Asleep At The Switch, Again: Obama Malfeasance Gives Taliban Historic Win

September 28, 2015 – San Francisco, CA – – Under President Obama’s less than watchful eyes, the Taliban – which had been decimated by his predecessor – has just reasserted itself in a major way, seizing Kunduz city, Afghanistan as well as several surrounding villages in a move that is sending shock waves through the national security community.

Kunduz is the provincial capital of the northern province of Kunduz and one of the largest in Afghanistan.

The city had been under siege [though it has been threatened for more than a year] throughout the summer and somewhat of a stalemate was thought to have been established before resistance evaporated overnight. Mr. Obama had months to provide the supplies, personnel and logistics necessary to break the siege but did absolutely nothing.

It’s not as if it was a secret that Kunduz was on the verge of falling, even ex-State Department contractors were aware of the crisis, the following was penned in August by such a person, a “rule of law advisor” for the administration who had been stationed in Kunduz.

“Though over 7,000 miles away and safely back in the U.S., I can hear the cries from Kunduz. They are the desperate calls for help from the Afghan staff I left behind…Three years ago I was in Kunduz as part of a U.S. State Department-funded rule of law program. We employed a dozen Afghans as legal experts, translators, administrative staff and security officers…Even back then, my local staff complained of death threats, manifested in the forms of phone calls, text messages, and in-person warnings from insurgents who had observed them working with the Americans, the ‘infidels.’” [source, Jade Wu [fictional, name withheld for security reasons, The Cry From Kunduz, The Hill]

The fall of this major city poses great risk for the future of Afghanistan. Throughout his presidency Mr. Obama has ignored the conflict in the country which dragged the U.S. into two major Middle East wars due to it having served as the base for bin-Laden pre 9/11.

A year ago NATO forces [read the U.S. military] “handed” over the responsibility for security in the country to the Afghans, ignoring warnings from many sectors that even at the time of the transition security was deteriorating.

The following was written a year ago and published by the New York Times and its predictions have unfortunately proven prescient.

“The last time Afghans in the northern province of Kunduz felt so threatened by the Taliban was in 2009…Now the Taliban are back, but the cavalry will not be coming. With just two months left before the formal end of the 13-year international combat mission, Western officials insist that the Afghan security forces have managed to contain the Taliban’s offensives on their own. But the insurgents’ alarming gains in Kunduz in recent weeks present a different picture…” [source, Azam Ahmed, Taliban Are Rising Again In Northern Afghanistan]

It’s obvious that the administration sees what is transpiring in “pacified” Afghanistan and within dozens of other jihadist insurgencies around the globe, but is merely hoping to run out the clock. The calculus of letting the next administration deal with problems of his creation might be less than clever however as things are falling so quickly that Obama might be forced to act to at least forestall the inevitable collapse of the Afghan civil government.

When the Taliban again takes control there will be a bloodbath of disastrous proportions as those who “collaborated with the enemy” will face a level of vengeance that few outside the Middle East can even imagine.

If Obama refuses to fight in Afghanistan, all U.S. troops should immediately be withdrawn…his charade isn’t worth the expenditure of a single additional drop of American blood.

©2015 LLC. A ll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.