district intelligence chief on Bergdahl, as reported by The Washington Post in an article entitled "Exclusive: Afghan villagers recall when Bergdahl stumbled into their midst" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/04/exclusive-afghan-villagers-recall-when-bergdahl-stumbled-into-their-midst/?tid=pm_world_pop) by Kevin Sieff:

"'They tried to tell him not to go there, that it is dangerous. But he kept going over the mountain. The villagers tried to give him water and bread, but he didn’t take it,' said Ibrahim Manikhel, the district’s intelligence chief.

'We think he probably was high after smoking hashish,' Manikhel said. 'Why would an American want to find the Taliban?'"

Or stated otherwise, if anything remained of Rice's credibility after Benghazi, it has now been reduced to zero - not exactly what is required from Obama's National Security Advisor.

As further reported by The Washington Post in an article entitled "A ‘decompression’ process for Bowe Bergdahl before he heads home" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-decompression-process-for-bowe-bergdahl-before-he-heads-home/2014/06/04/427627ec-ec2f-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_story.html?hpid=z1) by Anne Gearan:

"Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the longest-serving­ American prisoner of war since Vietnam, is undergoing a staged 'decompression' and reintroduction to the outside world that is akin to the slow ascent of a deep-sea diver, according to U.S. officials.

. . . .

Bergdahl began the long process of reintegration — it could take weeks or months — immediately after he was handed over to U.S. Special Operations forces in Afghanistan on Saturday."

"Staged" decompression? My guess is that his reintegration will take many months - until at least after the midterm elections in the US - in order to avoid further embarrassment to the Obama administration.

Thomas Friedman, "Putin Blinked": What the @#$% Is "Obamaism"?

Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs genius that he believes himself to be, has just coined a new term: "Obamaism."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Putin Blinked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/friedman-putin-blinked.html?hp&rref=opinion), Friedman writes:

"The crisis in Ukraine never threatened a Cold War-like nuclear Armageddon, but it may be the first case of post-post-Cold War brinkmanship, pitting the 21st century versus the 19th. It pits a Chinese/Russian worldview that says we can take advantage of 21st-century globalization whenever we want to enrich ourselves, and we can behave like 19th-century powers whenever we want to take a bite out of a neighbor — versus a view that says, no, sorry, the world of the 21st century is not just interconnected but interdependent and either you play by those rules or you pay a huge price.

In the end, it was Putinism versus Obamaism, and I’d like to be the first on my block to declare that the 'other fellow' — Putin — 'just blinked.'"

Putin "blinked"? The problem is that Obama, who promised Putin "flexibility" during his second term in the White House, never showed up for the fight. Moreover, irrespective of Russian claims (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/27/world/europe/russia-ukraine-sanctions/) and those of former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/24/bolton-obama-admins-sanctions-against-russia-are-meaningless) that Obama's sanctions against Russia were "meaningless," the fact of the matter is that Russia has annexed Crimea.

But more to the point, what is the meaning of Friedman's "Obamaism"?

Perhaps some insight into the underlying import of this new word is to be found in a New York Times editorial entitled "Trapped in Afghanistan" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/trapped-in-afghanistan.html?hp&rref=opinion), which today concludes:

"Mr. Obama has dragged out the biggest part of the withdrawal from Afghanistan for two years and now wants to leave more troops there until the end of 2016. His promise to end the war, made years ago, won’t be honored until he’s practically out of office."

Or stated more succinctly, Obama lied concerning his promise to end America's senseless ground war in Afghanistan, which America's president escalated in his first term in office. Of course, everyone remembers how Obama acceded to a military "surge" in that country while concurrently providing the Taliban with a timetable for the removal of US troops.

Obama lied? Why should that come as a surprise coming from a president who declared that if you like your health care plan and your doctor, you can keep them?

But I stray. "Obamaism"? What is it? Quite honestly, if it's something other than "leading from behind" coupled with bowing to the Japanese emperor and Saudi king, i.e. "showing his behind," and shaking hands with tin-pot tyrants, I don't have a clue.

Maureen Dowd, "History: Get Me Rewrite!": Dowd Rewrites a Hoary Op-Ed

In a recent New York Observer article entitled "The Tyranny and Lethargy of the Times Editorial Page" (http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#axzz2su9y1r4t), Ken Kurson caused something of a sensation by highlighting the dichotomy between the excellent newsroom reporting of the Times versus the irrelevance, stupidity and lack of originality of its editorial page. Kurson wrote (my emphasis in red):

"Another former Times writer, someone who has gone on to great success elsewhere, expressed similar contempt (and even used the word 'embarrass') and says it’s longstanding.

'I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant, and there’s not a lot of respect for the editorial page. The editorials are dull, and that’s a cardinal sin. They aren’t getting any less dull. As for the columnists, Friedman is the worst. He hasn’t had an original thought in 20 years; he’s an embarrassment. He’s perceived as an idiot who has been wrong about every major issue for 20 years, from favoring the invasion of Iraq to the notion that green energy is the most important topic in the world even as the financial markets were imploding. Then there’s Maureen Dowd, who has been writing the same column since George H. W. Bush was president.'"

Well today, Dowd does everything humanly possible to prove that Kurson was correct, rewriting her stock-in-trade opinion pieces critical of George W. Bush. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "History: Get Me Rewrite!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/opinion/dowd-history-get-me-rewrite.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Dowd sets the stage by lambasting Lyndon Johnson:

"Maybe ratcheting up the [Vietnam] war with more than 500,000 troops and sending so many young Americans to their deaths halfway around the world based on chest-thumping advice and a naïve theory of democratic dominoes was a deterrent to getting out."

Maureen then blasts Bush:

"Asked by a reporter about Iraq recently, W.’s eyes flashed and he replied, 'I am not happy.'

He shouldn’t be. Afghanistan, which he abandoned to pursue a phony 'retaliatory' war in Iraq, is crumbling despite all the money, muscle and blood we have poured into it, with our runaway fruitcake puppet Hamid Karzai fiddling while the Taliban burns, vowing to run America out just as they did the Russians and waging vicious attacks on women.

In corrupt and violent Iraq, women are getting detained illegally and tortured. The country is awash in a blood-dimmed tide, with nearly 9,000 killed last year and almost 1,000 killed last month, as Al Qaeda and another jihadist group fight for supremacy. In Falluja, the city where nearly 100 American soldiers died in the fiercest fighting of the war, the black insurgent flag now flies over buildings."

Noting that Bush is now busy painting animal skulls, Dowd concludes her opinion piece by observing:

"W. should know: Some landscapes cannot be painted over."

Needless to say, this rewrite of a hoary op-ed, does not begin to consider the landscape currently being painted by the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office.

But first the ground rules: I vehemently denounced the Vietnam War and voted for George McGovern in 1972. I also deplored the Second Gulf War, given that I was convinced that eliminating Saddam Hussein would destroy the Iraq-Iran equilibrium and bring chaos to the Middle East. More recently, as readers of this blog know, I have consistently opposed American boots on the ground in the quagmire of Afghanistan.

On the other hand, as a child who participated in a sufficient number of playground scuffles, I have also come to believe that if bullies don't believe you are able to stand up for yourself, you are inviting future misery.

Regarding Dowd's op-ed, how can she possibly write about Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War without observing Obama's inane escalation of American involvement in Afghanistan?

And although I would reject any introduction of American ground forces into Syria, I do believe in the enforcement of a no-fly zone to prevent genocide in that country.

As Richard Cohen wrote yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s failure to act on Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-obamas-failure-to-act-on-syria/2014/02/17/badddd00-981b-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html?hpid=z3):

"Six million people have been displaced. Three million have fled to neighboring countries. Polio has broken out in refugee camps (see a recent account in the New York Review of Books). The world does little to stop the fighting. The United States does next to nothing. Children die for lack of food or medicine. There is more than enough shame here to go around.

. . . .

Washington’s dawdling has become the hallmark of Obama’s foreign policy. He can make all the speeches he wants, but his confusion and indecision is what other leaders notice and what history will remember. Now, so very late, he has asked for options. Here’s one: Do something!"

And as Michael Gerson concluded in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Syria’s refugees despair while the world is indifferent" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-the-despair-of-syrias-refugees/2014/02/17/43294b50-97fd-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html?hpid=z3), describing the plight of Syrian civilians caught in the middle of the savage civil war:

"These developments should mean something to Mr. Obama, the author of an executive directive (Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities ) declaring the prevention of mass atrocities a 'core national security interest and a core moral responsibility.' At the moment, he stands judged by his own standard."

Obama should be "judged by his own standard"? Which standard is that? Hypocrisy? Cowardice? Procrastination?

More to the point, why doesn't Dowd write about Obama's moral turpitude? Answer: Why should she? It's so much easier reliving the Bush era and rewriting that same censorious op-ed.

Charles Krauthammer, "How in good conscience?": Bad War, Good War

Charles Krauthammer's latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How in good conscience?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-in-good-conscience/2014/01/16/138901d4-7ee3-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html?hpid=z2) is a must read. Reflecting on the revelations of Robert Gates in his recently published book "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War," Krauthammer observes:

"One question remains, however. If he wasn’t committed to the mission, if he didn’t care about winning, why did Obama throw these soldiers into battle in the first place?

Because for years the Democrats had used Afghanistan as a talking point to rail against the Iraq War — while avoiding the politically suicidal appearance of McGovernite pacifism. As consultant Bob Shrum later admitted, “I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as ‘the right war’ to conventional Democratic wisdom. This was accurate as criticism of the Bush Administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy.”

Translation: They were never really serious about Afghanistan. (Nor apparently about Iraq either. Gates recounts with some shock that Hillary Clinton admitted she opposed the Iraq surge for political reasons, and Obama conceded that much of the opposition had indeed been political.) The Democratic mantra — Iraq War, bad; Afghan War, good — was simply a partisan device to ride anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War feeling without appearing squishy."

In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan were both bad wars, yet the mainstream media fails to hold Obama's feet to the fire for escalating American involvement in Afghanistan, when he never believed in the ultimate success of the surge there.

The blood of American service women and men is indeed on the hands of America's Narcissist-in-Chief.

The Washington Post, "Afghanistan gains will be lost quickly after drawdown, U.S. intelligence estimate warns": Another Obama Overseas Disaster

Those who regularly read this blog know that I have consistently opposed US ground involvement in Afghanistan, which is a costly exercise in futility. If you decide to fight, you need to know when and where. Well, the inanity of Obama's Afghanistan surge is now highlighted by a Washington Post article entitled "Afghanistan gains will be lost quickly after drawdown, U.S. intelligence estimate warns" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/afghanistan-gains-will-be-lost-quickly-after-drawdown-us-intelligence-estimate-warns/2013/12/28/ac609f90-6f32-11e3-aecc-85cb037b7236_story.html?hpid=z1) by Ernesto Londoño, Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller, which informs us:

"A new American intelligence assessment on the Afghan war predicts that the gains the United States and its allies have made during the past three years are likely to have been significantly eroded by 2017, even if Washington leaves behind a few thousand troops and continues bankrolling the impoverished nation, according to officials familiar with the report.

. . . .

Some have interpreted the intelligence assessment as an implicit indictment of the 2009 troop surge, which President Obama authorized under heavy pressure from the U.S. military in a bid to strengthen Afghan institutions and weaken the insurgency. The senior administration official said the surge enabled the development of a credible and increasingly proficient Afghan army and made it unlikely that al-Qaeda could reestablish a foothold in the country where the Sept. 11 attacks were plotted."

How many soldiers were lost owing to this mistake? How many billions of dollars were wasted?

Thank you, President Obama, for the gift that keeps giving.

Meet Our Next Car: An MRAP!

Our Honda is more than ten years old, and almost every evening my wife tells me:

"While I was driving on the highway this afternoon, I saw this very sporty looking hybrid . . ."

"Sorry, dear, we're short on cash."

"Do you know how much it costs to fill the Honda with gas?"

"Yes, dear."

Well, tonight I have a little surprise for my wife. Actually, it's kind of a big surprise, which is going to fill up the entire driveway: Our next car is an MRAP!

"An MRAP?" you ask. "What's that?" Answer: Simple. As reported by The Washington Post  in an article entitled "Scrapping equipment key to Afghan drawdown" ((http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/scrapping-equipment-key-to-afghan-drawdown/2013/06/19/9d435258-d83f-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story.html?hpid=z1)) by Ernesto Londoño:

"Facing a tight withdrawal deadline and tough terrain, the U.S. military has destroyed more than 170 million pounds worth of vehicles and other military equipment as it rushes to wind down its role in the Afghanistan war by the end of 2014.

The massive disposal effort, which U.S. military officials call unprecedented, has unfolded largely out of sight amid an ongoing debate inside the Pentagon about what to do with the heaps of equipment that won’t be returning home. Military planners have determined that they will not ship back more than $7 billion worth of equipment — about 20 percent of what the U.S. military has in Afghanistan — because it is no longer needed or would be too costly to ship back home.

. . . .

The most contentious and closely watched part of the effort involves the disposal of Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, the hulking beige personnel carriers that the Pentagon raced to build starting in 2007 to counter the threat of roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The massive trucks, known as MRAPs, came to symbolize the bloody evolution of wars that were meant to be short conflicts but turned into quagmires.

The Pentagon has determined that it will no longer have use for about 12,300 of its 25,500 MRAPs scattered at bases worldwide, officials said. In Afghanistan, the military has labeled about 2,000 of its roughly 11,000 MRAPs 'excess.' About 9,000 will be shipped to the United States and U.S. military bases in Kuwait and elsewhere, but the majority of the unwanted vehicles — which cost about $1 million each — will probably be shredded, officials said, because they are unlikely to find clients willing to come pick them up."

"Unlikely to find clients willing to come pick them up"? No way! Later today, I'm flying to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, to select my own MRAP, which I can't wait to drive with the top down beside the beach.

Imagine the smile on my wife's face when I drive up to the house in our brand new rugged terrain vehicle! She always wanted a Jeep, and now I'm sure to make her proud!

Thomas Friedman, "Any Solution to Syria?": Sit Down Before You Hurt Yourself

Delusional.

There is no better word to describe Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Any Solution to Syria?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-any-solution-to-syria.html?_r=0). Again writing from New Delhi, Friedman declares:

"Last week, I met with a group of Indian strategists here at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses to talk about how America should withdraw from Afghanistan and navigate the interests of India, Pakistan and Iran. At one point, I tossed out an idea to which one of the Indian analysts responded: That was tried before — 'in the 11th century.' It didn’t work out well. That’s why I like coming to Delhi to talk about the region. Indian officials tend to think in centuries, not months, and they look at the map of the Middle East without any of the British-drawn colonial borders. Instead, they only see old civilizations (Persia, Turkey, Egypt), old faiths (Shiites, Sunnis and Hindus), and old peoples (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Jews and Arabs) — all interacting within long-set patterns of behavior."

Peculiar, though, how Friedman fails to mention the Kurds. There are 30 million of them spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Eliminate "British-drawn colonial borders"? Fine! And let's begin by giving the long-oppressed Kurds their own state.

Friedman continues:

"Shiite Iran has never liked the Sunni Taliban. 'Iran is the natural counter to Sunni extremism,' said [Indian Muslim journalist M. J.] Akbar. It’s in Iran’s interest to 'diminish the Taliban.' That’s why America and Iran were tacit allies in unseating the Taliban, and they will be tacit allies in preventing the reseating of the Taliban."

Ah, yes, Washington will ally itself with Tehran in order to empower Afghanistan's Shiite minority, thereby allowing the US to extract its ground forces from the muck of an inane war. Great idea, Tom! I'm certain Saudi Arabia will be ecstatic if America reaches such a deal with the mullahs, thereby enhancing the stature and sphere of influence of its mortal enemy, Iran.

Friedman goes on to say:

"From Washington, some hoped that by quickly toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, the West and the Sunnis could 'flip' Syria from the Iranian-Soviet orbit to the Sunni-Saudi-American orbit. I’m dubious. I doubt that Syria can be flipped in one piece; it will break apart in the air into Sunni and Alawite regions. And, if we did manage to flip Syria, Iran would try to 'flip' predominantly Shiite Iraq and Bahrain into its camp."

Apparently, unbeknownst to Tom Terrific, Iran is attempting to "flip" Iraq and Bahrain. This is not a game between the US and Iran of tit for tat. Iran, like Turkey, is seeking to restore historic hegemony over the Middle East. Tehran's proxy in Syria, mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, is teetering, and this directly impacts the armament of Hezbollah, Tehran's other principal surrogate. Note how Israel freely destroyed a shipment of advanced Russian SA-17 antiaircraft missiles en route from Syria to Lebanon in January. On the other hand, a chaotic, impoverished and much weakened Egypt, led by the radical Muslim Brotherhood, is providing new opportunities for the expansion of Iranian influence.

Near the end of this steaming road apple, Friedman avers:

"The lesson of Iraq is that deep historical currents were at play there — Sunnis versus Shiites and Kurds versus Arabs. The December 2010 Iraqi elections demonstrated, though, that multisectarian parties and democratic rule were possible in Iraq — and actually the first choice of most Iraqis. But America would have had to keep some troops there for another decade to see that shift from sectarianism to multisectarianism become even remotely self-sustaining. Syria is Iraq’s twin. The only way you’ll get a multisectarian transition there is with a U.N. resolution backed by Russia and backed by a well-armed referee on the ground to cajole, hammer and induce the parties to live together."

Yeah, right. A United Nations force, primarily consisting of US troops extracted from Afghanistan, is going to be stationed in Syria and prevent the Sunni majority from inflicting revenge upon the Alawites. Query: Who is going to pay for this new extravaganza?

Sit down, Tom, before you hurt yourself! Better still, go back to sleep.

David Brooks, "Another Fiscal Flop": Here's Part of the Solution

As observed in David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Another Fiscal Flop" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fiscal-flop.html?_r=0), the fiscal cliff deal achieves next to nothing. Brooks writes:

"Public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was around 38 percent in 1965. It is around 74 percent now. Debt could approach a ruinous 90 percent of G.D.P. in a decade and a cataclysmic 247 percent of G.D.P. 30 years from now, according to the Congressional Budget Office and JPMorgan.

. . . .

The country either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the burdens we are placing on our children. No coalition of leaders has successfully confronted the voters, and made them heedful of the ruin they are bringing upon the nation."

Yet there are partial solutions, which go unmentioned by Brooks. Medicare fraud costs the US some $60 billion annually, and it would not be difficult to tackle this problem.

Computerized programs, adapted to standardized treatment for specific medical conditions, would have little difficulty pointing to anomalies. The system could be up and running in months.

In addition, penalties for Medicare fraud could be stiffened, causing those with thoughts of bilking the system to reconsider the consequences of their actions.

More savings? What about Obama's escalation of the inane war in Afghanistan, for which more than 2,000 US soldiers have sacrificed their lives and which is currently costing America some $6 billion per month?

Aggressively addressing Medicare fraud and ending the war in Afghanistan would bring combined savings in excess of $100 billion annually, and both parties could reach agreement on these action items. Why hasn't it happened until now? I don't have a clue.

Thomas Friedman, "Our Secret Sauce": Again Pandering to the President

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Our Secret Sauce" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/opinion/friedman-our-secret-sauce.html), Thomas Friedman claims:

"What I’d say about Obama’s domestic and Middle East policies is that, given the messes and political constraints he inherited in both arenas, he did about as well as anyone could. He kept the homeland safe, prevented us from getting drawn into any sinkholes and killed bad guys."

Aren't you forgetting something, Tom? What about Obama's escalation of the inane war in Afghanistan, for which more than 2,000 US soldiers have sacrificed their lives and which is currently costing America some $6 billion per month.

Obama did "about as well as anyone could"? Yeah, right. That's about as honest as that thing on top of your head.

Gail Collins, "The Least Popular Subject": She's Almost Correct

When was the last time I agreed with anything that Gail Collins said? Honestly, I can't remember. So it came as something of a shock when Collins, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Least Popular Subject" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/opinion/collins-the-least-popular-campaign-subject-gun-control.html?_r=0), acknowledged that both presidential candidates have refused to embrace gun control. Observing that "there have been 43 American mass shootings in the last year," Collins writes:

"So President Obama, a vocal gun control supporter in his Chicago days, is now a gun control nonmentioner. And, when it comes to legislation in Congress, a nonhelper.

Republicans are usually eager to bring up gun control, the better to denounce it. But Mitt Romney has — surprise! — a complicated history of policy molt on the issue. He was once on the same page as Ted Kennedy, and then the page turned.

. . . .

Into all this stepped [Nina] Gonzalez, who was haunted by the Colorado theater shooting in July that killed 12 people. The gunman carried a 100-bullet assault rifle. The ban on assault weapons, which allow you to fire as fast as you can keep pulling the trigger, expired in 2004. Congress has been afraid to renew it because, you know, there’s the lore."

Well, Collins almost has it right: If the assault rifle is automatic, the shooter doesn't need to continue pulling the trigger to empty his magazine.

As I have previously observed in this blog, much of my life has been spent in the military living with assault rifles. I have eaten, slept and gone to the toilet with my rifle by my side. To be without my rifle would instantly create a feeling of extreme anxiety that something had gone missing from my body.

I also came to know the power of my assault rifles. Fired on automatic, I could unleash a hail of bullets, exchange magazines in the blink of an eye, and resume shooting. And the possession of such an instrument of destruction demanded a heightened level of caution and responsibility to ensure that this tool of death would never be misused while entrusted to me.

Even today, I have nightmares about losing my weapon.

Yes, a maniac will always find a way to kill, but we shouldn't make their task any easier by permitting the sale of assault rifles, which are designed for easy killing.

But is gun control indeed the "least popular subject" in the 2012 election? I don't think so.

Note how both candidates are studiously avoiding, when possible, the subject of America's ground involvement in Afghanistan. No mention of the senseless escalation of this war by Obama. No mention that more than 2,000 United States soldiers have died in this morass. No mention that this war is costing the US some $6 billion per month.

In fact, there is much that is not being addressed by both presidential candidates.

David Brooks, "The Opening Statement": No Mention of the 2,000th American Soldier Who Died This Weekend in Afghanistan

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Opening Statement" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/opinion/brooks-the-opening-statement.html), David Brooks suggests an opening statement for Mitt Romney for tomorrow's presidential debate. If Romney follows the advice of Brooks, he will lose the 2012 election. It's that simple.

On the other hand, if Romney follows my advice, he will win. But there's no chance of that happening.

Read Brooks's opinion piece. Now read it again. What's missing? Simple.

This past weekend we witnessed a tragic milestone: The 2,000th American soldier died in the war in Afghanistan, which was escalated by Obama. In addition to this heartbreaking loss of life, the US is spending $6 billion every month on this boondoggle.

There is no mention of Afghanistan in David's op-ed. There will be no mention of Afghanistan in the opening statements of Romney and Obama during the debate.

If Romney wants to win this election, he needs to tell the American people that he will end America's presence in Afghanistan within six months of taking office. But he won't do that. It would antagonize many of his conservative backers, notwithstanding the fact that it is the right thing to do. Romney would rather lose gracefully to Obama.

Regarding Medicare, Brooks is correct: Romney needs to treat Americans as adults and explain in no uncertain terms that the rising cost of medical entitlements, if unaddressed, will bankrupt the US. Brooks, however, does not mention that Medicare fraud costs the US $90 billion per year. It's time to declare war on this crime, which is draining the lifeblood from the country.

And then there is no mention by Brooks of the necessity to reform Wall Street, which is witnessing the departure of individual investors as algorithms and computerized trading have come to rule the roost. It's time to take this unfair edge away from the hedge funds and to allow stock markets to again serve the needs of innovative start-ups, hungry for seed money, which offer the promise of sustainable employment. But will Romney demand the reinstatement of the Uptick Rule and Glass-Steagall, thereby antagonizing many of his donors? Not a chance.

Given the disastrous state of the US economy and Obama's unlimited number of foreign policy failures, this is Romney's election to lose.

Yes, he is losing it.

Maureen Dowd, "The Son Also Sets": Where's the Business Plan?

In the business world, if you want to raise money for a start-up, you must present potential investors with a detailed business plan for future operations. No business plan, no money. Harvard Business School graduate Romney should know this.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Son Also Sets" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-son-also-sets.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd observes with regard to the Romney campaign:

"Even if voters are inclined to fire the incumbent, they need reassurance about what the replacement would do. Romney has failed to give details where needed, and when he does give details, they contradict his own past stands."

Or as I said in a prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/david-brooks-thurston-howell-romney-or.html), "winning the presidency away from an incumbent, no matter how bad the economy, is not a matter of entitlement." Has Mitt provided a business plan? There's not even an executive summary.

Obama's recovery plan? It also doesn't exist. Obama is perfectly content to coast into a second term without providing a program, given the ineptitude of Team Romney.

How refreshing it would be if either candidate were to say that he is planning to put an immediate end to America's ground involvement in Afghanistan.

Or to declare war on Medicare and Social Security fraud.

Or to reinstate Glass-Steagall and the Uptick Rule.

Or merely to treat the American electorate as intelligent adults.

But it's not going to happen. We have only the next season of "Game of Thrones" to anticipate. Everything else is downhill.

Winter is coming.

Roger Cohen, "Obama’s Team of Idolizers": The King Has No Clothes

Who would ever imagine that Roger Cohen would be the first New York Times columnist to recognize the failure of the Obama administration. In his op-ed entitled "Obama’s Team of Idolizers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/roger-cohen-obamas-team-of-idolizers.html), Cohen writes:

"Well, four years have passed and Obama has adroitly steered the bankrupted United States he inherited away from the precipice but has not provided a 'different future' worthy of the hope invested in him; and that imagined team of rivals became a team, or rather a coterie, of idolizers.

There is only one star in the galaxy at this White House and his name is Barack Obama. Everyone in the Sun King’s court has drunk the Kool-Aid."

Cohen proceeds to highlight Obama's folly of escalating the war in Afghanistan.

One can only wonder whether there will be another Times columnist brave enough to acknowledge that the king has no clothes.

Roger Cohen, "Dulce Et Decorum Est": He Finally Gets Around to Telling Us Afghanistan Is Unwinnable

Regarding American involvement in Afghanistan, Roger (Iran is "not totalitarian") Cohen has finally gotten around to telling us in his New York Times op-ed entitled "Dulce Et Decorum Est" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/dulce-et-decorum-est.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) that "it is not 'sweet and right to die for your country' — almost 11 years into an unwinnable war." My goodness, this is something that I have been saying since the inception of this blog.

But where in this opinion piece is there reference to President Obama's responsibility for this disaster? In fact, Cohen refers to Obama only once:

"Afghanistan is a country where President Obama appointed an able envoy, the late Richard Holbrooke, only to emasculate him."

That's all? No mention of Obama's protracted decision to escalate US involvement while providing the Taliban with America's timetable for troop withdrawal?

Of course, as we approach November, Cohen wouldn't want to clue anyone into the fact that this president's foreign policy has been an unprecedented disaster.

Thomas Friedman, "Coming Soon: The Big Trade-Off": For Once He's Got It Mostly Right

Thomas Friedman concludes his New York Times op-ed entitled "Coming Soon: The Big Trade-Off" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/friedman-coming-soon-the-big-trade-off.html?ref=opinion) by observing:

"Nursing homes, nursery schools or nursing Afghanistan — these are the trade-offs we’ll have to make in this decade, unless we have a real growth spurt. Mitt Romney gave a big foreign policy speech last week, waxing eloquent about how he would be more assertive of U.S. interests abroad than President Obama and ensure that this is an 'American century.' Really? I like American centuries. But to paraphrase an old saying: a foreign policy vision without a real plan to pay for it — and manage all the trade-offs back home — is just a hallucination."

As much as I hate to say it, this time Friedman has it mostly right: The US cannot afford to continue paying in blood and money for its boondoggle in Afghanistan. However, Friedman doesn't have the courage to acknowledge that it was Obama's decision to escalate this senseless war.

It is despicable how Obama and Romney avoid discussion of this fiasco as American soldiers continue to lay down their lives for no reason whatsoever. It is far easier for Barack and Mitt to sling mud. Shame on both of them.