From the NY Times of 28 Nov 2006:
Quote:
Bush to Pursue Fresh NATO Commitments
President Bush called on NATO countries Tuesday to boost their ability and willingness to battle Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and across the Middle East, ...
"We're in a long struggle against terrorists and extremists who follow a hateful ideology and seek to establish a totalitarian empire from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said in a speech at Latvia University as part of a meeting of the NATO members.
|
At this point, is there anyone with minimal junior high school science education that still believes those lies? In order to win the AFghan war, first, an enemy must be defined. Where is this Taliban that would attack Spain and Indonesia. It is called an insurgency. If a president cannot even define the enemy, well, this is a threat to the stability of NATO. A leader that cannot even define the enemy cannot create a strategic objective. An army without a strategic objective cannot win and has no exit strategy. What NATO country, other than one with an extremist conservative government, would deploy troops without a strategic objective? How does one define a strategic objecgtive if the enemy is not even correctly defined?