Michael's Dispatches

Mike, I have friends who just came back from Afghanistan. They have worked with ISAF. Outside of the brave Canadians, British, even the French (sometimes), the rest of the Coalition is worthless. Their countries don't allow them to engage in combat. Their politicians can't allow any injuries and fatalities. This exposes the rest of them to danger though a lack of support. I see this year as a very dangerous transition because we can't depend on our NATO "partners". I'm planning on deploying in the Spring of 10. I need to know who I can depend on and who I can't.

This is NOT going well and it has nothing to do with America. It has to do with the lack of courage from our Socialist European "allies".

It's amazing.

The not so big secret to anybody who is paying attention is that Europe is being taken over the the muslims. In two generations europe will be under sharia law. Read AMERICA ALONE by Mark Steyn. Do your own research and find out. They don't want to fight jihad boys overseas because they will be dealing with them at home and they are cowards.

Michael: You need no praise from me to know you are a great asset to your country not just for your wonderful reporting but as an example to all of us of a person who is devoted to his craft, remains modest and dedicated. However, as in Iraq so in Afghanistan: we do not have a policy. Not possible to measure defeat and victory in conventional terms. We are simply bogged down. We fought in Vietnam for ten years and lost the war. The Vietnamese are our friends and the defeat has been at home. We went to A. to get bin Laden which we failed to accomplish. The real problem is not A. which is not now and will not be in 20 years a country. Pakistan and India are the problem and fighting in A. is not going to accomplish anything we want. We have taken a wad of Arab money in the bank meltdown and we need to take more wads to dry up their support for the conspiracies that threaten many, incliuding us. If we need to fight, it is probably in Pakistan which is dissolving a little more rapidly than its normal rate of decline. Saudi money and Chinese narrow-mindedness gave them the bomb which will probably destroy the Indius Valley in time. Can we stop this? Not by wasting our brave youth, allies and treasure in A. We should seize the opium crop, sell it and distribute the funds to tribal groups willing to put down their guns or turn them on Arabs. This is a shorthand statement of a policy view. There is no substitute for policy. We did not have one in Vietnam, we did not have one in Gulf1 or 2. We are doing a very good job of destroying our wealth and power.

Sad to say, Michael, but I fear that Pres**ent ( no id ) Soetoro/Obama will use the Afghan/Pak conflagration to fully destroy our Republic, and take us deeper into the mire of a feudal dictatorship. With the help of the Maggots in the MSM and their sycophants in the bureaucracy we have now installed the seed of our own destruction which will be fertilized by the blood of our valiant Troops overseas and the treasure of the Serfs in the Western World. Like our Cloward/Piven-trained lawyers and legislators, the Islamist jihadists in our midst are using our own laws and mor??s against us. They may be barbaric, but they aren't stupid - hell we trained most of them.

I fear that someday your conflagration reporting will be coming from the Fly-Over Country of our great land. Stay strong and safe; know that our prayers are with you and your friends.

I haven't posted or sent cash in a while, but a check is in the mail to help your finances.

Regarding the 'torture' kerfluffle, I think you caught a lot of us by surprise because BHO's rhetoric on the subject was the same as GWB's. You made it sound like BHO was saying something new, which he was not. That said, I learned a lot from you regarding Abu Grahib incidents and how they negatively impacted the original occupation efforts. If you are saying that Obama's message was well received by the swayable Muslim moderates, and I think that is your underlying point, then I believe you.

I'm trusting you - and only a couple of others - to keep me honestly informed of the events on the ground. I pray you are wrong about the 2009 casualties.

Michael: Your efforts are greatly admired and appreciated. What does Petraeus want to do and what does he see as a reasonable, achievable goal? His views certainly deserve great weight given his record. Exactly why was his policy view rejected,as intimated by Klein? Has anyone interviewed him in a while? I would like to see an in- depth interview of him concerning these questions by you or Austin Bay- or both- and I certainly hope the administration isn't ordering up policy reviews until they get one that fits what they may like to do politically.

I value and respect your work as a journalist and love what you are doing. What a refreshing thing to find professional journalism alive and well.

I wanted to make the point that Canada has been in from the beginning in the Afghanistan fight and has been doing a fair share of the heavy lifting for some time. The Canadian Army was stripped down and essentially destroyed after the ƒ??peace dividendƒ? of the late 90ƒ??s. Since then the Army has been in a desperate struggle to modernize, grow in size, and fight a war. The Army needs time to regroup, grow and evolve. It is a shame and an embarrassment, but it is both needed and prudent to do so.

Look for Canada to remain with our Special Forces and reconstruction teams. It is a shame but please do not condemn our soldiers or their effort. This falls on the voters and the politicians who gutted the Army and then sent it into battle.

I'm not happy that Canada is planning to pull out at least temporarily by 2011, but I wouldn't call it wobbling.

We've already taken more casualties than any coalition countries but the U.K and U.S.A by far, including Iraq - and we're one of the smaller pop. countries in the coalition. It seems like people don't have the appetite to lose far and away more proportionally than everyone but the U.S and U.K. in a seemingly indefinite war. What worries me about is that it seems to be at least partly our influence in saying we need more support from NATO that got 700 more French fighting, and the Dutch have also been one of the 5 or so worthwile coalition partners and I think it has to do with them seeing it as a parallel on their part for Afghanis to World War II, when it was Canadian troops who liberated Holland.

So when Canada draws down, do the other countries say 'we need to step in now' or does it leave America and the U.K. alone?