You Are About To Fund Our Enemy

US to PAY Our Enemy Not to Attack Us.

Hey folks,

I do not even know where to begin with this one. According to CNN - U.S. set to pay Taliban members to switch sides By Ed Hornick, CNN October 28, 2009 6:19 p.m. EDT

President Obama on Wednesday signed a $680 billion defense appropriations bill, which will pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year. The bill includes a Taliban reintegration provision under the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is now receiving $1.3 billion. CERP funding also is intended for humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects at commanders' discretion.

Yup. YOU, via your tax money will be going to FUND our enemy. Those that have increased attack on our Soldiers, and INCREASED fighting and attacks all over Afghanistan, since Obama took over as Surrender Monkey and Chief. Record high US casualties in Afghanistan and a General crying out loud, WE NEED BACKUP. What is Obama's plan? Instead of sending more Troops to actually WIN, we are going to pay them off.

I can hear them in the back rooms now. "Hey, it worked for the Italians. Let's try that. It may tick off normal Americans, but if we do not send more Troops, our Kook Base will still support our INSANE Agenda. It will buy us more time at least." {Sigh}

What they are thinking about is this. According to the Daily Express - ITALIANS PAID TALIBAN NOT TO ATTACK THEM

A Taliban commander and Afghan officials confirmed that Italian forces paid protection money in Sarobi, east of Kabul.

But when French troops replaced the Italians last year, no one told them of the deal.

The local Taliban assumed the agreement was over – and in August last year slaughtered 10 French soldiers. In contrast, the Italians lost one soldier in the whole of the previous year.

So FORGET actually sending in more Troops. LET'S PAY THEM OFF. CNN Reports this.

The buyout idea, according to the Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is to separate local Taliban from their leaders, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq.

"Afghan leaders and our military say that local Taliban fighters are motivated largely by the need for a job or loyalty to the local leader who pays them and not by ideology or religious zeal," Levin said in a Senate floor speech on September 11. "They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government's side could succeed, if they are offered security for themselves and their families, and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us."

ABSOLUTELY INSANE and INSULTING. On the anniversary of the deadliest attack on US soil, we have an insane KOOK in charge of the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying we need to FORGIVE, PAY OFF, and PROTECT, our Enemies. Yeah, That's the way to win a War. But it's NOT going to work. History tells us this.

According to someone that KNOWS, Conor Foley guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 October 2009, he asks, How many more aid workers will die?

This view that the delivery of aid will "buy hearts and minds" in Afghanistan has long been a mantra that the military use to fool the foolish. Variations of the theme have been repeated for the last seven years, despite the fact that it has self-evidently been a catastrophic failure. It was this theory which led to the deployment of military-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams around the country in 2003/2004 rather than the deployment of a properly resourced international peace-keeping force. Aid has been poured into areas where the insurgency is strongest and there is a direct relationship between the provinces which have received the most aid and those that are now de facto under Taliban control.

Rather than distribute aid according to criteria such as objective need or where it can do some good, troop-contributing countries channel it to areas where they have soldiers. Aid is effectively being used as a bribe to try to persuade people in these areas not to attack foreign troops. The most notorious example of this was highlighted a few weeks ago when it emerged that Italian commanders had been making regular payments to the Taliban to keep an area "quiet", but had neglected to tell the French battalion to whom they handed over responsibility – with the result that 10 French soldiers were killed in a massacre. However, such arrangements are fairly standard and the British have admitted arranging similar payments themselves.

If the strategy were effective, it might have some merit; but it is not. Criminal gangs shake down private contractors by threatening to stage attacks on them unless they get paid off. There is some evidence that it may even have spread the insurgency to previously quiet areas in order to attract aid. In the meantime, militias are reforming themselves into private security companies and hiring themselves out to contractors who use them to prove that they can get "aid" into areas of the countries where the NGOs refuse to work.

The crazy result of this strategy is that western taxpayers are probably indirectly funding the enemy that our troops are fighting. We are also helping to rearm the country's militias and weaken the authority of Afghanistan's central government – because of quite justified corruption concerns. The alternative is to tackle the problems head-on. Afghanistan is being governed by crooks and war criminals, many of whom should be in prison rather than their presidential palaces. There is no middle way between propping them up and facing them down. The latter strategy is certainly high-risk and it may be too late to attempt it now. But the former strategy has demonstrably failed, time and again, and will have to be abandoned eventually.

How many more innocent lives will be lost before we admit to this?

This from a guy that USE to believe that buying them off would work. Now, after losing some close friends and SEEING first hand that it is a failed strategy, he is warning against it.

That is not stopping the Liberal Loons in our Government from floating the idea of paying off the enemy. Clinton has even popped up again. Did you catch that? Yeah, I know most think that John Kerry is now the Secretary of State, by he's not. Clinton is. Well, on the books that is. Yes she is in Pakistan telling Students they have to chose a side.

In a lively give-and-take with students at the Government College of Lahore, Clinton said inaction by the government would have amounted to ceding ground to terrorists.

"If you want to see your territory shrink, that's your choice," she said, adding that she believed it would be a bad choice.

Clinton likened Pakistan's situation — with Taliban forces taking over substantial swaths of land in the Swat valley and in areas along the Afghan border — to a theoretical advance of terrorists into the United States from across the Canadian border. It would be unthinkable, she said, for the U.S. government to decide, "Let them have Washington (state)" first, then Montana, then the sparsely populated Dakotas, because those states are far from the major centers of population and power on the East Coast.

She said this.

"We are now at a point where we can chart a different course," she said, referring to past differences over an absence of democracy in Pakistan and Pakistani association with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I guess she left out that the different course will be the US PAYING, in reality, FUNDING our Enemies, enabling them to attack us, and others, more efficiently.

Folks, I know some of you do not like this. But there is only ONE way to win a War. Kill more of them, break more of their stuff, than they do of you and yours. Peace is NEVER achieved without force. THAT is reality. Our Enemies know it. It's time our Cowards in charge LEARN IT!
Peter

Sources:
CNN - U.S. set to pay Taliban members to switch sides
Daily Express - ITALIANS PAID TALIBAN NOT TO ATTACK THEM
The UK Guardian - How many more aid workers will die?
AP - Clinton, Pakistani students in lively exchange