thedrifter
08-21-09, 07:08 AM
Ballots And Bullets
On Thursday August 20, 2009, 6:33 pm EDT
War On Terror: The election in Afghanistan serves as a reminder that force is often more important to liberty than votes. That said, why does the U.S. refuse to go all out against al-Qaida?
Taliban terrorists reportedly prevented hundreds of polling stations from operating on Afghanistan's election day Wednesday. It was the second presidential election ever for the troubled country and dozens were killed in attacks by the Islamofascist Taliban, which ruled there until the post-9/11 U.S. invasion.
A lower-than-hoped-for turnout, especially in the violence-plagued south, was bemoaned by many. Voting will apparently end with far less than the 70% turnout of the 2004 presidential contest; still, President Obama was quick to declare the election a success.
The results will take several days. The incumbent, President Hamid Karzai, and former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah are the main contenders.
Even Clinton svengali James Carville played a role, coaching the underdog candidate and former finance minister Ashraf Ghani. Carville's involvement, and the president's obvious focus on the state of Afghan democracy, shows the importance with which liberal Democrats view Obama's "good war" there.
There can be no understating the courage of Afghans in braving the real threat of being murdered traveling to the voting booth.
No one should forget, though, that the actual means by which freedom will be perpetuated in Afghanistan, like other terrorist nests, is by pro-freedom military forces neutralizing the disciples of Osama bin Laden and others of their ilk.
Many of the same fans of "tough diplomacy" who were reminding us repeatedly that the Iranian people legitimately elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president -- that is, until he stole his re-election in June -- see elections as a magic wand in Afghanistan.
The truth is more nuanced: genuine elections are welcome events, but not miraculous cure-alls.
During Iraq's elections, it was moving to see Iraqis show off the purple ink on their fingers applied by their election officials to minimize fraud. But the U.S. military presence, and our training of the Iraqi security forces, had a lot more to do with the Anbar Awakening and the subsequent destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI).
Votes alone would never have stopped terrorists in Iraq from committing atrocities on children, along with their many other bloody outrages on the population. By the same token, elections will not destroy the Taliban's shadow government in Afghanistan. Nor will they smoke out the terrorists living in caves along the mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border.
Only the free world's determined conduct of the global war on terror will. In other words, finding and killing lots of terrorists.
But in June, U.S. Marines let surrounded Taliban terrorists escape a residential complex by dressing up in burqas and pretending to be women. No doubt, they were bowing to local sensitivities.
Does that inspire confidence in our Afghan strategy -- successful election or not?
Is it a winning strategy when the new CIA director, former high-ranking Democratic congressman and Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, is proud that he scotched a program to have private surrogates locate and assassinate top al-Qaida operatives?
Considering the CIA's sorry record over the years at pulling operations off, going private sounds like a smart move.
The bottom line is that in keeping ourselves free and safe from the jihadists -- and helping others elsewhere become and stay free and secure -- killing the bad guys is more important than electing the good guys.
Ellie
On Thursday August 20, 2009, 6:33 pm EDT
War On Terror: The election in Afghanistan serves as a reminder that force is often more important to liberty than votes. That said, why does the U.S. refuse to go all out against al-Qaida?
Taliban terrorists reportedly prevented hundreds of polling stations from operating on Afghanistan's election day Wednesday. It was the second presidential election ever for the troubled country and dozens were killed in attacks by the Islamofascist Taliban, which ruled there until the post-9/11 U.S. invasion.
A lower-than-hoped-for turnout, especially in the violence-plagued south, was bemoaned by many. Voting will apparently end with far less than the 70% turnout of the 2004 presidential contest; still, President Obama was quick to declare the election a success.
The results will take several days. The incumbent, President Hamid Karzai, and former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah are the main contenders.
Even Clinton svengali James Carville played a role, coaching the underdog candidate and former finance minister Ashraf Ghani. Carville's involvement, and the president's obvious focus on the state of Afghan democracy, shows the importance with which liberal Democrats view Obama's "good war" there.
There can be no understating the courage of Afghans in braving the real threat of being murdered traveling to the voting booth.
No one should forget, though, that the actual means by which freedom will be perpetuated in Afghanistan, like other terrorist nests, is by pro-freedom military forces neutralizing the disciples of Osama bin Laden and others of their ilk.
Many of the same fans of "tough diplomacy" who were reminding us repeatedly that the Iranian people legitimately elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president -- that is, until he stole his re-election in June -- see elections as a magic wand in Afghanistan.
The truth is more nuanced: genuine elections are welcome events, but not miraculous cure-alls.
During Iraq's elections, it was moving to see Iraqis show off the purple ink on their fingers applied by their election officials to minimize fraud. But the U.S. military presence, and our training of the Iraqi security forces, had a lot more to do with the Anbar Awakening and the subsequent destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI).
Votes alone would never have stopped terrorists in Iraq from committing atrocities on children, along with their many other bloody outrages on the population. By the same token, elections will not destroy the Taliban's shadow government in Afghanistan. Nor will they smoke out the terrorists living in caves along the mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border.
Only the free world's determined conduct of the global war on terror will. In other words, finding and killing lots of terrorists.
But in June, U.S. Marines let surrounded Taliban terrorists escape a residential complex by dressing up in burqas and pretending to be women. No doubt, they were bowing to local sensitivities.
Does that inspire confidence in our Afghan strategy -- successful election or not?
Is it a winning strategy when the new CIA director, former high-ranking Democratic congressman and Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, is proud that he scotched a program to have private surrogates locate and assassinate top al-Qaida operatives?
Considering the CIA's sorry record over the years at pulling operations off, going private sounds like a smart move.
The bottom line is that in keeping ourselves free and safe from the jihadists -- and helping others elsewhere become and stay free and secure -- killing the bad guys is more important than electing the good guys.
Ellie