From: edspyhill01 on
On Dec 30, 7:47 am, Hachiroku ハチロク <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> Richard Engle said that "Yemen is full of wonderful, friendly people, and
> a retaliatory bombing would not be the thing to do."
>
> He then went on to say that there are radical cities in outlying areas
> that the government can't reach, and that's where the radicals are.
>
> Gee, Richie, how about bombing one of those?!?!? We'll even TELL them
> we're going to do it.
>
> I suggest a small, localize nuke to do the job.

Too bad you didn't post this by Richard Engel - our presence in
Afghanistan is a waste of American blood and treasure. The Afghan
army does NOT think it is at war and they only care about local tribal
issues, not the country's.


Tonight, on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, Richard Engel, veteran war
reporter, described the content of a 25-page assessment prepared for
General McChrystal, General Petraeus and other top brass in the Middle
East war zone. The assessment was not---for obvious reasons-- intended
for public disclosure. No other media source except Engel/MSNBC has
obtained a copy.

Is this leaked report another Pentagon Papers? (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) It reports that the leadership
of Afghan army/police forces is corrupt, lazy, self-serving, and
contaminated by nepotism. It also notes that the numbers of troops in
Afghan army/police forces have been grossly exaggerated by the
Afghans, in some cases over-reported by as much as 40 percent.
Illiteracy is rampant and drug use is widespread.

The major goal of our being there is to train Afghans to enforce their
own security so that we can get our troops out and leave that nasty
work to the Afghans. The clear import of the assessment is that it
will be flat-out impossible for our forces there, even with the 30,000-
troop "surge," to meet the President's timeline for troop drawdown.

One wonders if our generals in the Middle East shared any of that
information with the President as they counseled so intensively with
him prior to his decision to send those troops.
If the President WAS privy to that information, then he has not been
candid with the American people in his forecast of success. If the
generals had that information and withheld it from the President, then
they need a visit to the woodshed. One just wonders, doesn't one?

Of course, none of that should trouble the right-wing enthusiasts who
so unquestioningly support the war. E-r-r-r--maybe not, though.
Ultimately, the Pentagon Papers (God bless Daniel Ellsberg, Mike
Gravel and Neil Sheehan!)shed light on some of the awful realities of
the Vietnam debacle that were concealed from the public through
several successive presidential administrations. The assessment Engel
has obtained is not anywhere near as comprehensive as the thousands of
pages of the Pentagon Papers, but it could nevertheless force some
interests in the Congress, in think tanks, and in the Pentagon to be
more realistic about the challenges and limitations this nation and
its little cadre of allied forces face in the steep uphill struggles
for security in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Good catch, Mr. Engel!