Felicity

Robespierre’s head also went into the basket. I wonder if he continued to believe,  “Out of pity and love of humanity, you must be inhuman.”

Our nation appears to be placing its metaphorical head into the stock of the Guillotine.

America,

How many innocent people must die?
How many enemies must be made?
How many communities must be destroyed?
How many cultures must be humiliated?
How many children must be traumatized?
How many backs must be stabbed?
How many lies must be told?
How many dollars must be spent?
How many promises must be broken?
How many men must be tortured?
How many bombs must be dropped?

Before the nightmare you have forced upon the world is over?

Petraeus just needs to follow the same playbook as Iraq, build a whole bunch of military bases, take your men off patrol duty (in Iraq it was to guard the pipline) and pay the enemy cash money to stop shooting at you and setting bombs off near our vehicles. casualties drop, you get to claim victory!

Oh shit, what happens when the bribe money runs out? Oh well, we’ll just burn that bridge when we get there.

Is Petraeus a neocon?  Seems like it.  Neocon philosophy adheres to the mind-set of Robespierre, the Frenchman who presided over the Reign of
Terror, a bloody random slaughter of thousands.

Perfectly justified according to Robespierre, “Out of pity and love of humanity, you must be inhuman.”

Petraeus needs to speak to the Afghani people.  He must explain to them that out of pity and love of them, we are forced to kill them.  I’m sure they’ll understand.

Joe Lieberman, Patraeus and the neo-cons are worrying about the war in
Afghanistan, ‘strategy’ and ‘morale’.

It’s reasonable to ask WHY.

Could low morale be the result of
1.  Poor POLICY?
2. Poor PRACTICE?
3.  Not understanding what is a ‘WIN’?

POLICY and PRACTICE:

We will fight ‘stateless terrorists’ by invading states and killing civilians. We will
have little or no intelligence [because we dont speak the language or
understand the culture and are widely distrusted]. We will fly drones and drop
bombs based on second and third hand information (heresay?). Occasionally
we’ll say we killed a ‘terrorist’ and sometimes we’ll kill celebrants at wedding
parties. We’ll have people ‘vote’, and we’ll pledge to ‘be there’ for the long-
haul. We won’t define an ‘end game’ or what ‘victory’ will look like, and we’ll
keep requiring ‘more troops’ [because our ‘allies’ wont or are planning to leave].

A “WIN”:

No one seems to know.
( Apparently, Joe Lieberman’s definition of a WIN is ‘We kill them with impunity
and we stay indefinitely – guess Joe’s trying to lift the neo-cons’ morale.
Patraeus may see Joe’s strategy as a WIN strategy. )

Before the decision was made by Obama to send more troops into Afghanistan,
McChrystal, Patraeus and other top US military men met for weeks with
President Obama.

During months of agonizing closed-door ‘analysis and reflection’, we’re asked
to believe neither Obama nor any General said “We’re entering an insurgency,
fewer than a dozen of our men and women speak the language, fewer than that
know anything of the culture, we’ll be going directly into citizens’ homes, farms
and villages, we’ll be heavily armed with high-tech lethal weapons, and we wont
be able to tell friend from foe. What do you think the chances are that we will
be facing continued guerilla warfare and civilian insurgency, similar to Iraq, and
that our men will continue to be placed in untenable situations in a losing
effort, similar to Iraq?”

America has ‘civilian leadership’ of the military, in part, so the military wont
make decisions in its own interests and those of America’s formidable military
industrial complex. But, instead, the President, the civilian leader, is supposed
to make decisions in the interest of the American people.

Obama has failed, not in the Afghanistan ‘strategy’, but in deciding to escalate,
rather than leave Afghanistan.

Well, yes, you can say ‘he campaigned on it’, but if the die was cast, why all the
agonizing prior to the decision. Of course, politicians and Presidents frequently
do not do what they’ve campaigned on and even alter their decisions when new
facts are revealed. But Obama appeared to consider all options, agonize and
then clearly make the wrong decision.

Obama owes the American people and the Afghan people an apology. To the
extent Patraeus and McChrystal were instrumental in contributing to the
disastrous decision, they, too, owe the American people and the Afghan people
an apology.

The last thing America or Afghanistan needs is more killing.

Afghan war is an unjust war; an utter suppression and outright inhalation of a people.
Not a single Afghani ever came up to kill any American on US soil….

Is our conscious asleep?

After orchestrating a unique drama of changing of the war horses; Strange enough; a new plan is unfurled to punish a defenceless people?
Habaib Jalib, the ‘poet of the people’ says:(translation)

My killer they do not change; only their faces and flags are changed
What a journey of mine that even the milestones that I traversed also travel with me

{Qatil Kahaan Badaltay hain,Faqat Cheray badaltay hain
Ajab hey apna;saffar; keh faslay bhi saath chaltay hain}

It was bad enough concerning the number of dead, and maimed innocent civilians
under McChrystal’s command now under Petraeus look out for a slaughter. Win at
any cost.