Wish Osama a Happy Shot-In-The-Face Day!

A little belated, but wish your favorite terrorist a Happy Shot-In-The-Face day.

ISIS Leader to USA: ‘Soon We Will be in Direct Confrontation’

It’s time to arrest and jail the muslim-in-chief, round up the rest of his Marxist-Alinskyite buddies, and start playing cowboys and muslims. Is-lame is incompatible with civilization, especially ours, and Obama is doing everything he can to surrender America to it. You CAN’T tolerate an ideology within your borders that has sworn to subjugate and kill you. Thus we are left with two choices. Expel them from our borders and let the rest of the world deal with them, or combat them like the mortal enemy that they are. Us or them, to the death. I choose US. But we MUST acknowledge that the ideology of islam IS our enemy.
+

---

+

June 13, 2014 – 11:54 AM

---

By Terence P. Jeffrey

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (Photo/Iraqi Ministry of Interior)

(CNSNews.com) – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), issued a rare audio message back on January 21 in which he flatly stated his group’s intention to march on Baghdad and move into “direct confrontation” with the United States.

“Our last message is to the Americans. Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day,” Baghdadi said. “So watch, for we are with you, watching.”

US, Allies Tell Taliban About Offensive

“…, but for weeks U.S. and allied officials have been telling reporters about their forthcoming assault on Marjah,…”

Why?  Because we (and by that I mean the political and some of the upper military leadership) are just STUPID! You never tell the when and where your going to be.  You just tell them than whenever we get to where you happen to be, you have two choices.  Surrender or die.

Telling them when and where is tactically unsound, and costs American and allied lives.

---

http://www.military.com/news/article/us-allies-tell-taliban-about-offensive.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

February 06, 2010

McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

KABUL – Thousands of U.S., British and Afghan troops are poised to launch the biggest offensive of the war in Afghanistan in a test of the Obama administration’s new counterinsurgency strategy.

Military operations usually are intended to catch the enemy off guard, but for weeks U.S. and allied officials have been telling reporters about their forthcoming assault on Marjah, a Taliban-held town of 80,000 and drug-trafficking hub in southern poppy-growing Helmand province.

---

Mr. Obama, you say we’re at war. Do you REALLY believe that?

Mr. Obama, if we are indeed “at war,” why are we Mirandizing combatants instead of turning them over to the military?

If we are at war, why won’t you call those who are ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL US the “enemy,” rather than “threats,” or using another of your many meaningless euphemisms?

Despite what you say Mr. Obama, your “administration acts as though terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are criminal matters, not acts of war. That policy means that a terrorist planning to attack Americans is best off trying to kill as many people as possible on U.S. soil. That way he can not only get a civilian trial and public defenders paid for by American taxpayers. He can keep his secrets safe. And he won’t have to face U.S. soldiers trying to kill him in firefights in Afghanistan or Iraq.”

Talk about perverse incentives. The law is supposed to protect Americans, not make them easy targets for terrorists.

The law is intended to protect Americans. We do our constitutional rights no favor by pretending that enemy combatants have the same rights as ordinary criminals.

Copenhagen Fallout: “I can’t believe we didn’t…”

It was a million bucks JUST for Air Force 1.  The first malady went separately on an Air Force 757.  Why?  Then you have a couple of C-5’s or equivalent airlift to carry all the helicopters and limos, the support and security personnel, etc.  If this boondoggle cost a dime less than $10 million I would be shocked.  Oh, but he met with his top general in Afghanistan for a whopping 20 minutes.  Let’s see… In the 70 days since General McChrystal took over, Obama has talked to him twice, about 20 minutes each time.  So, Obama has met with the commander of what he said was the most important part of our war on man caused disasters when he was a candidate for an average of 35 seconds per day.  Does that say to you that he thinks winning (in Afghanistan) is important?  But I digress.

Instead of hearing how much Obama is traveling (more than Bush), how much it costs (not just for AF1), or how big his carbon footprint is, what we hear from the media formerly known as mainstream is simply silence.  Actually, let me correct myself.  When the votes in Copenhagen were tallied, the sound bite from one MFKAM anchor pretty much summed up the Obamabot response to this whole thing.  This reporter stammered through about 30 seconds of airtime in total disbelief that the mOssiah had been denied.  It went something like “Wha…, we didn’t…, I can’t believe this.  But president Obama and the first lady gave speeches.  I can’t believe Chicago didn’t win.  This is outrageous…”  And it went on from there.  No mention of any of the other topics concerning his travel.

In what has been yet another illustration of Obama’s narcissism, he disobeyed one of the unwritten rules of being a head of state.  You don’t personally go to things like this as a head of state unless it is already pretty much a done deal.  You can’t risk pissing away your limited supply of political capital on such things.  As Richard Cohen wrote in his September 29th article, it’s “Time to Act Like a President.”  American presidents don’t run around looking for a stage and a camera.  American presidents don’t act as if they are gods or dictators.  American presidents don’t run around the world apologizing for America being great.  American presidents don’t bow to foreign leaders (especially Arabs).  Maybe it is dangerous to assume that Obama IS an American.  He hasn’t proved it, and he sure doesn’t act like it.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Obama’s trip to Copenhagen cost $1 million or more

Associated Press

Last update: October 2, 2009 – 4:53 PM

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.

Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.

A 2006 congressional study pegged the cost of flying Air Force One at $56,518 an hour. The Pentagon recently said it cost $100,219 an hour to fly the huge, reconfigured Boeing 747 without Obama aboard. The Pentagon estimate included more costs for support needs, such as maintenance.

At those rates, the president’s 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 million.

However, presidential travel requires additional spending, especially for security personnel and equipment. Also, first lady Michelle Obama and some administration officials traveled to Copenhagen at public expense ahead of the president.

The Copenhagen trip was not devoted entirely to the Olympics bid. Obama spent 25 minutes conferring with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top Afghan war commander. McChrystal had been in London for a speech, and he made the relatively short trip to Denmark to meet with Obama.

Obama Lied, Soldiers Died

This person summed it up very well when he said the following about Obama:

For all that can be fairly said about the mistakes of the Bush Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan, one thing has become quite apparent; Obama has not learned from any of them. He may be interested in success, but sadly the success Obama seeks appears to be in the voting booth and not on the battlefield. In the meantime, Soldiers die as they await a strategy and a plan…and the resources necessary…to accomplish them.

Obama is not interested in, nor does he understand what military victory really is.  He is actively engaged in the dismantling of our defenses, and thus is engaged in ensuring the destruction of our country.  While leading the way, he and the other military hating democrats are gleefully taking steps to defund and ensure the decay of our military.

Everyone in the military who has ever been to Iraq, Afghanistan, or fought in any other war we have been unfortunate enough to wage all want to do one thing: WIN.  America’s military was never intended to be a police force, to build nations, to win hearts and minds, or to win votes for our crooked politicians.  When boiled down to its essence, the true mission of our military is to be READY, willing, and able to kick anyone’s butt, anytime, anywhere.  That involves killing people and breaking things.  You can’t win a war by NOT insulting the enemy, or trying to make the enemy like us.  Sadly, you can’t fight a war without some innocent people dying.  When you try to pussyfoot around and win a war by NOT killing as many of the enemy and breaking as much of his stuff as quickly and violently as possible, you only succeed in causing unnecessary deaths of our soldiers and their civilians.  When you tell the enemy everything that you WON’T attack, they will take refuge and store there war materials there.  When the enemy knows that certain death and destruction await should they attack us, they don’t attack us.  Why are the muslims attacking us so freely now?  Osama bin Laden said it best.  They saw weakness.  When we ran from a two-bit war lord in Somalia, bin Laden and the rest of the muslim world saw weakness.  Since then you’ve had the USS Cole bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, several other attacks on U.S. interests around the world, and the big one, 9/11.  All because we showed weakness.  Yet how does Obama and the rest of the liberal horde try to deal with these muslims the countries from which they come?  By talking about our “common goals,” by “understanding” them, by trying to make them like us, by carrying on “dialogues” with them, and by doing anything except what is required to keep us safe from them.

To Mr. Obama and any of the rest of the spineless politicians who aren’t willing to do what it takes to win, I say if you will not let us win then bring us home.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://www.redstate.com/haystack/2009/09/23/obama-lied-soldiers-died/

Posted by haystack (Profile)

Wednesday, September 23rd at 3:37PM EDT

22 Comments

On February 17, 2009 (just about a month after swearing an oath to defend his Country against all enemies foreign and domestic) it was reported that Barack Obama was committing an additional 17,000 troops to the Afghanistan “conflict” in order “[t]o meet urgent security needs.”

On March 27, 2009 Barack Obama “announced a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that is the culmination of a careful 60-day, interagency strategic review,” suggesting that:

We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future…To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy.”

Two days later, on March 29, 2009 it was reported that Barack Obama was committing “4,000 troops to Afghanistan along with hundreds of civilian specialists in an effort to confront what he considers “the central challenge facing [that] country.” Now the master of indecisiveness is promising “to announce new strategies for both countries Friday” (September 25, 2009).

To the detriment of us all, while Obama waffles and flips and flops (like the fish out of water we all knew he WOULD be in trying to fake it as a legitimate Commander in Chief) between all these strategies he can’t seem to make up his mind about, 317 MORE Soldiers have died fighting in defense of Operation Enduring Freedom which is more than 30% of the total lives lost during the entire 8 years of the conflict.

This is a record no man should ever be proud of. Barack Obama’s incompetence is directly and solely to blame for the flag-draped coffins of grief that have been delivered upon hundreds of American families and shame to the office he should never have been allowed to hold.

Let us go back in time to the Petraeus report to Congress in the spring of 2008 and the eerily similar difficulties the General had in Iraq.

Various elements push Iraqs ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists, and criminal gangs pose significant threats. Al Qaedas senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction, and foreign fighters to Iraq. Actions by neighboring states compound Iraqs challenges. Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports AQI. And Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way, through its lethal support to the Special Groups. Finally, insufficient Iraqi governmental capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust, and corruption add to Iraqs problems. These challenges and recent weeks violence notwithstanding, Iraqs ethno-sectarian competition in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence. In fact, the recent escalation of violence in Baghdad and southern Iraq was dealt with temporarily, at least, by most parties acknowledging that the rational way ahead is political dialogue rather than street fighting.

I admit to not being a Military strategy expert, but it’s not much of a stretch for me to see how similar the difficulties in Iraq were back then to the issues General McChrystal finds himself confronted with today. In asking for more troops on HIS battlefield, along with a host of other resources and a palpable desperation in suggesting that failure in Afghanistan is clearly NOT out of the question, General McChrystal has this to say about the state of the war in Afghanistan:

The stakes in Afghanistan are high. NATO’s Comprehensive Strategic Political Military Plan and President Obama’s strategy to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and prevent their return to Afghanistan have lad out a clear path of what we must do. Stability in Afghanistan is an imperative; if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or has insufficient capability to counter transnational terrorists – Afghanistan could again become a base for terrorism, with obvious implications for regional stability.

The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted. Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many overall indicators suggest the situation is deteriorating. We face not only a growing and resilient insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans — in both their government and the international community — that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents. Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.

Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or “doubling down” on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate.

Many of the specifics that McChrystal goes on to discuss in this report suggest, like in Iraq, that we need to be with and among the Afghans…that we need to provide them with security and justice and a belief that they can trust their government and its representatives (first using our OWN security resources while the Afghans themselves can assume these responsibilities) and that we can prove to them that we stand with them in this fight until they can stand on their own…however long and at whatever cost might be necessary for them (and us) to do so. It is this approach that gave the Iraqis the confidence to come forward and confide in us regarding where the bad guys were, what they were up to, and WHO they were that mingled amongst them. No such trust exists in Afghanistan today, and no actions from the Obama administration thus far in its existence have given the Afghan people any reason to believe we can be trusted any time soon.

For all that can be fairly said about the mistakes of the Bush Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan, one thing has become quite apparent; Obama has not learned from any of them. He may be interested in success, but sadly the success Obama seeks appears to be in the voting booth and not on the battlefield. In the meantime, Soldiers die as they await a strategy and a plan…and the resources necessary…to accomplish them.

Why the Next Elections Will Be the Most Important in US History

2012?  Try 2010!  I would even say it’s time to recall many of our elected officials who are no longer representing us.  They should be replaced with people who honor and obey the constitution, and who will be held accountable to their constituents.  Term limits and an end to congressional/senatorial lifetime pensions would be a fair deal as well.  The founding fathers never envisioned a representative being a life-long, career politician.  They were intended to represent their home communities FOR A SEASON, not for life, then return home and go back to work.  They are supposed to work FOR the people, the people are not supposed to work for them as they have come to believe.

e-mail from a friend

11 reasons why the Elections in 2012 will be the most important in the history of the United States

1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days  in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America ‘s largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the Federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That  the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and  appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry, and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon,   that will never happen in America .”

3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a  wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency – with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 Trillion – triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous  administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal  2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never  happen in America .”

5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice  Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan . That Obama would order the closing of  the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of  the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

6. What if I  had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new  regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in  America .”

7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the  Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America ‘s past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela ‘s strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in  the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged  America with terrorist aggression in Central America . Would you have said,  “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

8. Okay, now what if I were  to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle talk radio through  the imposition of a new “Fairness Doctrine.” That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via  Internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major  network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?

Would you say, “C’mon, that  will never happen in America .”

9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is  Doing everything it can to limit your Second  Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants  to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger  every time a round is fired. That Obama’s Attorney General wants  to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America ..”

10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies  currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by  the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US   citizen.

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and  the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to  restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran . (And maybe under review by ACORN.)

I know, I know what you will say, “That will  never happen in America .”

If we don’t do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2012, may God have mercy on our souls. Pass this on to every freedom loving American and pray they love America enough to get involved to fight for our freedoms.  Think about what’s happening…  Don’t assume our country is “too big to fail.”

Obama releasing Terrorists

Since Obama is going back to the Clinton-era way of handling terrorism as a criminal problem, we can infer one of two things. Either the war on terror has been won, in which case Obama owes President Bush a very public “thank you,” or we have surrendered.

Panetta: CIA to limit countries getting detainees

By AP STAFF
Associated Press
February 26, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama may limit the countries to which the U.S. sends alleged terrorists to those with good human-rights records, and will be less inclined to hand prisoners over in general, to help make sure they are not tortured or abused, CIA Director Leon Panetta said Wednesday.

“If it’s someone we are interested in, there is no purpose to rendering anyone, particularly if it’s a high-value target,” Panetta said in his first on-the-record meeting with reporters since his confirmation this month.

Panetta said he believes prisoners should only be handed over to countries that would have a legal interest in them — their home country or one where a prisoner has charges pending, for example.

Panetta made headlines during a congressional hearing earlier this month when he confirmed that Obama intended to continue rendering prisoners captured in the war on terrorism. He said the administration would get assurances first from the country that the prisoner would not be tortured or have his human rights violated.

That has long been U.S. policy. The Bush White House also said it required assurances of humane treatment from other governments. But some former prisoners subjected to the process during the Bush administration’s anti-terror war contend they were tortured. Proving that in court is difficult because evidence they are trying to use has been protected by the president’s state secret privilege.

Panetta said Wednesday that the Obama administration would “make very sure” that prisoners are not mistreated after they are rendered. Asked exactly how that would be done, Panetta was cryptic.

“Well, I guess, you know, A, make sure, first of all, the kind of countries that we render will tell us an awful lot about that,” he said. “Number 2, I think diplomatically we just have to make sure that we have a presence to ensure that that does not happen.”

The so-called extraordinary rendition policy and program is currently under review at the White House.

Panetta also said he believes no additional prisoners will be sent to the jail at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base this year. Obama ordered the prison closed next year, but no decision has been made on what to do with the roughly 250 inmates now there. Only a handful have been charged with a crime. Those trials are on hold while the Obama administration reviews the detention program.

Panetta said the CIA has stepped up its collection and analysis of information related to the worldwide economic meltdown. It began Wednesday producing what will be a daily economic intelligence briefing for the administration.

The recession “is affecting the stability of the world and as an intelligence agency we have to pay attention to that because we have to know whether or not the economic impacts on China and Russia or anywhere else are in fact influencing the policies of those countries when it comes to foreign affair, when it comes to the issues that we care about,” he said.

Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela are in dire economic straits and could be destabilized by the global economic crisis, he said.

On Pakistan, Panetta said he remains skeptical about Islamabad’s effort to strike a peace deal with militants in the Swat valley, a resort area that has recently fallen under militant control. The initiative allows for the imposition of a version of Islamic law there.

At least two peace deals struck with Taliban militants in other parts of Pakistan have failed, he said.

However, he said Washington and Islamabad are coordinating their counterterrorism efforts, drawing up a list of mutual targets that pose a common threat.

On Iraq, Panetta said that when the U.S. pulls its combat forces out — which will be August 2010 — a large contingent of the residual forces left behind will be intelligence personnel to make sure al-Qaida in Iraq does not resurrect itself in the absence of U.S. troops.

Bush’s ‘War’ On Terror Comes to a Sudden End

The Obamessiah is either naive to believe that being “nice” to the terrorists will make them like us and win the war, or he doesn’t actually want us to win. Time and history will tell. I just hope we’re lucky enough to be on the right side of history.

Read Washington Post article below…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929_pf.html

Obama’s War

Obama’s War
by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 12/19/2008 ET

Just two months after the twin towers fell, the armies of the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul. The Taliban fled.

The triumph was total in the “splendid little war” that had cost one U.S. casualty. Or so it seemed. Yet, last month, the war against the Taliban entered its eighth year, the second longest war in our history, and America and NATO have never been nearer to strategic defeat.

So critical is the situation that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Kandahar last week, promised rapid deployment, before any Taliban spring offensive, of two and perhaps three combat brigades of the 20,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan. The first 4,000, from the 10th Mountain, are expected in January.

With 34,000 U.S. soldiers already in country, half under NATO command, the 20,000 will increase U.S. forces there to 54,000, a 60 percent ratcheting up. Shades of LBJ, 1964-65. Afghanistan is going to be Obama’s War. And upon its outcome will hang the fate of his presidency. Has he thought this through?

How do we win this war, if by winning we mean establishing a pro-Western democratic government in control of the country that has the support of the people and loyalty of an Afghan army strong enough to defend the nation from a resurgent Taliban?

We are further from that goal going into 2009 than we were five years ago.

What are the long-term prospects for any such success?

Each year, the supply of opium out of Afghanistan, from which most of the world’s heroin comes, sets a new record. Payoffs by narcotics traffickers are corrupting the government. The fanatically devout Taliban had eradicated the drug trade, but is now abetting the drug lords in return for money for weapons to kill the Americans.

Militarily, the Taliban forces are stronger than they have been since 2001, moving out of the south and east and infesting half the country. They have sanctuaries in Pakistan and virtually ring Kabul.

U.S. air strikes have killed so many Afghan civilians that President Karzai, who controls little more than Kabul, has begun to condemn the U.S. attacks. Predator attacks on Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan have inflamed the population there.

And can pinprick air strikes win a war of this magnitude?

The supply line for our troops in Afghanistan, which runs from Karachi up to Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to Kabul, is now a perilous passage. Four times this month, U.S. transport depots in Pakistan have been attacked, with hundred of vehicles destroyed.

Before arriving in Kandahar, Gates spoke grimly of a “sustained commitment for some protracted period of time. How many years that is, and how many troops that is … nobody knows.”

Gen. McKiernan says it will be at least three or four years before the Afghan army and police can handle the Taliban.

But why does it take a dozen years to get an Afghan army up to where it can defend the people and regime against a Taliban return? Why do our Afghans seem less disposed to fight and die for democracy than the Taliban are to fight and die for theocracy? Does their God, Allah, command a deeper love and loyalty than our god, democracy?

McKiernan says the situation may get worse before it gets better. Gates compares Afghanistan to the Cold War. “(W)e are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists. … The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years.”

That would truly be, in Donald Rumsfeld’s phrase, “a long, hard slog.”

America, without debate, is about to invest blood and treasure, indefinitely, in a war to which no end seems remotely in sight, if the commanding general is talking about four years at least and the now-and-future war minister is talking about four decades.

What is there to win in Afghanistan to justify doubling down our investment? If our vital interest is to deny a sanctuary there to al-Qaida, do we have to build a new Afghanistan to accomplish that? Did not al-Qaida depart years ago for a new sanctuary in Pakistan?

What hope is there of creating in this tribal land a democracy committed to freedom, equality and human rights that Afghans have never known? What is the expectation that 54,000 or 75,000 U.S. troops can crush an insurgency that enjoys a privileged sanctuary to which it can return, to rest, recuperate and recruit for next year’s offensive? Of all the lands of the earth, Afghanistan has been among the least hospitable to foreigners who come to rule, or to teach them how they should rule themselves.

Would Dwight D. Eisenhower — who settled for the status quo ante in Korea, an armistice at the line of scrimmage — commit his country to such an open-ended war? Would Richard Nixon? Would Ronald Reagan?

Hard to believe. George W. Bush would. But did not America vote against Bush? Why is America getting seamless continuity when it voted for significant change?

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, “The Death of the West,”, “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”