The New Caliphate Update (Note to Bush: We are Losing!)

I wrote just yesterday how one can look at Somalia and see how the Republicans are leading us not to victory in the war against terrorism, but rather into a long, eternal war against what just might be an emerging new Caliphate. Everything that the Republicans have done since they prevented Clinton from taking out bin Laden when he wanted to has led us in the wrong direction and has done nothing but strengthen the hand of the most extremists elements of Sunni Islam.

And with the nascent war in Iran, possibly already starting through the Kurdish conflict, we are once again looking in the wrong place for our enemies. The people who attacked us are alive and well and are thriving right where Bush claims we have won.

Remember that we pulled large numbers of troops out of Afghanistan and Pakistan so we could invade Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and was as opposed to al-Qaeda as we were.

Now the Taliban are regrouping right under the watch of the Paksistan army and al-Qaeda is being lauded as heros within the borders of our supposed ally.

From the BBC News:

Taleban fighters battling Pakistani security forces declared a unilateral ceasefire last week to accommodate a religious gathering near Miranshah, the largest town in North Waziristan...

The Taleban seem to be enjoying the ceasefire: the customary tension on their faces replaced with easy smiles...

As the congregation concluded with a collective prayer for a Muslim renaissance, hundreds of devotees could be seen buying posters of Afghan commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Mr Hekmatyar has recently declared his intent to team up with al-Qaeda to fight the US forces in Afghanistan.

It was difficult to find a place anywhere in Miranshah [Pakistan] where one would not come across some measure of resentment against Pakistan security forces.

[A shopkeeper said,] "[The Taliban] are mujahideen waging a jihad against the Americans. They have no reason to disturb the peace in Waziristan if left to themselves..."

Remember, this is in the nation that is our number one ally in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan!

We are losing. The Taliban are intact and growing. Osama bin Laden is alive and still in command of a resurgent al-Qaeda that has actually EXPANDED it's reach since we declared war on them. Pakistan is ripe for an uprising by the warlords and religious leaders. Afghanistan would follow immediately after, isolating our forces in a sea of people who hate us. Kashmir is bound to be affected, bringing another nuclear power into play when India has to intervene. If we are already bogged down in Iraq and even Iran, then we will be unable to hold, so Afghanistan and Pakistan (with it's nukes) will fall to the Taliban.

Meanwhile, as I wrote yesterday, al-Qaeda linked Islamic extremists are re-establishing their control in Somalia and Sudan has remained sympathetic to al_Qaeda. Bush never dealt with the Tanzanian gem trade that helps fund al-Qaeda. Bush has never dealt with the Saudi oil industry's funding of al-Qaeda. So the money still flows from two very lucrative industries while in areas like the Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and now Pakistan it is the Islamisists who are viewed as the forces of stability while we and our supporters are seen as the invaders who are destabilizing the area.

We have lost the hearts and minds of a swath of the world extending from the Sudan to the border of India. All it awaits is a charismatic leader to come in and unite the whole area.


mole333's picture

| | | | |

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 1888 guests online.

Online users

Words to live by

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify