Alarming News

August 9, 2010

A dead woman as proof we are losing in Afghanistan

Pregnant widow accused of adultery executed by Taliban

Hat-tip Anzhelika.

Here’s what I don’t get: this isn’t happening in some country no one has ever heard of, this is happening in U.S-occupied Afghanistan. And it’s not like they’re covert about it:

The 47-year-old woman, Sanam Gul, also known as Sanam Bibi, was killed in Badghis province Saturday morning, said Ashrafuddin Majidi, the provincial governor’s spokesman.

The district governor of Qades, Hashim Habibi, confirmed the execution. He said the woman was accused of adultery that left her pregnant. The Taliban shadow district governor, Mullah Abdul Hakim, and his judge ordered the woman to be executed, he said.

Mohammad Yousuf, a Taliban commander, carried out the execution, shooting the woman in her head, Habibi said.

It’s really past the time for us to ask ourselves: what are we doing in Afghanistan? I supported both wars when they began, and I supported their missions even when things went badly. But it just seems like a big joke now, when the Taliban is still running the place and laughing in our faces. What stops us from arresting Habibi, Majidi or Yousuf?

We can argue about whether we invaded Afghanistan to save pregnant widows from slaughter. But we can’t argue that we invaded to put an end to the Taliban, who in addition to behaving like animals, gave cover and support to Osama bin Laden. How has the most powerful military in the world not yet crushed these savages? The answer is, and talk to any military person who has served there to confirm this, that our leadership has tied the hands of our soldiers on the ground. In a war where we discuss everything ad nauseum before acting, it’s no surprise we are losing.

I want to hear from candidates, who wish to compete in 2012, about what they would do to win the wars we are currently waging. Not just how to leave, like our current president, but how to succeed in our smallest missions. How not to allow the Taliban to impose their murderous ways on a country filled with U.S. troops. How do we win today?

Posted by Karol at 04:06 PM |
Comments

1.) The country is not “filled with US troops.” Nor has it been properly resourced since inception. It’s not a current administration or past administration problem–it’s a “political class” and “apathetic populace” problem. See why I say the worst decision Bush made was not starting a draft on 9/12. If you can’t pull every healthy swinging richard into the armed services when the bad guys have smacked your wife in the face, put your kids in a coma via asphyxiation, and came d*mn close to burning your house down, when are you planning on doing it?

2.) That being said, even if we had full troops these things would continue to happen. The simple fact of the matter is that the Taliban are absolutely ruthless and we aren’t. Good minds can disagree on whether we need to be _as ruthless_ as them, but I would dare say there are various punitive measures that could have been visited on the populace to make them think twice about supporting this stuff. Or, alternatively, we could have empowered the woman’s tribe to defend her and made it a question of their manhood if they hadn’t. Mileage varies.

3.) Finally, the Taliban has a secure base of operations. That was because, once again, we didn’t get serious about this war from jump street. Generally in an insurgency if the other guy can fall back, lick his wounds, and reset then things don’t go well. That is, unless you’re fighting in an archipelagos and you’re just letting him fall back to an island where he can’t sustain himself because you have total command of the surrounding ocean. But enough about the Philippines…

Posted by: James at August 9, 2010 at 9:45 pm

Just because somebody is good at winning battles, it does not follow that they will be also good at winning wars.

Posted by: Capt. Oilybird at August 9, 2010 at 11:57 pm

Karol, you’re reading too much into one incident. Killing people is easy, and no matter how hard you try, you can’t prevent the bad guys from killing noncombatants. Especially if you don’t have any warning.

Was Theo Van Gogh’s death a sign the Islamists have conquered Holland?

Posted by: Eric at August 10, 2010 at 5:59 pm

But Theo Van Gogh’s killers weren’t murdered with the hearty approval of “The district governor” by a named commander. No one put out what seems like a press release following his murder. I am losing faith that a win is possible if Americans have lost the will.

Posted by: Karol at August 11, 2010 at 11:49 am

Karol,

1.) I think they mean the _Taliban_ district governor, Hakim. Even if not–an industrial strength dose of misogyny does not mean we’re losing, it just means that’s the way things are over there.

2.) Van Gogh was killed in a developed country. By someone who didn’t care if he was caught. That’s not just apples and oranges, that’s apples and watermelons from the situation in Afghanistan.

Posted by: James at August 11, 2010 at 5:05 pm

But Theo Van Gogh’s killers weren’t murdered with the hearty approval of “The district governor” by a named commander

Shadow governor. If you want you can be the shadow governor of every state east of the Mississippi for the International Organization of Eric. The west side is taken.

Posted by: Eric at August 11, 2010 at 10:06 pm

The Taliban are financially supported by the Saudis and the Pakistanis, trained by Pakistan’s Intelligence agency and managed by the Haqqani network, an insurgent mafia based in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If we wanted to win in Afghanistan, we would have to destroy the network that supports the Taliban. We’d have to crush the Haqqani network, decimate Pakistan’s intelligence agency and arrest/financially ruin/kill the Saudis who support the Taliban.

Since the drug money and other standard mob/mafia money that the Haqqani mob takes in is probably Pakistan and Afghanistan’s primary source of income, and since Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our “allies” in the war against terrorism, we can’t fight them, so we can’t win. As long as these alliances continue, the best we can do is to “manage” the Taliban.

And we’re not even capable of properly managing these troglodytes. The situation has become so absurd, the Onion comes up with better suggestions than our State Department.

From the Onion:

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—As members of the international press looked on, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rode on horseback through the streets of Kabul Monday, dragging the mutilated remains of Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Jalil through the dirt behind her. “Graaaaaggghh!” Clinton shouted as a frenzied crowd of supporters shot AK-47s into the air. Earlier in the day, Clinton had led a band of mercenaries through rugged mountain terrain to hunt down Jalil, whom the former senator eviscerated with a single stroke of her gleaming scimitar. U.S. soldiers marched alongside the triumphant, blood-soaked Clinton to the center of Kabul, where she ordered the Taliban leader’s gutted body be hung from the town’s tallest spire, where “all may behold it.” White House sources confirmed that upon returning to Washington, Secretary Clinton burst into the Oval Office, threw Jalil’s head down on the president’s desk, and let out a deafening war cry

Sadly and seriously, this is the only language that the Taliban (and Pakistan, the Saudis, etc) understand. If we want to continue calling them allies, and if we want to manage the situation properly, heads are going to have to roll.

Posted by: Mary at August 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm

K- Well said

Mary – That quote was awesome. To your prior comments the problem with winning is: Define winning. I’m shocked there has not been another successful major terrorist attack on the US. I think our folks are doing a better job of winning this war on terror than we give them credit for.

Posted by: Dan Dee Man at August 16, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Post a comment