Sure doesn’t sound like the “rebels” have won

A nervous limbo, punctuated by gunfire, took hold of Libya’s capital Monday, one day after opponents of Col. Moammar Gadhafi rolled triumphantly into the central square here—damping hopes by rebels and their international allies that the strongman’s supporters would melt away.

Machine-gun and antiaircraft fire could be heard throughout the day in Tripoli, as residents said loyalist gunmen had taken up positions in several neighborhoods. Rebels who attempted to turn an old police academy into their military headquarters quickly came under heavy fire, sending a stream of casualties to a makeshift clinic.

Green Square, where rebel troops had celebrated Sunday after marching largely unopposed into Col. Gadhafi’s stronghold capital, appeared to be a no man’s land. Roads leading to the square were made impassable by what locals said were loyalist snipers.

Amid the uncertainty, one of Col. Gadhafi’s sons, thought to have been captured by the rebels a day earlier, showed up at a Tripoli hotel and invited foreign journalists on a tour of the city.

The scenes in Tripoli bucked the day’s widening international sentiment that forces loyal to Col. Gadhafi, who has ruled the oil-rich Mediterranean country for nearly 42 years, had been all but neutralized. Instead, the leader remained unaccounted for as fighting continued. The unease suggested instead that the regime’s end, while broadly expected, may bring more bloodshed, this time in a densely populated urban theater.

As I write this reports are that Gadhafi has given a speech on the radio….looks like civil war is not too far behind:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Wednesday that his withdrawal from his Bab al-Aziziya headquarters was a “tactical move” after the compound was leveled by 64 NATO air strikes.

Speaking in an address on a local Tripoli radio station, which was reported by Al-Orouba TV, broadcasting in conjunction with Al-Rai TV, Gaddafi also vowed “martyrdom” or victory in his fight against NATO.

I’m hoping the scumbag is killed sooner rather than later, but I also have a feeling that the wake left after his death will be something other then rosy. These so called “Rebels” aren’t prepared for this, nor is NATO:

Six months after their revolt broke out, the day-to-day leadership of the anti-Qaddafi movement remains an unanswered question, with no figure emerging as the rebellion’s undisputed leader. Even the common struggle against Colonel Qaddafi never masked latent divisions between east and west, between political leaders and fractious militias, and, some say, between liberal public faces and Islamists in the rebel ranks.

The rebels from the western mountains who stormed into Tripoli on Sunday night often roll their eyes at their ostensible political leadership, the Transitional National Council, which is based in the eastern city of Benghazi…

…Even so, rivalries began emerging on Monday well before Tripoli was fully subdued, along with questions about the rebels’ credibility. Officials of the Transitional National Council in Benghazi said Sunday that their forces had captured Colonel Qaddafi’s son and would-be successor, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi. But then on Tuesday he appeared at a Tripoli hotel housing foreign journalists — moving freely around the city — and even before then some in Tripoli appeared not to trust their Benghazi leadership to handle him.

And if and when these “rebels” do take over…who are they loyal to?

Less than four years before Libya’s popular opposition movement took up arms and revolted against Moammar Gadhafi with enthusiastic U.S. backing, anti-Gadhafi fighters chose another tactic to hit back at the hated dictator: they joined al Qaeda and tried to kill American soldiers in Iraq, according to U.S. documents.

In 2007 the U.S. Department of Defense snatched more than 600 records of al Qaeda’s foreign fighters in Iraq and discovered nearly a fifth of the foreigners were from Libya, according to a report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center released later that year. Within those records, the total put Libya second only to Saudi Arabia in total fighters and “far and away” the largest provider of foreign fighters per capita to the terrorist organization.

Almost all of the Libyan fighters hailed from the east — cities like Benghazi, effectively the current opposition headquarters; Ajdabiya, which was the site of intense fighting overnight; and Derna, a city currently held by the rebels.

“The Libyan pipeline to Iraq,” the report says, “is firmly established.”

The report ties the surge of Libyan recruits to a formal pledge of allegiance to al Qaeda by a major anti-Gadhafi group in 2007.

And now they have a mass supply of weapons:

No one can be sure who controls the Libyan government’s weapons stockpiles, a stew of deadly chemicals, raw nuclear material and some 30,000 shoulder-fired rockets that officials fear could fall into terrorists’ hands in the chaos of Muammar al-Qaddafi’s downfall or afterward.

One immediate worry, U.S. intelligence and military officials say, is that Qaddafi might use the weapons to make a last stand. But officials also face the troubling prospect that the material, which was left under Qaddafi’s control by a U.S.-backed disarmament pact, could be obtained by Al Qaeda or other militants even after a rebel victory is secured.

…A cache of hundreds of tons of raw uranium yellowcake is stored at a small nuclear facility east of the capital.

As I wrote earlier, I’m hoping that Gadhafi’s reign is over….but worried at what will take its place. That worry was well placed in Egypt and Pakistan. And now it’s Libya’s turn.

As far as the war itself, I will leave you with a quote from Mata:

all the Arab nations of the world have made note that to be friends with Obama’s US is to mean they invade your sovereign territory (Pakistan), he will throw you over the side to the sharks (Egypt, Yemen, Israel, and attempted in Bahran). But if you remain our enemy he will leave you alone (Syria, Iran, Somalia etal)

On the heels of Obama’s version of a “Mission Accomplished speech” just three days ago, apparently some militants in Afghanistan are registering their thumbs up by executing twin suicide bombings in the following days. On Friday, ten people were killed, 24 wounded, by a bicycle bomb detonated in a busy bazaar in Khad Abad district of the northern province of Kunduz. 24 hours later, a car bombing at a hospital in Logar province, just south of Kabul, killed 60, wounded 120. The hospital attack has been called “unprecedented” in the history of the near-decade-long Afghan war by officials.

President Karzai, criticizing Obama’s politically expedient announcement of the US “bug out”, issued a statement stating that that militancy was on the rise in both his country and the Middle East region.

“Not only has Afghanistan not yet achieved peace and security but terrorism is expanding and threatening more than ever Afghanistan and the region,” he told the opening session.

But leaving a country in shambles, unprotected, while promising that the global Islamic jihad movement will be seeing the backs of US soldiers soon, is only half the story of the second time the US has abandoned Afghanistan. In their current status as a high security risk, there is no way the country could be considered an opportune gem by private investors, capable of exploiting Afghanistan’s natural resources, and launching that nation’s entry into the world economy as a player. Indeed, the generations of Afghanistans have all but lost their knowledge of farming for food, substituting it for the more lucrative crop of poppies and heroin. But in one fell swoop, Obama is not only chopping off any possible bright economic future, no longer dependent upon heroin but Afghanistan’s natural mineral resources, but stripping the country of 97% of it’s current GDP. Strip out the military and all associated economic trends associated, and the country is not only left devasted by war, but impoverished… and with little way to rebuild it’s own limited infrastructure.

As Mark Steyn points out in his always stellar commentary, “SpeechWorld vs RealWorld” the word “winning” – when it comes to wars, and not elections – is just not in Obama’s vocabulary.

Unlike [CBO's] Douglas Elmendorf, the Taliban do estimate speeches, and they correctly concluded from the president’s 2009 speech that all they need to do is run out the clock and all or most of the country will be theirs once more. Last week’s update confirmed their estimate. “Winning” is not in Obama’s vocabulary.

Oh, wait. That’s not true. In an earlier unestimated speech, he declared he was committed to “winning the future,” “winning the future” at some unspecified time in the future being a lot easier than winning the war.

In fairness, it’s been two-thirds of a century since America has unambiguously won a war, but throughout that period most presidents were at least notionally committed to the possibility of victory. Obama seems to regard the very concept as something boorish and vulgar that would cause him embarrassment if it came up at dinner parties. So place your bets on how long it will be before Mullah Omar’s back in town. And then ask yourself if America will have anything to show for its decade in Afghanistan that it wouldn’t have had if it had just quit two weeks after toppling the Taliban in the fall of 2001 and left the mullahs, warlords, poppy barons, and pederasts to have at each other without the distraction of extravagant NATO reconstruction projects littering their beautiful land of charmingly unspoilt rubble.

That’s not how the president put it, of course. But then the delightful appeal of an Obama speech is the ever wider gulf between Speechworld and Reality. So in this instance he framed our retreat from the Hindu Kush as an excellent opportunity to stop wasting money overseas and start wasting even more in Washington. Or in his words:

“America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.”

Gee, thanks. If America were a Kandahar wedding, that would be the cue to fire your rifle in the air and grab the cutest nine-year-old boy.

General David Petraeus, successor as NATO guru in Afghanistan, was on the horn within 24 hours after Obama’s “bug out” promises, stating it was a far more aggressive withdrawal than advised by commanders on the ground.

Ya think? Within 48 hours, militants are quite busy blowing up women and children, pointing out to the world that Afghanistan is no where near ready to assume their own security.

Of course, it was only another 24 hours after those remarks that Petraeus was making the rounds, saying he supported Obama’s decision. Must be extremely tough to be a gifted military officer, under the command of a blithering idiot.

Then again, Obama’s decision came as no surprise. When they asked for more “surge” troops, Obama cut that number down. Why would we be surprised if he took back that pittance of troops supplied in a faster manner than deemed wise when backing out of what is an inconvenient war during an election campaign? What we have learned about this POTUS in his three years is that if there’s a way to run a war half assed, Obama has demonstrated remarkable skill in doing so. Ignore the real military leaders, make the active theatre troops do more with less, and meantime take Hillary, Susan Rice and Samatha Power’s advice to start yet another war in Libya.

While many families rightly celebrate the anticipated return of their warriors to US soil, my mind goes back to those that are left behind… to again do more with less, and in a war where violence is escalating, and not winding down.

But the moment that the US confirmed the Bin Laden kill, Obama had his political “out” in announcing a “bugging out”. I guess it doesn’t really matter that we went into Afghanistan in a war against the Taliban, with the expressed desire of regime change, because they harbored Bin Laden and AQ elements. We can only wonder why Bin Laden’s death alters that original intent, as the only place that may be out from under the Taliban’s thumb is the central government’s urban clusters of towns. The outlying tribal areas are firmly entrenched in Taliban and militant control… and only getting more bold.

There is no doubt that Afghanistan presents an entirely different challenge for success than Iraq. The country lacks all of the elements that would bond tribes in a need for a central government which would provide infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and invite an economic environment enticing to foreign investors. But what is undeniable is that a politically expedient withdrawal is nothing short of failure. The country will enjoy no lasting benefits from being war ravaged for a decade, and it’s only a matter of time before it becomes the hotbed of unchecked militants it was before the US and coalition went in.

In the end, the only “mission” that Obama has accomplished is to put a pretty face on “bugging out” and failure for an election talking point, and a desperate attempt to appease his far left anti war base.

But then… there’s still Libya.

The rubble of a residential building hit by a Nato air strike in Tripoli, which caused civilian casualties. Photograph: Staff/Reuters

The hypocrisy of the left continues to blow my mind. Recall just a few years ago the utter outrage directed at President Bush when he said:

Click here to view the embedded video.

But now that President Obama has gotten us into a war against a country that didn’t attack us (remember that line?) his Administration is saying:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Will the side that elected one of the most vocal war critics now attack this statement? Especially seeing as how this little “excursion” is quickly turning into a quagmire:

Italy called for a suspension of hostilities in Libya on Wednesday in the latest sign of dissent within NATO as the civilian death toll mounts and Moamer Kadhafi shows no signs of quitting power.

The outgoing head of the Arab League and a frontrunner to become president of a democratic Egypt has voiced reservations about Nato’s bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power.

On Wednesday, former premier and current conservative presidential candidate Dominique de Villepin told French radio the Libyan campaign had gone on long enough, and already achieved everything that could be achieved by force. From here on out, de Villepin urged, “the accent should be placed on (finding) a political solution in Libya”. The previous day, conservative legislator and foreign affairs specialist Axel Poniatowski similarly said that some sort of diplomatic solution for Libya had to be found to help end the military action. Conservative MP and defense expert Michel Voisin says that while few legislators have yet to turn against an operation they were told would be very brief, the risk of it becoming a slog means “some are now asking themselves if this intervention was really necessary, and if it’s worth pursuing”.

Where are the Iraq War protesters now?

UPDATE

Recall this?

Click here to view the embedded video.

“I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
— Hillary Rodham Clinton

So, you’re a liberal who protested against President Bush for being an imperial megalomanic out to control the world and wars against all those oppose him. Now that you’re living with President Obama, who now shows he has even overstepped Nixon’s legacy for imperialism, are you out there protesting?

I thought not:

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

His Acting Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel and his top DoD lawyer, both of whom are charged with giving him advice on these kinds of subjects, told him that he must abide by the War Powers Act in regards to Libya.

So what does he do? He went lawyer shopping and found a few that told him what he wanted to hear. That, in some alternative universe, it’s not a war because they aren’t shooting back at us. Nevermind we are dropping bombs, firing missiles, and all that other war making jazz. Naw, it’s not a war.

Guess who else disagreed with our Imperial Overlord?

Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s [DoD general counsel] view, officials said.

He directs the DOJ to stop defending the Defense On Marriage Act, he orders the EPA to do an end-around Congress and installs cap & trade via regulations instead, he pushes through a bill that allows the federal government to take over health care, and now he wages war without congressional approval and against the advice of his lawyers.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So why is it that those who opposed President Bush’s “power grabs” and protested non-stop doing the same for this man?

I wonder.

I actually agree with John Yoo here, the War Powers Resolution is not constitutional:

The treatment isn’t to force everyone to obey an unconstitutional law, the War Powers Resolution, that is both untrue to the Framers’ original understanding and unsuited to the exigencies of modern war. The New York Times’s [editorialists'] solution is the equivalent of using leeches on a patient with the common cold. The right constitutional answer (as I explain in this morning’s Wall Street Journal) is to toss the empty symbolism of the Resolution and meaningless lawsuits aside and let them fight it out using their own powers — commander-in-chief versus the purse — in the political process.

Every President since that bad resolution was passed has refused to accept the premise of the legislation, which basically says that Congress can dictate to the President the specifics of committing our military to hostilities abroad. Congress has the power of the purse, that is their power in regards to these hostilities, any other powers are unconstitutional. But even though every President has not accepted the Resolution, they have all consulted Congress and stayed within the bounds of the reporting requirements.

Not so with Obama.

An when it was convenient, Obama and his fans would rail against the behavior of Bush on Iraq and Afghanistan, calling his actions unilateral and imperial, even though he DID consult with Congress and the reporting requirements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

A Republican President not consulting Congress as he waged war would be raked over the coals.

Not so now.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

Exit thought:

Just one of the three major differences between Barack H. Obama’s wars and Bush’s wars:

• Whatever one may think of how the peace has gone, it’s impossible to dispute that George W. Bush won the “major combat operations” phase of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. (I argue he also won the peace, as both countries are markedly better off, more democratic, and less a threat to the United States than either was on January 20th, 2001.)

• When George W. went to war, he led from in front; he didn’t try to “lead from behind.” He picked the generals, the strategy, he got out front and forcefully defended them, he promised victory, and he delivered. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Afghanistan and Iraq were America’s wars… not NATO’s, not the UN’s, not France’s or Germany’s. And Bush stud up like a man and personally took the political hits as the wars “dragged on” longer than the unrealistic expectations of American voters.

• And again, whatever the merits of Afghanistan and Iraq, and whatever qualms or second-thoughts the Left might have about them now, the indisputable fact remains that Bush got congressional approval for each, as the Constitution requires: A congressional “authorization for the use of military force” has been held to be legally the same as a declaration of war.

As pathetic as the economy is under Obamunism, it’s the president’s national-security policy that most clearly illuminates how incompetent, inattentive, flighty, hysterical, fickle, and in general, unserious his team is. The entire administration of President B.O. is like unto a ditsy blonde in a TV sitcom — think Chrissy Snow in Three’s Company — but without the honesty or heart of gold such farcical characters usually display.

I can only say, once again, thank God for Ronald Reagan; if a dolt of the caliber of Barack Obama had been up against a Brezhnev or Gorbachev, we’d all be drinking vodka and whistling “Polyushko Polye.”

Just a bit of happy news… there are some issues where the deeply divided parties can come to some sort of an agreement. And in this case, it’s an official slap on the wrist of the POTUS for his arrogance in ignoring the mandates of the War Powers Resolution. See also Curt’s post on Congress silent on Obama’s refusal to comply with the War Powers Resolution.

In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

~~~

The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did.

Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.

It seems that Kuchinich’s stronger resolution, demands US troops withdraw immediately, was bypassed in order to give the POTUS a chance to follow the law.

You can see which Congressional House members voted no on H Res 294 as well as the text, at the GovTrack site. No surprise that female DNC gaffe’master, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, joined Pelosi is a nay vote.

Introduced on Jun 1st, and sent to committee is FL Rep Thomas Rooney’s H Con Res 57, that simply states the POTUS is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, and is co sponsored by 16 other GOP House members.

On May 25th, Sen. Rand Paul introduced S J Res 16, stating that Obama exceeded his authority with the Libyan action. Again, sent to committee. Text is not available, and no co-sponsors at this writing.

Reuters reports that on Monday, May 23rd, a resolution in support of the Libyan action was introduced, but stopped short of officially authorizing the action. Sen Res 194 is sponsored by John McCain, and is co sponsored by Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]; Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]; Lindsey Graham [R-SC]; John Kerry [D-MA]; Carl Levin [D-MI]; and Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]

…. another lesson for the GOP to be diligent not to nominate another RINO.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama speaks in Mitchell, South Dakota. Rick Wilking -Reuters

A good read and lengthy piece in the New Yorker called, The Consequentialist.

We now have a concise description of the Obama Doctrine, defined by an unnamed senior official in the president’s own administration: “Leading from behind“:

That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

Kori Schake:

Ask any young Marine what “leading from behind” means. They probably won’t know; they’ve only ever seen leaders out front, sharing in the greatest risks because that is the responsibility of command. To the extent they will even understand what you’re asking, those Marines will probably say that a leader in the back of the formation is a coward, because they are making their Marines take risks the commander will not expose himself to.

Which is pretty close to what President Obama has done in regard to the demands for democracy in the middle east. He allows others to take risks for which he then claims credit

Runner up slogans would be, “Having it both ways”, “Straddling the fence”, and “Voting present”.

Nile Gardiner and Kori Schake write responses to Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker article which sums up the origins and shaping of Obama’s foreign policy.

He writes:

This spring, Obama officials often expressed impatience with questions about theory or about the elusive quest for an Obama doctrine. One senior Administration official reminded me what the former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said when asked what was likely to set the course of his government: “Events, dear boy, events.”

Obama has emphasized bureaucratic efficiency over ideology, and approached foreign policy as if it were case law, deciding his response to every threat or crisis on its own merits. “When you start applying blanket policies on the complexities of the current world situation, you’re going to get yourself into trouble,” he said in a recent interview with NBC News.

Obama’s reluctance to articulate a grand synthesis has alienated both realists and idealists. “On issues like whether to intervene in Libya there’s really not a compromise and consensus,” Slaughter said. “You can’t be a little bit realist and a little bit democratic when deciding whether or not to stop a massacre.”

Gardiner:

The Obama White House must be the first US presidency in living memory that actually prides itself on following rather than leading on the world stage.

~~~

On the Middle East as a whole, the Obama administration barely has a coherent big picture strategy, hardly an advertisement for what it calls its “smart power” approach. In reality the Obama doctrine represents little more than the humbling of a superpower, and the stunning abdication of US leadership in an increasingly dangerous world. As I noted previously, America badly needs another Reagan-style revolution, not only to rebuild its economic might, but also to restore its standing in the world.

Schake:

What makes the article so funny is the pompous self-regard of the administration officials and the complete lack of appreciation for how woefully inadequate their performance has been in meeting these challenges. They are “not cursed with self-awareness,” to quote Annie Savoy from the movie Bull Durham. Secretary of State Clinton compares herself as a collegiate Vietnam war protester to the young Egyptians who brought down the Mubarak government. Both Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes explain the importance of reducing involvement in the middle east because our strategic interests lie in Asia … as the administration engaged in combat operations in Libya. A presidential memo is cited as wisely anticipating the middle eastern revolutions, except that the memo calls for tailored country by country programs that the administration’s policies clearly did not have. The author even unwittingly adds to the humor, saying “Obama’s instinct was to try to have it both ways.”

America is lacking leadership in the world because America is lacking a leader capable and willing to lead.

July 27: President Barack Obama does a behind the back move with the ball after he welcomes the 2008 WNBA champion Detroit Shock on the South Lawn of The White House in Washington. Alex Brandon-AP

Close to five hundred captured Taliban are now free once more to fight another day:

In one of the most elaborate prison breaks in recent Afghan history, the Taliban managed to free hundreds of inmates from Kandahar’s central prison in the early hours of Monday morning through a 1,180-foot tunnel.

The mass escape – reportedly not discovered until hours after it was over – has further shaken Afghans’ faith in their government, and intensified concerns that the freed prisoners will bolster the insurgency in Kandahar.

The escape is a particular blow to NATO and Afghan forces who have ratcheted up their campaign against the Taliban during the past year and hoped to expand their gains this summer. While NATO forces captured many of the Taliban fighters who were being held in the prison, the escape cast doubts on the ability of Afghan forces preparing to take more responsibility for providing security.

“I would call this a shameful incident for the Afghan government,” says Ahmad Shah Khan Achakzai, a former member of parliament in Kandahar. “It is impossible for the Taliban to get 500 men out of prison without anyone’s help. I believe there are some people from the prison or the government who gave the Taliban support.… It’s now clear to everyone how corrupt the government is.”

The reactions by the Afghan population have been quite angry:

…Military analyst Abdul Hadi Khaliq warns that the escapees are “radicalized, ready-to-fight, and extremist” fighters. “This shows that the Kandahar government is paralyzed or has made a deal with the enemy. Either way, major changes need to be made in Kandahar. The Kandahar authorities must be punished, not rewarded as in the past,” Khaliq argues, referring to a previous Taliban prison break in Kandahar three years ago.

Cheragh Daily also alleges that local authorities were complicit in the jail break. “Even if digging the tunnel was not a scenario to free the terrorists from prison as concessions to [Taliban] leaders, we cannot rule out involvement of powerbrokers and influential hands in the incident.” Ridiculing Hamid Karzai’s conciliatory approach to the Taliban, the paper asks the president to explain whether the escapees were “foreign elements” or “dissatisfied brothers.” The paper warns that all escapees will “return to their trenches and continue to kill defenseless Afghan people and troops.” Afghan daily Hasht-e Sobh writes that the escape of Taliban fighters could “boost the morale of the Taliban and weaken the confidence of security forces.”

…Mohammad Sarwar Usmani, a lawmaker from Farah Province, also implicates local authorities and warns that the enemies’ growing infiltration into the security forces is dangerous. Usmani calls on the Karzai government to stop releasing Taliban prisoners through the High Peace Council. The council has recently asked the United States to release Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo jail, including top Taliban leader Khairullah Khairkhah. “If Khairkhah wants to make peace, we will welcome him. We will make contacts and discuss his release,” Karzai told journalist in Kabul recently. Usmani, however, argues that Taliban fighters freed from jail rejoin the terrorists and their release has had no effect on the prospect for peace.

And we’re left to ponder a few things. First, how in the hell can the coalition even think about relying on THIS government to disengage from the conflict. Second, wouldn’t it been better if these 400+ terrorists had no longer existed in the first place?

In the end it matters little from the vantage point of Taliban fighters in the countryside. As I have observed before, given the catch-and-release program, the radicalization of half-way insurgents in these prisons, and the reflexive reversion to capture rather than kill, ISAF operations that capture insurgents are becoming a literal joke among the Taliban (see prior articles). I pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to ISAF press releases that begin with “Taliban fighters detained …”

If this is offensive to sensibilities, if this causes an outcry over advocacy of harsh rules of engagement, if this causes moral preening over the rules of war, then so be it. Withdraw from Afghanistan and end the campaign now. In either case, prisons do not work in counterinsurgency. Kill them or let them go, but putting them into a fake justice system is a worthless enterprise.

The restrictions put on our soldiers fighting in either war is ridiculous and will be the undoing of any success we’ve had in the wars.

Oh, btw, had to throw this out there since it’s related to the War on Terror….more evidence of the ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.