Friday, March 27, 2009

Obama: "Defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Support Al Qaeda in the U.S."

The big headlines today report that President Obama is getting tough on terrorists -- or is that "man-caused disasterists"? The Obama administration's new language confuses me so -- by authorizing an additional 4000* troops to Afghanistan and increased aid to stabilize Pakistan. In an unexpected (but very welcome) twist, the president even used language suggesting he actually wants to win this war, not just end it: "coalition forces," he said, "must disrupt, dismantle, and defeat" Al Qaeda (emphasis mine).

(* EDIT: In addition to 17,000 other previously promised troops.)

That's the good news for those of you keeping up with the Global War on Terror -- er, I mean the "Overseas Contingency Operation" (goshdarnit, there's that new Obama language again!).

The bad news comes via OUTLAW Jeff Goldstein at protein wisdom:
During his news conference, [National Intelligence Director Dennis] Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.

Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.

That would happen when they can’t be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won’t take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighurs (WEE’-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can’t find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.

Blair said the former prisoners would have [to] get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.

“We can’t put them out on the street,” he said.

That assistance (cruder people might call it "welfare") will be provided by Mr. and Mrs. John Q. American Taxpayer. Meanwhile, the released enemy combatants -- or whatever the f$#% we are calling them these days -- will be laughing all the way to the nearest anonymous money-wiring facility.

And can't you already hear the Obama folks trying to justify their reasons for setting these bastards free in the U.S., after one of them takes out a mall, or a birthday party, or a busy Starbucks? "But but but -- he said he was never part of that Al Qaeda training camp! He was just travelling through the area and had stopped in to use their bathroom when our soldiers captured him! He claimed to have no affinity for global jihadism! Holy underwear, people, we've been had!"

This cannot end well.

1 comment:

Scott said...

Yeah, no tidy solutions for political prisoners. We could keep the Uighurs in Gitmo forever, as their custody there is paid for by the international fund of... no.. the non-governmental organization for... no... um. Oh, that's right, tax dollars, goshdarnit.

But at least then we don't have to worry that they might blow up a mall, in the same way that my next door neighbor might blow up a mall.

I suppose having been imprisoned by the US for all these years gives them a bit more of an axe to grind, esp. since the US has publicly admitted they originally posed absolutely zero threat to the US.

So the rational for keeping them imprisoned (at taxpayer expense) is because now that we've possibly turned them into a threat it would be risky and downright immoral to let them lose.

Recommended reading: Catch-22