President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.Key word: Direct.
Believe it or not, Mr. President, but indirect threats are just as dangerous. For example, from this past May....
The United States has once again expressed fears about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of the Taliban, as the extremists continue to expand and establish their writ over new areas in the country and inch closer towards Islamabad.Are we to believe it's acceptable for the Taliban to obtain nuclear weapons? Is it ok for the Taliban to "inch towards Islamabad"?
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said he is “gravely concerned” about the “crisis” Pakistan is facing.
More from the New York Times:
The [White House] official contrasted that with the Afghan Taliban, which the administration has begun to define as an indigenous group that aspires to reclaim territory and rule the country but does not express ambitions of attacking the United States. “When the two are aligned, it’s mainly on the tactical front,” the official said, noting that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan.Are we completely forgetting the role the Taliban played in enabling terrorism to flourish? Are we really ready to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban?
I leave it to Obama's own words from just two months ago:
"This is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9-11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."And yet, here we are....ready to surrender.
This truly is....