Author makes good points. What in the world was the Administration thinking? Apart from the purely humanitarian issues of releasing these guys it's hard to see how this won't come back to bite them politically.
// Lennart On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:19 PM, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > Valuable article -which I almost did not send because the site is such > an > unmitigated disaster filled with tech garbage that, it seems, the editors > think is hip, the latest thing, must have, what everyone else is doing, > and cute. > But here's the article anyway.... > BR > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > The Federalist > > *Why Are We Releasing Terrorists Who Kill Girls Because They Go To School?* > > > By Robert Tracinski <http://thefederalist.com/author/rtracinski/> > > June 4, 2014 > > <http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/04/why-are-we-releasing-terrorists-who-kill-girls-because-they-go-to-school/#> > > > Democrats have been promoting the idea that they stand firmly against a > “War on Women.” So how come President Obama just released some of that > war’s worst aggressors? > > I’m talking about the “Taliban Dream Team > <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/look-at-five-taliban-commanders-set-free-in-prisoner-exchange/>” > who were just traded for ransomed soldier Bowe Bergdahl. > > These were top officials in the Taliban regime: a provincial governor, a > deputy defense minister, a deputy intelligence minister, a top arms > smuggler, and a top Taliban military commander. Two of them are wanted by > the United Nations for war crimes committed against Afghanistan’s Shiites. > > But it seems some people have forgotten the long catalog of the Taliban’s > crimes. *Politico*‘s Blake Hounshell was generally regarded as winning > the stiff competition for the stupidest tweet > <http://twitchy.com/2014/06/02/politicos-blake-hounshell-are-these-five-taliban-guys-ninjas/> > defending the administration’s prisoner swap.....[saying that since the > Taliban prisoners don't have superpowers there is nothing to worry about] > > Well, no, they don’t have superpowers. All they have is the influence and > connections to get a gang of brutes together, and the absence of any of the > normal vestiges of human conscience that would cause them to shrink from > atrocities like: bombing schools because they let girls play sports > <http://weaselzippers.us/101916-pakistani-taliban-declare-school-girls-playing-sports-un-islamic-commence-bombing-campaign/>; > shooting a girl in the head > <http://nypost.com/2013/10/07/new-taliban-threat-against-girl-they-shot-in-head/> > because she stands up for her right to be educated; horribly mutilating > women > <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/12/28/afghanistans-unspeakable-crime.html> > to punish them for disobedience in their roles as marital slaves; dragging > a 7-year-old out of the yard where he is playing and hanging him from a > tree > <http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/11/afghan-taliban-hang-year-old-boy-punish-family/> > because his grandfather spoke out against the Taliban. > > The best commentary on the moral status of the Taliban is from a Pakistani > girl who escaped from her psychopathic father and brother, who were in the > business of training suicide bombers. She told an interviewer > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8499578.stm>: “The Taliban > slaughter other people’s children. They turn women into widows. They should > be made to suffer, too. I want these Taliban to be burned alive.” > > So no, these guys are not just ordinary, rank-and-file POWs. They’re the > worst of the worst, and the only argument against keeping them at > Guantanamo is that it’s too good for them. > > These are the monsters the Obama administration is putting back in the > field. > > That’s why Obama had to override normal procedures > <http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/> > to order the release. It’s why he had to avoid informing Congress > <http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208081-boehner-white-house-kept-prisoner-trade-secret-because-congress-opposed-it#.U44nt7kLsHw.facebook> > because he knew congressional leaders were opposed. > > [ What does anyone expect from a pro-Islam president with a name like > "Barack Hussein," something else besides appeasement? What a joke. This > should have been crystal clear from the outset in 2008 and in any case > should have been clear long before 2012, but he was re-elected anyway. BR > comment ] > > This cynical deal marks Obama’s final abandonment of any scintilla of > concern for human rights. It’s a declaration that he and his administration > don’t really give a damn what happens to the people of Afghanistan a year > from now when we bug out. > > Yes, I know, American foreign policy is not simply a humanitarian > operation, and we can’t set out to relieve all the world’s suffering. But > if we’re going to engage in this kind of cynical trade, we’d better get > something in return that’s pretty damn important for our interests. So what > did we get by releasing these Afghan wolves back amongst their prey? > > Maybe the administration thought it would be good domestic PR, and they > certainly seem to have expected > <http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-white-house-anticipated-euphoria-over-bergdahl-release/> > military families to rally around a deal that brought back a POW. Except > that the POW turned out to be a deserter who reportedly renounced his US > citizenship > <http://twitchy.com/2014/06/03/getting-worse-by-the-hour-fnc-reports-bergdahl-renounced-us-citizenship/> > before leaving his post. > > But there is an even worse motive suggested by a report > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/2/pentagon-knew-berghdahls-whereabouts-but-didnt-ris/> > that US special operations knew of Bergdahl’s location but chose not to > mount a rescue operation because they considered the risk too high and > didn’t want to sacrifice elite troops for the sake of a deserter. The > administration had opposite priorities. An intelligence official told the > *Washington > Times* that “the deal turned out the way it did because ‘the > administration wanted to close the door on this no matter what the price > was.’” > > Now, why would they want to do that? > > Bergdahl had to be brought back because he was a loose end cluttering up > the administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. President Obama has to > have *everyone* back so he can end US military operations in Afghanistan > completely without being accused of abandoning a POW. > > The Berghdal trade is part of a strategy, not just to end the war in > Afghanistan, but to get the US completely out of the Afghanistan-Pakistan > theater. So no wonder we’re willing to send back Taliban leaders, so long > as the Emir of Qatar can arrange for a one-year delay. We don’t care what > happens when the Taliban’s boys get back in town, because we’re going to be > gone. > > This is Obama’s way of foreclosing any continuation of the war by a future > administration, because once we’re out, when things go wrong it won’t be > easy to get back in. This is Obama’s attempt to make his policy of total > disengagement from the War on Terrorism permanent. > > Does anybody remember when Afghanistan was the good war, the war of > necessity as opposed to our “war of choice” in Iraq? Well, it turns out > that every war is a war of choice—so long as you don’t have qualms about > choosing a really horrific outcome. The administration’s choice is to > release monsters in support of a policy that says we’re no longer going to > fight them. > > *Follow Robert on Twitter <https://twitter.com/Tracinski>.* > > > -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
