'76 Blog

Washington D.C. – Monday, May 14th CCU students gathered on the top floor of the American Enterprise Institute.  The room could almost be mistaken for a combat command room thanks to AEI scholars leading students into a military simulation of the March 2002 Operation Anaconda during the Afghanistan war.  The operation lasted several days and resulted in a Coalition victory with nearly 100 casualties and 500-800 Taliban killed.      Students were tasked with roll playing key persons in the U.S. attack.  At the end of the simulation students were asked a very straightforward question “was this mission a success?”  The majority of students seemed to think that the mission was not a success due to confusion and the loss of U.S. soldiers in battle.  Now it is clear that, having gone through the simulation, aspects of the operation were not handled properly and that mistakes were made; but is it unreasonable for us to look at a battle where fifteen Coalition lives were lost en route to disbanding the largest gathering of Taliban and killing 500-800 enemy fighters?  I think so. We are at a strange time.  With great advancements in technology we are made to think that anything is possible and in an arena where human lives are on the line we are hesitant to accept any loss.  But this is still war and the men who fight for this country believe that there are certain things worth dying for.  I believe we all should take such a noble stance and honor their sacrifices and acknowledge the great victory of this battle.  Of course I pray that no life is needlessly lost, but I will not look on this battle as a loss.       For the information given to students by AEI click here.  

Within days of the Oct. 25 briefing at CCU on America's struggle with Al Qaeda and the Taliban by Bill Roggio, Army veteran turned freelance war correspondent, some of his warnings were realized in headlines about bombs on US-bound airliners from Yemen. Addressing a full house of students, faculty, and guests at the Beckman Center, Roggio told how his personal blog evolved after 9/11 into the respected news site LongWarJournal.org -- so named because of his belief that the West faces a generational conflict with radical Islam, in which Iraq and Afghanistan are not separate wars but merely battlefronts in a single war encompassing ten or more countries from Africa through the Arab world and into Central Asia. Roggio's briefing slides, linked here... Roggio at Centennial Institute 102510.ppt (50.50 kb)  ...concluded with a note that Al Qaeda affiliates seek to hit the United States from several points, with Yemen foremost.  That was on a Monday, and by the following Friday packages with PETN explosive allegedly sent by two Yemeni women, and linked to the same bomb maker who planned the attack on Detroit last Christmas, had triggered a global terror alert. Here is full audio of the Roggio briefing.   Here is a student report on the event by ROTC cadet Jacob Delargy.  His exclusive photo report on a truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq, carried out by a released Guantanamo detainee (see one of the photos below) can be viewed in full here.    

(CCU Student) Anybody who has wandered around their living room in the middle of the night will tell you the potential danger of moving in darkness. Yet for the past nine years, the United States has done just that in Afghanistan. And it is this lack of direction that has a potential for crushing consequences.  Immediately following September 11, 2001, the U.S. began organizing and preparing to strike at the heart of Al Qaeda by invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban government that had been harboring and training terrorists. In doing so, the military was forced to literally write the book on Afghanistan from scratch. But despite a lack of solid intelligence going into the fight, U.S. Special Operations and conventional units achieved a rapid  and decisive invasion of Afghanistan. But nine years later, the United States and NATO still find themselves bogged down in Afghanistan.  One of the biggest contributors  to this problem is the fact that we still have yet to define clearly the mission in Afghanistan almost a decade into the war. Are we there simply to kill the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Are we there to liberate the Afghani people? Are we there to build a nation? The possible reasons for our military intervention in Afghanistan are endless; but we must make a decision as to the real reason for our involvement. For the leadership within the United States and NATO, there is a desperate need for clarity and decisiveness on what we hope to accomplish in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, looking this problem in the eye may reveal a much larger and deeper condition than our leaders wish to acknowledge. But without looking into the full story of our enemy’s situation, we cannot expect to combat their efforts effectively. Until that happens, all that can be done by the military is the purchase of more time for Western and Afghan leaders to come up with a clear plan that benefits both parties. But Afghanistan is proving every day that time costs blood. Just how much blood it takes before the coalition readjusts remains to be seen.   Jacob Delargy is a Colorado Christian University sophomore and and Army ROTC cadet.  He posted this the day after helping host Bill Roggio of Long War Journal for a Centennial Institute briefing entitled: "Reality Check on Iraq and Afghanistan."  Delargy is pictured below introducing Roggio at the Oct. 25 event.  

(CCU Faculty) Consider the following two quotes summarizing two polls, one from October of 2006 and the other from October 2010.  Both polls concerned American’s level of support for the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. “The latest poll from CNN and Opinion Research Corporation found only 37% of all Americans favor the war, 52% say the war in Afghanistan has turned into a Vietnam.”  --October 2010 “Pew's latest nationwide survey finds 58% of the public saying that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is not going well, and a 47% plurality believes the war in Iraq is hurting, not helping, the war on terrorism.”  --October 2006 What is the big difference between campaign 2006 and campaign 2010?  It was the use (in the case of 2010, the absence of such use) by the challenging party to manipulate negative public sentiment of the war effort for temporary political gain.  Before going on, it is acknowledged that Republicans have indeed used the war for political gain and are as guilty as those Democrats who did the same.  Republicans who questioned the patriotism of those Democrats who earnestly and honestly opposed the Iraq war effort are just as guilty of degrading our nation’s politics.  Having said that, our concern here is with how the Democrats used our country’s struggles in the midst of the war effort for political gain, using it as the central platform of their 2006 campaign. This specifically concerns Democrats who originally supported the war effort when it was politically expedient, then changed their positions when public opinion turned.  These are the folks who clamored: “Bush Lied,” after earlier stating publicly that Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMD.   These are the folks who voted “for the war, before voting against the war.”   These are the folks who decided to use the issue for campaign advantage when public support for the war had dropped to its lowest point in 2006 and who are silent today, when their party is controlling the White House. Every war effort experiences numerous “ups and downs.”  Especially during the “downs,” it is essential for a nation to maintain morale in order to realize ultimate success.  The stories of Washington rallying his troops when many were ready to quit; of Lincoln’s famous July 4th speech before a joint session of Congress on why it was essential to preserve the Union; and of Roosevelt’s frequent communications to the nation on why we must win the Second World War, are examples of why it is essential to unify a nation during a time of war.  Without maintaining the morale of the troops, the support of the political leadership and the confidence of the citizenry, no war effort can be successful in America’s representative system of government.  The example of Vietnam is of course the best example as to what happens when this support is lost.  When the war effort in Iraq turned from early successes to frequent struggles, the willingness of Democrats to use it as a wedge issue in an effort to divide the country for temporary political gain was both disturbing and telling.  At the time when maintaining support was most critical, many Democrats, and certainly the party leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, etc.) were the first to turn against the war effort.  Of course, they always equivocated with: “support for the troops,” while refusing to support the Commander in Chief and the decision to use force (even though most originally did!). Jump forward four years, when we find President Obama in the midst of his own “surge” in the Afghan war.  In recent months, we have seen struggles similar to those experienced by American troops four years earlier in Iraq.  American and ally casualties are at all-time monthly highs and public opinion about the war is at an all-time low.   Republicans who originally supported the war are not using the issue to divide the country, as the Democrats did in 2006.  It would be easy to lay blame for our current struggles solely at the feet of the Commander in Chief.  It would be hypocritical for those who voted for the use of force in Afghanistan to now turn and rally public sentiment against the war, merely for their own political gain.  If only the Democrats of 2006 had shown the same character as the Republicans are showing today.

My most unusual email of this Independence Day weekend came from Colorado National Guardsman Hal Jennings, who wrote to commend the Centennial Institute for sponsoring such events as the John Guandolo briefing on jihad and sharia (June 15) and the upcoming Western Conservative Summit in Lone Tree (July 9-11).  His is also the most conclusive can't-come explanation we're likely to receive.  As for you, never mind the explanation, just come.  WesternConservativeSummit.com has all the details and an easy reservation link.  We'll hope to see you there.  Jennings' email, and a photo of him in Kabul, are below. Keep up the good work, John.  Looks like a great summit and would love to make it but I'm activated again with Colorado Guard and won't be back from Afghanistan in time. I've spent this tour at US Headquarters and worked quite a bit with our NATO partners. It's already the 4th of July here [he wrote late on July 3, Denver time] and I started it off by flying an American flag of mine over the compound. What a way to start the Holiday.  Catch you at a future summit.  Hal Jennings / Parker

(Centennial Fellow) Here is a summary of key facts regarding the attack on Times Square in New York, with analysis provided at the end.  The purpose is to provide the reader with an understanding of the situation based on a long-term analysis of the enemy, and an understanding of their operating procedures, doctrine, and strategic outlook. On May 1, 2010, at approximately 6:34pm, a gray 1993 Nissan Pathfinder was discovered unattended in front of 45th and Broadway, New York City, with smoke emanating from it. Alerted by a T-shirt vender, a mounted NYPD officer observed people running away from the area of the vehicle. The Officer evacuated the area and called the bomb squad. ** Suspect was captured on NY surveillance video in the immediate area of the vehicle. ** Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) tracked to previous owner (Connecticut resident), led to the identification of Faisal Shahzad as the driver (other information utilized as well). ** Shahzad is a Pakistani-born male, 30 years of age, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen approximately one year ago. ** On May 2, 2010, Pakistani Taliban issued 3 video tapes declaring the Bombing in Times Square as an act of revenge for the killing of Baitullah Mehsud, the Emir of the Taliban, and others.  The tapes were recorded prior to the bombing.  In a 9+ minute video, Hakimullah Mehsud, the new Emir of the Taliban, speaks of impending attacks on the United States.  The CIA has claimed Mehsud has been dead for five months via a US drone strike. ** Once identified, FBI Surveillance followed Shahzad to his home in Connecticut.  Shahzad departed his residence via the rear door which was not covered by FBI surveillance.  Suspect fled to JFK airport (stops in between unknown).  ** Shahzad’s name appears on the watch list compiled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ** Shahzad reserved an airline ticket enroute to the airport and paid cash upon arrival.  Shahzad boarded Emirates Airlines Flight 202 for Dubai (UAE). ** Alert Customs officials recognized the name on the manifest for Emirates Flight 202 as the same name as the individual whose name appears on the watch list.  They made appropriate notifications and Shahzad was removed from the plane and taken into custody. ** Shahzad confessed to parking the car and being the one who built the bomb.  He was recently in Pakistan for approximately 5 months where, according to him, he was given bomb-making training. ** When he returned from Pakistan Shahzad went to Herndon, VA, the Southeast University in Washington, D.C. and to Colorado – at a residence approximately seven (7) miles from NY Subway bomber (captured prior to attack) Najibullah Zazi. ** A website for alumni of Sharia College at Minhaj University in Lahore, Pakistan, listed a profile for “Faisal Shahzad” of Pakistani descent. Analysis:    After the attack, numerous officials stated that Shahzad’s device was “crude” and “amateurish,” all of which may be true.  However, all evidence reveals the device was made by a Taliban-trained Muslim Pakistani in order to have some desired effect.  So far, the U.S. Intelligence Community, public officials, and the media at large have all been silent as to the purpose of this attack.  I propose there are two likely reasons behind this attack.  While the Taliban leadership states the NY attack was retribution for the death of Baitullah Mehsud, the former Emir of the Taliban, there is likely a more strategic reason. First, it must be understood that the Taliban (like Al Qaeda and other Jihadi organizations) takes action outside of its area of influence in order to affect the situation on the ground IN its area of influence.  Therefore, one must look at what is taking place on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Sources on the ground are reporting that representatives of the Karzai government are meeting with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar – a powerful Afghan mujahideen leader and a “designated terrorist” by the U.S. government.  This meeting is not overtly supported by the U.S. government.  However, by taking offensive action in the U.S. via the Times Square bombing, the Taliban’s actions strengthen Hekmatyar’s negotiating position on the ground in Pakistan/Afghanistan.  The United States has made it known to the world that it will cut-and-run in Afghanistan, and has demonstrated no will to take the fight to the enemy with the ferocity and level of violence required to defeat this enemy.  The fact the U.S. wrote a constitution for Afghanistan dictating that Islamic Law, not democratic principles, guides Afghanistan notwithstanding, the U.S. government fails to realize the importance of Information Warfare in its overall Strategic Campaign.  That said, the events this past weekend in NYC reflect a strategic push by the Taliban to affect something that isn’t even on the radar screen of the Attorney General, the Mayor of New York, and the FBI. Another fact that has been lost in this incident is the actual address of the target.  According to a report compiled by the IntelCenter in Alexandria, Virginia, and corroborated by the New York Police, the vehicle (VBIED) was parked “in New York City’s Times Square near the Nokia Theatre.”  The Nokia Theatre is located at 1515 Broadway, NY, NY.  This is also the address of Viacom.  Viacom is the corporate parent to a number of major media enterprises, to include Comedy Central.  Approximately one week ago, Comedy Central’s popular show “South Park” aired a show in which the Muslim Prophet Mohammed was dressed in a bear costume and spoke on the show.  A group calling themselves “RevolutionMuslim” called the episode “insulting” and stated that the writers of the show, Trey Parker and Matt Stone “will probably end up like Theo Van Gogh,” a reference to the Dutch film-maker killed by a Muslim for insulting Islam. It is interesting and disturbing that our nation’s finest intelligence agencies are not putting these pieces together as we consider motive.  Unless, of course, motive is not important to our government.  We have not even discussed the requirements of Islamic Law to kill those who “slander” the Prophet Mohammed or for Muslims to wage jihad (only defined in Islamic Law as warfare against non-muslims) until the world is claimed for Islam.  That might be a bridge too far at this point. Centennial Institute Fellow John Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who served as a Marine officer in infantry and reconnaissance units, including combat operations in Desert Storm.  After 12 years as a Special Agent with the FBI, he now works advising government officials on the threat from the Islamic Movement.

(Centennial Fellow) In my article on "Afghanistan: The Untold Story" back in May, I noted President Obama’s oft-stated assertion that Afghanistan was the “right war”, the one we “had to win” and commended his decision to send an additional 17,000 troops.  I concluded optimistically saying that “In continuing along this necessary road of many difficult steps he deserves our strongest support”. In October with General McChrystal's call for 40,000 troops still stuck in the White House “In-Box”, public sniping at the general, the eruption of the Democrat’s left wing, the emergence of the “Biden Alternative”, endless meetings, spreading confusion, and “dithering” to the  nth power, I perceived a Viet Nam obsessed Democratic Party consumed by fear that once again an unpopular foreign war would doom their precious domestic agenda.  Accordingly I wrote (“Escaping Afghanistan: Democrats Hunt for Excuses”) that “Obama –true to form- will try to have it both way, splitting the difference between his military and political advisors” and thereby- like Lyndon Johnson before him – “ spawn a series of self-defeating half measures that will bring disaster upon himself, his party, and his country”.  Last week at West Point the President began that baleful journey of contradictions. Telling us that the 30,000 troops he was sending who wouldn’t be fully deployed for six months would start leaving twelve months after that was literally unbelievable and made a mockery of his assertion that the stakes in Afghanistan were of worldwide importance.  The near universal incredulity that greeted these remarks led to the subsequent parade of “clarifiers” –Gates, Clinton, McCrystal, Eikenberry etc- whose message was effectively “Obama didn’t mean what he said”. All of this created suspicion, uncertainty, and confusion in Europe, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States.  To our enemies it is yet further evidence that with a little  patience, and pressure this guy Obama can be had without serious risk to themselves. What is clear is that the Democratic Party badly-very badly- wants to be out of Afghanistan ASAP but doesn’t know how to say it or do it without committing political suicide.  Therefore they say and do things they don’t believe in, and hope their bad faith will go unnoticed. In the inner councils that led to all of this Obama’s heart was with his little known but long trusted political advisors Axlerod and Emanuel but his head told him he dare not face down his well known but little trusted senior Cabinet members Gates and Clinton who vigorously supported the analysis and requests of  Patraeus and McChrystal.  Reliable reportage portrays Obama as frustrated, unhappy with all presented options, furious over pressure building “leaks”, and feeling very trapped.  This goes far to explain the repeatedly postponed decision masquerading as “due diligence”. At the heart of all this confusion are two blatantly absurd and arrogant policy conceptions: 1.  Afghanistan is a deeply flawed and corrupt democracy unworthy of continued American support. While rampant government corruption and dicey elections are the exception in the U.S.A., they are the rule throughout most of Africa and Asia.  American troops are in Afghanistan for the same reason they turned up in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and other places – not to promote democracy or nation building, but rather to defend America’s vital national interests.  Throughout our history we have been quite properly willing to associate with some pretty unsavory characters (e.g. Joe Stalin) whenever doing so advanced those interests. 2.  If the Afghans and the Pakistanis don’t “step up” and more vigorously attack the enemy they are unworthy of continued American support. These two countries have had far more of their soldiers and policemen killed than has the U.S., not to mention the thousands of their civilians who have been blown up.  Whatever their political, religious, and historical imperfections it is repulsive to suggest that these people have no “skin in the game”.  Every one of their officials who publicly associates with Americans knows he has an excellent chance of having his head cut off soon after the U.S. heads for the exits.  That’s commitment. The United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are in partnership because it is in their current national interest.  Throughout History this is the stuff of which alliances are made.  This is called reality.  Unfortunately the present American regime is devoted to agendas quite apart from this reality.  This disconnect poses the gravest danger to our national security. William Moloney is a Centennial Institute Fellow and former Colorado Education Commissioner. His columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore sun, Rocky Mountain News, and the Denver Post.    

(CCU Student) The war in Afghanistan today has increasingly taken on more and more dimensions and complications. Our soldiers are fighting in a place that has for thousands of years been called the “graveyard of empires” and the media is now making it look like that will be our fate. Unfortunately, our military has been forced to fight in impossible terrain with little civilization or access to support. Now adding to the growing frustrations, the Obama administration has ordered a new set of rules of engagement that prevent our soldiers from doing their jobs. Talk to anybody that has been in a firefight and they will tell you that it is one of the most frightening and stressful situation known to man. Thanks to excellent training, however, our soldiers act in a professional and disciplined manner under fore and they get the jobs done quickly and efficiently even when the odds are not in their favor. But now our troops are forbidden to do their jobs because of a new set of rules that come directly from the White House. The new rules of engagement state that American forces are ordered to break contact when fired upon from an area that may contain civilians such as a compound, house, or village. When questioned about this, commander in Afghanistan GEN Stanley McChrystal stated that his measure of  our forces’ effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence” — not the number of militants killed. Our men are now ordered to try and get away from the fight if at all possible without putting our men at “unnecessary risk.”  Now as good as this plan sounds, there are many areas where both the administration and the brass are sadly mistaken. The Taliban and Al Qaeda forces we are facing today are not stupid; they have demonstrated numerous times that they are able to quickly learn our tactics and base their attacks on how we react. It will not take long before these fighters simply occupy all areas where the civilians hang out and they will safer than if they were in a cave. From these populated areas they will be able to launch attacks at US and NATO forces without fear of major retaliation. Because of this, our newly emboldened enemy will grow stronger as they retake Afghanistan and subjugate the population as they have already done in the border areas with Pakistan and in the province of Waziristan across the border. And while they do this, our men will have only the desert and the wilderness to defend. We will see increased US casualties in the near future if the Commander in Chief and the brass do not do away with these rules.  Our military has already invested greatly in preventing collateral damage and civilian deaths. We have invested billions precision munitions and non-lethal weapons so that the innocent do not have to die. Unfortunately, in war people die. We cannot expect to get through this war and emerge victoriously without inflicting some casualties on the population. Some civilians are going to die no matter what happens. The question is how many we will allow to die because of this war. If we allow the Taliban to retake control of the population, then the Afghanis will be faced with the oppression, and mass murder that comes with the Taliban. I believe that General MacArthur had it right when he said, “In war there is no substitute for victory,” and also, “It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” We would be wise to learn from these wise words and act on them before it is too late for our country and for the people of Afghanistan that look to us for freedom. Jacob DeLargy is a CCU freshman and Army ROTC cadet

Evidence continues to mount demonstrating how much better Democrats are at campaigning than governing.  Legislative chaos,  Gitmo waffling, missile defense implosion, metastasizing debt, and skeletons tumbling out of the closet (Van Jones, Acorn etc.) to name just a few items continue to enhance the Democrats’ reputation as the “Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight”- great at running for office, but terrible at running the government. The best- or we should say the worst- is yet to come however as the nation watches the bizarre unfolding of an Obama Afghanistan strategy with a high potential for disaster. Six months ago Obama with much fanfare informed the country that following an exhaustive review of the situation in Afghanistan- consultations with Congress, military experts, allies etc.- he had settled on a “new strategy” that would bring success to what he had long trumpeted as the “right war” or the “must win war”.  As further evidence of his ‘hands-on” decisiveness he fired the U.S. commander in Afghanistan and appointed his own commander- General Stanley McChrystal- and instructed him to look at everything and make recommendations about what he would need to deliver success. Now six months later Obama with much fanfare informed the country that he would conduct an exhaustive review of the situation in Afghanistan –consultations with Congress, military experts, allies etc. – and then he would announce a “new strategy” and what it would take to deliver success. This left people scratching their heads and wondering what happened to the old “new strategy” and what about the recommendations that General McChrystal had been asked to deliver. Well, that was then; this is now.  What happened between then and now is that when General McChrystal reported that success in the “must win” war would require thirty to forty thousand additional troops the left wing of the Democratic Party went bonkers. Up until now being “hawkish” on Afghanistan has been a “win-win” for the Democrats because it allowed them to flagellate George Bush over the “wrong war”- Iraq-while proclaiming their determination to win the “right war”. Now that it is “put up or shut up” time on Afghanistan the Democrats are desperately seeking excuses for rejecting the advice of their handpicked general and embracing the alternative strategy of Field Marshal Joe Biden. It isn’t easy to disguise a “cut and run “ strategy as the “Road to Victory” in the “must win” war, but the Democrats are hell-bent on putting “lipstick on the pig” any way they can. What follows are nominees from the “Best Excuses” Contest being run by the Democrats; they range from the patently disgraceful to the merely laughable.  The media has attributed most of them to “unnamed White House sources”. 1. General McChrystal being “just a soldier” doesn’t see the “Big Picture”    (unlike Rahm Emanuel and David Axlerod).2. Colin Powell agrees with Field Marshal Biden.3. This war has lasted longer than World War II.4. The Taliban isn’t the real enemy.  Its’ Al Qaeda and they’re mostly in Pakistan.5. Al Qaeda is also camped out in South Yemen.6. A “surge” wouldn’t work in Afghanistan.7. The Afghans are “drug dealers”.8. Iran will be more reasonable when U.S. forces have left Iraq and Afghanistan.9. Train the Afghan army, and they’ll win the war for us.10. We have discovered corruption, and even-gasp- election fraud in Afghanistan.  What a howler: guys from Chicago “shocked” by corruption and vote stealing!  Should we have called off World War II because Joe Stalin wasn’t democratically elected?11. The polls for Obama and Afghanistan are heading south.12. Best for last Dept: How can a Nobel peace Prize winner (go figure) escalate a  nasty old war?  Wouldn’t John Lennon want us to:  “Give Peace a Chance”?  What we are witnessing is the triumph of politics over the national interest thanks to a Democratic Party obsessed by the ghosts of Viet Nam- seeing false analogies everywhere- and terrified that Barack Obama could become another Lyndon Johnson. All of this has the making of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Obama- true to form- will try to have it both ways splitting the difference between his military and political advisors.  In doing so he will –like Lyndon Johnson before him- be too clever by half and spawn a series of self-defeating, half measures that will bring disaster upon himself, his party, and his country. William Moloney is a Centennial Institute Fellow and former Colorado Education Commissioner.  His columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post.      

Obama seems to be more concerned with fighting a war with Fox News, than pursuing the war on terror.  While our generals are asking for an increase in forces in Afghanistan, Obama dithers.  A century and a half ago the British Army in India marched into Afghanistan.  Realizing they did not have sufficient forces, they tried to withdraw their troops. Over the next few weeks, as they made their way back south through the Khyber pass, the army of nearly 16,000 military and support personnel  was annihilated.  Only one medical officer survived to tell the story.  Shortly thereafter, an Afghan poet celebrated his event by calling his country ‘the graveyard of empires.’  If the Obama administration can’t get serious in Afghanistan, we should bring the troops home and declare defeat. Of course this would allow our enemies to recoup and attack our country once again.  This would be a catastrophe with a nuclear Pakistan next door and Islamic Jihadis threatening that government daily. Instead our president has declared war on the only network independent of the government.  With a strategy similar to what Hugo Chavez is doing with any opposition in the Venezuelan media, the White House is refusing to allow any member of the administration to be interviewed on Fox.  Obama is willing to sit down with Chavez, but won’t sit down with Glenn Beck, nor allow his lackeys to do so. White House Communications director Anita Dunn told CNN Sunday, concerning Fox News, “we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”  I wonder if Ms. Dunn is behaving the way a White House Communications Director should behave, especially to the most popular news outlet in the United States.  If Obama is able to stop Fox, or succeed in intimidating them into compliance like the rest of the mainstream media, I worry for our republic.  When asked what kind of government he was trying to create, Benjamin Franklin responded, “a republic, if you can keep it.”  I am beginning to worry, whether we can keep that republic.