One More Vietnam War: Afghanistan Is Becoming A Cemetery For Both The Allied Troops And The Afghani People.

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has recommended an increase of 40,000 troops as the minimum necessary to prevail, two sources familiar with his recommendations said on Thursday.

To begin, let us have a brief history of Afghanistan: The story of Afghanistan is in so many ways a very tragic one. Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished nations of the world. It is one of the most war-torn, most ravaged, and most beleaguered of nations. It is a nation that has been beset by invasion, external pressure and internal upheaval since before the time of Alexander the Great.

Afghanistan people are a people who have endured more than most of us can ever imagine. In fact, for many Afghanis, all that has changed in the last one thousand years are the weapons which have been used against so many of them.

First of all, who are the Afghanis? Afghanistan has historically been the link between Central Asia, the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent. It is therefore a nation made up of many different nationalities – the result of innumerable invasions and migrations. Within its current borders there are at least a dozen major ethnic groups – Baluch, Chahar Aimak, Turkmen, Hazara, htunPas, Tajik, Uzbek, Nuristani, Arab, Kirghiz, Pashai and Persian.

Within the country there are tiny Hindu, Sikh and Jewish communities, but the vast majority of this people are Muslims – and in fact many ethnic groups consider Islam to be one of the defining aspects of their ethnic identity. This is true of the Pashtun for example. Islam was brought to Afghanistan during the eight and ninth century by the Arabs. Prior to that the nation had been ruled by various Persian, Greek, Sassasian and Central Asian empires.

Following a subsequent break down in Arab rule, semi-independent states began to form. These local dynasties and states however were overwhelmed and crushed during the Mongolian invasions of the 1200s – conquerors who were to remain in control of part or all of the country until the 1500s, despite much resistance and internal strife.

Following the collapse of Mongol rule, Afghanistan found itself in a situation much like what has continued into modern times – caught between the vice of two great powers.

In the past, any country, regardless of its resources, whose location is strategic, always suffered being in such vice. For example: Egypt was invaded by many foreign nations such as the hyxos, the Hettites, the Greek, the Roman, the Persian, the Arabs, the British, the turks, the French. Afghanistan was a very important link betwee the Middle East and the Far East.

In 1747 that Afghanistan was able to free itself. This was the year that Nadir Shah, an empire builder from Iran, died and left a vacuum in central Asia that a former Afghan bodyguard, named Ahmed Shah, was able to fill. Ahmad was a Pashtun, and his Pashtun clan was to rule Afghanistan, in one form or another, for the next 200 years. Ahmad was able to unify the different Afghan tribes, and went on to conquer considerable parts of what are today eastern Iran, Pakistan, northern India and Uzbekistan. His successors though proved unable to hold his vast empire together, and within 50 years much of it had been seized by rival regional powers.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION (RUSSIA AND BRITAIN)

Beginning in the 1800s Afghanistan’s internal affairs became dramatically aggravated by the increasing intervention by two new imperialist powers – the British Empire and Czarist Russia. The British were expanding and consolidating their colonial holdings on the India sub-continent, and were looking at the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan as a natural barrier to prevent invasion by rival imperialists. The Russians, for their part, were expanding south and east, swallowing up several formerly independent sultanates and emirates in Central Asia. The two great powers essentially engaged in a race for Afghanistan, and their fiendish seizures of land, overthrow of indigenous nations and reckless interference into the affairs of the remaining independent states in the region became known as “the Great Game.”

In ancient times, empires used to behave in the same way. For example, ancient Egypt had to wage compaign in the south to secure its southern borders, in the East and the West for the same reasons. They subdued nations and forged treaties with them. The differenc, though, is they did not physicall stay in the subdued countries, which is contrary to the British colonization.

IMPERIALISM DOES WHAT IMPERIALITS DO

Imperialists often give such trivial, and even humorous, sounding names to their interventionist schemes, but let us not be fooled into thinking that the peoples of the region experienced the consequences of these actions in a manner that they in any way would have interpreted as a game. For them the consequences were devastating. The arrival of European imperialism into the region simply accelerated, and made more devastating, the wars, poverty and material destruction that had already wracked the region.

During this time, on two separate occasions, British armies from India outright invaded Afghanistan in attempts to install puppet governments to British economic interests, and that would oppose the rconomic interest of the Czarist Russia.

Imperialistic countries are well-known for installing such puppet s to serve their interest.

HATEFUL COLONIALISM; NOBODY HATES IT BETTER THAN THE AFGHANIS

The first, which became known as the First Anglo-Afghan War, took place in 1838. Outraged by the presence of a single Russian diplomat in Kabul, the British demanded that Afghanistan shun any contact with Russia or Iran, and that it hands over vast tracts of Pashtun inhabited land to British India (regions that are today party of Pakistan). Dost Mohammad, the Afghan ruler, agreed to these humiliating demands, but the British still invaded the country. The British seized most of the major cities in Afghanistan with little resistance, but their heavy handed rule soon resulted in a popular uprising by the people which resulted in the massacre of the entire British army of 15,000, save one.

The arrogant British had it premeditated. History repeats itself as the same happened regarding the American occupation of Iraq under false pretences.

THE BRITISH DID THIS EVERY WHERE WHENEVER THEY HAD TO LEAVE

British outrage over the uninvited arrival of a Russian diplomatic envoy in Kabul in 1878 resulted in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. Again the British were able to occupy all of the major cities, but unlike the last time, the British got wind of an impending rebellion against their occupation, and brutally crushed it in a pre-emptive move. They did subsequently withdraw, but not before they set up a puppet ruler and forced the country to hand over control of its foreign affairs to Britain.

As I mentioned before, puppets and traitors are easy for imperialistic countries to pull their strings. They did this everywhere they went.

POLITICS AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS

Afghanistan would remain a British protectorate until 1919. Then, following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the wave of popular rebellions that rippled through Asia subsequently, the then king of Afghanistan, Amanullah, declared his country’s full independence by singing a treaty of aid and friendship with Lenin, and declaring war on Britain. After a brief period of border skirmishes, and the bombing of Kabul by the Royal Air Force, Britain conceded Afghanistan’s independence. Stung by this turn of events though, Britain conspired with conservative religious and land owning elements with the country who were unhappy with Amanullah’s attempts to secularize and reform the country. The outbreak of an uprising and civil war forced him to abdicate in 1929. Different warlords contended for power until a new king, Muhammad Nadir Shah took power. He was assassinated four years later by the son of a state execution victim, and was succeeded by Muhammad Zahir Shah, who was to be Afghanistan’s last king, and who would rule for the next 40 years.

In human history, I have noticed that countries that suffered the yoke of imperialsim and shook it off, let themselves fall into the trap of another opposing powers by allying themselves to them. Instead of striving to become self-reliant nation, they carry the yoke of new unfair treaties. The same thing happened in Egypt after the 1952 revolution (the USSR and the USA)

SOUND FAMILIAR: IN THE GUISE OF MODERNIZATION

Zahir Shah ’s rule, like the kings before him, was one of almost total autocratic power. The word of the king was the word of law. And while advisory councils and assemblies were sometimes called to advise the king, these bodies had no power, and in no way represented the people of Afghanistan. These bodies were made up of the country’s tribal elders – a nice sounding term that in reality referred to the brutal land owners and patriarchs. And while some history books refer to this time of Afghanistan’s history as one where attempts were made to “modernize” the country – all this really meant was newer rifles for the army, the purchase a few airplanes for a token air force, the creation of a tiny airline to shuttle the ruling elite around, and some telegraph wires to allow the king to collect this taxes more promptly. Under his rule political parties were outlawed, and students were shot and killed when they protested.

The same thing happened in Egypt after 1952 revolution. Though the country was run by an elected president and people were represented in the People Assembly, Egypt was an autocratic regime; fake freedom, oppositions visited at dawn and taken to prison under false pretences. Example: the hanging of an innocent man; a profound thinker who wished nothing but good to the country, but his wish did not suit the ruling body's secularist agenda. Sayyed Qutb was hanged by the neck until death at dawn.

In 1973, the king was overthrown and a republic was declared. But this in reality represented very little. For the king had simply been overthrown by a prominent member of his own family, Daoud, who decided to title himself president instead of king.

Lable change like instead of Egypt or Misre, "The United Arab Repuic, and later the Arab Republic of Egypt". And of course with all the necessary things like changing the flag to carry a hawk instead of an eagle, WOW!

OLD PAL RUSSIA STILL HAS LOYALTIES

Under Daoud, a certain liberalization took place, meaning that some of the most draconian realities of the monarchy rolled back, but by and large, whatever hopes and expectations arose among the people – little was done to satisfy them. Daoud had seized power with the help of an underground party named the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan – a pro-Moscow communist party. The PDPA had aided and collaborated with Daoud in exchange for government posts. Once he had consolidated power though and felt he no longer needed these controversial allies, he ditched them, and ordered a crack down upon the party.

I am wondering why the flag green colour is more dominant though Afganistan is a mountainry country. Is this a supleminal message. Same action has been and is still committed by the ruling party in Egypt. They crack doen on any opposition.

LIBERALISM VS CONSERVATISM

In 1978, the PDPA seized power from Daoud in a military coup. After seizing power they began a series of limited reforms, such as declaring, more or less, a secular state, and that women were deserving of equal treatment of men. They sought to curtail the practice of purchasing brides, and tried to implement a land reform program. They quickly met with fierce opposition from many sections of the deeply religious population though. The PDPA’s response to this was very heavy-handed, aggravating the situation. Soon several rural areas rose in open armed rebellion against the new government. At the same time, the party’s long history of factionalism came to a bloody head as the more radical wing of the party sought to wipe out the more moderate leaning wing.

Well, what goes around, comes around. But one has to admitt that both liberalism and conservatism have their advantages and disadvantages. Both have to work together and compromise for the best that suit the people.

RUSSIAN FEAR AND SELF-INTEREST

Immediately following the PDPA coup, the Soviet Union took an active interest in the so-called socialist revolution unfolding in its backyard. Dismayed by the clumsiness of the radical faction of the PDPA, the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 and handed power over to a man named Karmal, who was the leader of the more moderate faction of the PDPA.

RUSSIAN ACT LIKE AMERICANS OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?

Though perhaps this was not the Soviets original intent, once inside Afghanistan, they found themselves forced to commit more and more troops and material to prop up the unpopular PDPA government. Several Islamic fundamentalist groups sprang up and began waging guerilla warfare, many of them operating from camps set up by the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence within Pakistan, from which they could strike into Afghanistan, and then beat a hasty retreat over a guarded border.

Different piles, but the same stinky stuff: Invaders always do the same thing...more KILL, KILL, KILL. But for every action there is an equal reaction. So KILL, KILL will be met by RESIST, RESIST. No people anywhere like to be invaded. No nation anywhere like to be controlled and/or told how and what to do at the point of a gun. And this is what is happening now in Afghanistan. The US and its allied troops invaded the country under false pretences, and to down-tone their atrocities, they said that all that they wanted was the country be modernized and democratic. WOW!

For its part, the United States government initially paid little attention to the PDPA coup in Afghanistan; its attention was instead focused to the west, where a popular revolution has overthrown their most valuable Middle East ally, the brutal and autocratic Shah of Iran. This changed of course once the Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan.

The Shah did not only lack morals, but he was also an agent to his masters in the USA. No wonder, no country, including the USA refused to have him burried in their land, except for Egypt. WOW, birds of a feather flock together even in death.

AMERICA MISSING AROUND AS USUAL

At that point the United States took an active interest in the Islamic fundamentalists waging war on the PDPA and the Soviets. The CIA began providing military training to the Mujahadeen – the name the Islamic guerillas came to be called. They provided what in the end amounted to billions of dollars worth of weapons, including sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles that allowed the guerillas to take out modern Soviet tanks and jet planes. An offensive after offensive, year after year, gradually the Soviet military became discouraged. They were able to occupy and hold all of the major cities, just as the British imperialists had been able to the century before, but they were unable to subjugate the countryside. Soviet causalities began to mount dramatically, and with the CIA’s providing the Mujahadeen with Stinger missiles, even their control of the air was becoming a costly affair. At the same time the CIA kept increasing and updating the Mujahadeen’s supply of weaponry, the Saudis and Persian Gulf Emirates contributed billions of dollars to their coffers, and thousands of Arabs responded to the Mujahadeen’s call for jihad, or holy war, against the secular Soviets – including the wealthy Saudi playboy, Osama bin Laden – who quickly became one of the CIA’s most important operatives in its proxy war against communism.

To any imperialistic power the end always justifies the means, including warring by proxy. But here comes the misunderstanding about Bin Laden. He accepted the American military aides allright, ...Why not?... but he was not an agent to the USA. He had his own agenda which is fighting the imperialistic American influence in the Middle East, particularily in his own country; Saudi Arabia, and the American blind support to the Zionist state of Israel.

In 1989 the Soviets withdrew, leaving the PDPA government to fend for itself. The CIA soon lost interest in its mercenary forces now that they had accomplished their mission of bleeding the Soviets white. The misc. Mujahadeen factions began fighting as much with themselves as with the PDPA forces, resulting in increased suffering and bloodshed. It wasn’t until 1992 that Mujahadeen fighters were able to topple the remnants of the PDPA government – ending the Stalinists attempts to bring revolution to the people of Afghanistan at the point of a gun.

Well, mission accomplished. Why would they care about the postwar chaeos. Som idiots might say, well...the American helped those people fight their enemy...and now they should take care of themselves, ignoring the fact that they were also enemy to America as well. Hence, still  postwar people need more help. And this was their opportunity to diplomatically approach the rulers of the country and say, hey...guys, we fought the enemy together. Let us talk now about some social reforms., etc.

The States could not do that because of  its guilty conscious, their iniciative won't fit into the overall plan of the Zionist elite which is controlling the government, or may be because they are short-sighted, or just selfish stupid SOB. I personally prefer the latter.

Back TO LITTLE-KINGDOMS ANCIENT TIMES

Different Mujahadeen warlords occupied different cities and regions of the country. Burhanuddin Rabbani, the same Northern Alliance warlord who recently took Kabul from the Taliban, was the warlord who ruled over the city from 1992 until his ouster in 1996. During his reign over 60,000 people were murdered. Current Northern Alliance warlord Rashid Dostum who is in control of the city of Mazar –E – Sharif, also ruled over it from 1992 until his ouster in 1997.

This is the chaeos I am talking about which the Americans left behind without tying the loose ends. An Opportunity, they missed.

The warlord Ismail Khan again rules the city of Heart, which he also ruled from 1992 to 1995; and warlord Yunis Khalis is back in control of Jalabad, which he ruled from 1992 to 1996. The collapse of the PDPA government did not mark the end of Afghanistan’s civil war.

While the CIA, after having done such a fine job of instigating unrest and warfare in the 1980s, could care less about the aftermath, Pakistani Intelligence forces maintained their interest. Seeking to end the civil war which threatened the stability of their own country , Pakistani Intelligence aided in the creation of a new Islamic fundamentalist movement, the Taliban.

THE TALIBAN: GOOD INTENTION, THEN WHAT?

The Taliban was born in the Islamic schools that had sprung up inside the Afghan refugee camps inside Pakistan. Its leadership and the bulk of its initial ranks, were made up of young religious students, primarily Pashtuns, motivated by the zeal of religion and the belief that they were ordained to bring stability and the ways of Allah back to their war torn land. They railed against the corruption, greed and factionalism of the contending Mujahadeen factions inside Afghanistan, and when they mounted a military push to conquer the country, they were initially well received by certain sections of the weary population. Their ranks were filled by rank and file Mujahadeen fighters and young idealists from inside the country, and city-by-city they were able to occupy most of the country.

In 1996 they captured the capital city of Kabul, and had forced most of the remaining warlords into a small pocket in the far north of the country. These warlords subsequently formed a defensive alliance termed the Northern Alliance. By the time of the start of the current war, Taliban offensives had reduced their enclave to a mere 10% of the country.

So contrary to all the American propagand against the Taliban, they were people with good intention: to bring stability and the ways of Allah back to their war torn land, and railed against the corruption, greed and factionalism of the contending Mujahadeen factions inside Afghanistan. Moreoever they were welcome by their own people. That is all good. Why then the bad reputation?

ISLAMIC VERSION NOT OF ISLAM

Once in power the Taliban sought to create a theocratic state based on their interpretations of the Koran. Though already severely repressed by the various Mujahadeen warlords, the plight of Afghanistan’s women was made even worse under the new regime. The veil became the law of the land, and women were forbidden from attending school or holding employment outside of the home. Television was banned and an effort was made to purge the country of any signs or remnants of secular or Western influence. The country became politically and diplomatically isolated.

This has always been the case; the extreme end of the stick. Either the door is widely open as in the West which is not totally correct...look at all the corruption, degenarate behaviours, and sex life styles, etc...or  the door is totally closed as in the case of Afghanistan although Islam in fact is a lenient religion and doesn't call for women to be maltreated or be uneducated. Ayesha, the prophet's wife used to lecture the Muslims after the death of her husband, and a great number of correct (hadiths/ sayings of the prophet)  have been traced back to her which had a great impact on the Sunnis' interpretation and juresprudance. Why not be a nation in the middle as stated in the Qur'an. Why not leave the door half-open or yet ajar. Applying veil the way the taliban did is not of Islam, Such a tent encompassing the female body is of culture, customs,   traditions and norms. And depriving women from education is like sufocating one half of the society.

Then came the current war. Following the September 11 World Trade Center bombings, the United States accused Osama Bin Laden of the crime. Bin Laden, who had left Afghanistan following the defeat of the Soviets, had returned after falling out of favor in Saudi Arabia, and being pressured to leave his first nation of refuge, the Sudan.

The U.S. government demanded that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. The Taliban’s response was to demand proof of Bin Laden’s guilt, and after receiving none, they refused to hand him over.

On one hand, Osama Bin Laden doesn't have and never had the means to carry out such a sophisticated operation like 9/11. He's the victim of a Zionist plotting, and the Taiban were within their right not to hand him over to the US. A man is innocent until proven guilty, and the US till today failed to pvide the proof for his guilt. According to the CIA profile, he was the excellent candidate to blame.

On the other hand, there has never been such a thing called Al-Qaeda. the word is an Arabic noun derived from ' Qaedat Al-Ma'lumaat', meaning in English 'Database'. I guess the word 'base' was sugesstive enough to the CIA people, therefor they adopted it to serve their agenda. Moreover, the way in which 9/11 occured, and all the circumestances that enshrouded 9/11  indicate, with no doubt in my heart, that it was an inside job premeditated by global Zionism; Israeli MOSSAD in particular.

AMERICA IS MISSING AROUND AGAIN

Within a few weeks the United States began bombing the impoverished country, as well as providing active support to the Northern Alliance warlords. Following weeks of devastating bombing, and several failed offensives, the Northern Alliance succeeded in breaking out of its northern enclave, seizing the city of Mazar – E – Sharif, and then moving on to take Kabul. This set in motion a series of defeats for the Taliban, which began surrendering and abandoning almost every major city in the country, and retreating into the mountains. The U.S. meanwhile has continued its bombing campaign, and now has Marines on the ground hunting for Bin Laden. All the while the people of Afghanistan continue to suffer.

The United Nations, hardly a radical source of information, has estimated that up to 8 million Afghanis may starve due to a shortage of food, made all the more severe by the intentional U.S. disruption of humanitarian aid, and bombing of Red Cross and other humanitarian aid facilities inside the country. Thousands, have been killed by U.S. bombs, and many more are doomed to death as the Northern Alliance and Taliban warlords fight it out. Hundreds of thousands of land mines and unexploded cluster bombs lay scattered across the nation’s landscape. And there is no end in sight to the misery.

It’s hard to say how much longer the Taliban will continue to fight, or when the U.S. will end its war. Afghanistan’s future, like its past, looks very dark indeed.

Innocent civilians are always the victims in situations like this. The people who firmly believe they are defending their country, as they believed when they fought the Russian will not give up. And the US reaction is the same stupid reaction the Russian had...more troops and moore killing. Ya, we're American, not Russian...we're the tough cowboys...boom, boom...bam, bam..

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION FOR AFGHANISTAN?

What will end the suffering of its people? The most immediate thing would be for the United States government to end its bombing, withdraw its troops, and respect the Afghan peoples right to self-determination. And while this alone would not end all of the bloodshed and the fighting, it would create a situation where the workers and farmers of Afghanistan would be more able to cast off the warlords and petty feudal tyrants, take control of their destinies, and create a society that is based upon cooperation and solidarity. Towards that end let us redouble our efforts to stop the U.S. bombing, to stop the U.S. war on the people of Afghanistan.

General Stanley McChrystal also gave President Barack Obama an option of sending more than 40,000 troops, the sources said, which could be politically risky given deep doubts among Obama's fellow Democrats about the eight-year-old war.

One of the sources, both of whom spoke on condition that they not be identified because of the sensitivity of talking about recommendations to the president, said McChrystal also gave a third high-risk option of sending no more troops.

The sources spoke as a heated debate played out in Washington over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to try to put down the Taliban insurgency or to scale back the U.S. mission and focus on striking al Qaeda cells. There are now more than 100,000 Western troops serving in Afghanistan, of whom 65,000 are U.S. troops. The number of U.S. troops already is due to increase to 68,000 later this year.

As Obama deliberates about the U.S. future in Afghanistan -- an issue expected to define his presidency at home and abroad -- the country is facing the worst violence of the war, as Taliban insurgents have extended fighting to previously secure areas, including Kabul, where attacks were once rare.

On Thursday, 17 people died and 76 were wounded in the Afghan capital's center when a large bomb exploded outside the Indian Embassy. The attack was the latest in a series on diplomatic and government buildings in Kabul.

"Under the current security threat, I think it would be reasonable to say that 40,000 troops will be needed. That would be the minimum required," Said Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States, told Reuters, urging the U.S. public to support sending more troops.

Obama's national security team is increasingly focused on the idea that the main threat facing the United States is al Qaeda, which is primarily based in Pakistan, an Obama administration official said.

Wake up Obama and withdrow your troops from the country. It is farse, a sham, a charade, and you know it. Stop listening to the old goats who are surrounding you. They are not serving you, but a higher source, and you're guilty by association. So please stop pretending. At they had had enough of you, you might be ousted, scandalized or assasinated. It happened before, and you know it.

The war began in 2001 when a U.S.-led invasion drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. The Taliban had given a safe haven in Afghanistan to al Qaeda, which carried out the September 11 attacks on the United States.

"The Taliban is an indigenous movement located in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So there are elements of the Taliban that have been allied with al Qaeda and we will seek out and kill them," said the official, who asked not to be named. "But the Taliban is not a homogenous organization. There are also elements of the Taliban that are home-grown political actors with local ambitions and local concerns. We do not dispute that many of them are violent adversaries. We would not tolerate their return to power as they were before 9/11 but this distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban is a critical one," the official said.

Who in hell gave this stupid official the right to decide who would return to power and who wouldn't? It is up to the people of Afghanistan to decide, not you, moron.

WAIT-AND-SEE FOR ALLIES

A senior U.S. defense official acknowledged the U.S. debate had left European governments in a wait-and-see position as they decide whether to vote for additional resources for Afghanistan. "And I think that in the meantime they have their own domestic issues and in each individual country, those countries that have suffered high casualties will have to deal with some who are arguing the cost of this war isn't worth it," said Alexander Vershbow, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. While generally there was a determination among allies to stay the course in Afghanistan and contribute troops, Vershbow said, "The capacity of allies to increase substantially is limited."

Obama spoke to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Thursday on issues including the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Obama has been criticized as being too cautious and lacking resolve, as he reviews his administration's six-month-old Afghan strategy. He received the request for more troops from U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates a week ago and has held a series of strategy reviews as he determines how to proceed. Several lawmakers leaving a briefing with national security adviser Jim Jones said Jones indicated McChrystal would give a presentation to Obama on Friday.

Aides insist Obama is acting pragmatically, and say his consensus-building is the antidote to the style of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, who was criticized for making major policy decisions based on limited or faulty information and then refusing to change course.

"He's making good progress. ... He's asking the appropriate questions, he's getting the information and he is working with his national security team," Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, told Reuters.

Ya, he is making progress and asking the right question.

Right as per whose definition. 

And asking whom the right question? Asking You, moron, and your

criminal, Zionists?!!!