As the Revenge Killings in Afghanistan Commence

The tragic reports coming out of Kabul, Afghanistan, are only harbingers of the Pol Pot-style massacres of those Afghan nationals who assisted the military forces and civilian officials of the United States of America in the past twenty years that will be carried out by the Taliban, who have now completed their inevitable return to power in a nation whose people were able to expel the forces Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the height of its military adventurism under Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev.

As one who has been completely consistent in his absolute opposition to the neoconservative Americanist military intervention in Afghanistan from the time that the ignoramus who served in the White House from January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009, George Walker Bush, the man who made possible the rise of the nefarious elitist and Marxist trained Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, began to drop bombs on Afghanistan on Sunday, October 7, 2001, and then sent American forces into the country to begin a period of needless and immoral sacrifice of American lives and taxpayer dollars, I take no pleasure in reading the reports of what is happening now.

While it is beyond question that Dubya’s Folly was going to end with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan, it is also beyond question that the current ignoramus, mentally challenged, criminally corrupt, morally bankrupt, completely owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party, and soulless career politician who has sold himself out to the most radical elements of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite statist named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., failed to have a plan in place to evacuate American civilians and key Afghan allies who are now in harm’s way and thus at the “mercy” of the merciless Taliban because they are seen as traitors to their country. Biden trusted in the assessments made by the same intelligence community that kept feeding phony information to members of the media about the fantasy known as the “Russian collusion,” and Biden and his national security team of globalist buffoons also trusted the “good intentions” of the Taliban just as much as the late United States Senator George S. McGovern’s proposed defense budget that he floated during his epically landslide loss to then President Richard Milhous Nixon that was based on the “good intentions” of the Soviet Union. (I read that proposed budget cover-to-cover when taking a course on intelligence during my year of graduate studies at the University of Notre Dame in 1973.)

Each of the past three American administrations have overestimated the capabilities of the Afghan military as they fed the corruption of Afghanistan’s ruling class in the past twenty years with bags and bags filled with American cash in an effort to engineer that which was impossible to accomplish: the transformation of a Mohammedan nation in a mirror image of the American “experiment” in “pluralism” that, quite by the way, is not exactly working too well in the United States of America right now precisely because we are only witnessing the manifestation of the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of its founding principles.

Consider what I wrote about then Afghan President Hamid Karzai on October 28, 2010:

Bag man in a karakul hat (a hat made out of the fur of aborted lamb fetuses!).

That's all that the thoroughly corrupt President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, likes the high life. So much that he has spoken publicly now of taking bags and bags and bags filled with cash from almost anyone and everyone, including his American sponsors and from the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, of course, is not especially friendly to the interests of the United States of American and the presence of its combat forces in Mohammedan nations. Ahmadinejad has supported insurgent forces in Iraq and in Pakistan and Afghanistan. What does this mean to Hamid Karzai? Nothing. He is nothing other than an old-fashioned Mohammedan rug merchant who sells the same rug to different people without ever giving them the product. He is nothing other than a big man in a "chic" karakul hat.

The terrorist attacks that took place on the soil of the United States of America on September 11, 2001, provided the neoconservative war hawks in the administration of then President George Walker Bush the excuse that they needed to engage in a massive exercise of Americanist social engineering and Wilsonian nation-building with the blood of American service personnel as they were prepared to—and did in fact—help to mortgage the future fiscal stability of the government of the United States of America (that has been further undermined by the Keynesian, statist policies of the man who is, at the very least, the son of a Kenyan, Barack Hussein Obama). A new breed of Mohammedan thugs and bag men in Iraq and Afghanistan were empowered to bleed the American taxpayers dry as they lived high on the hog and as their countries continued to be awash in fratricidal warfare. Bag men never care about others. They care only about themselves.

Consider this article, written by one who clearly supports the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, that nevertheless just eviscerates the bag man in a karakul hat named Hamid Karzai, who happened to have had the hat, once all the rage in Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, designed for him to wear following his ascent to power after the American invasion of the country (see Hamid Karzai's Famous Hat):

'They do give us bags of money—yes, yes, it is done, we are grateful to the Iranians for this." This is the East, and baksheesh is the way of the world, Hamid Karzai brazenly let it be known this week. The big aid that maintains his regime, and keeps his country together, comes from the democracies. It is much cheaper for the Iranians. They are of the neighborhood, they know the ways of the bazaar.

The remarkable thing about Mr. Karzai has been his perverse honesty. This is not a Third World client who has given us sweet talk about democracy coming to the Hindu Kush. He has been brazen to the point of vulgarity. We are there, but on his and his family's terms. Bags of cash, the reports tell us, are hauled out of Kabul to Dubai; there are eight flights a day. We distrust the man. He reciprocates that distrust, and then some. Our deliberations leak, we threaten and bully him, only to give in to him. And this only increases his lack of regard for American tutelage. We are now there to cut a deal—the terms of our own departure from Afghanistan.

The idealism has drained out of this project. Say what you will about the Iraq war—and there was disappointment and heartbreak aplenty—there always ran through that war the promise of a decent outcome: deliverance for the Kurds, an Iraqi democratic example in the heart of a despotic Arab world, the promise of a decent Shiite alternative in the holy city of Najaf that would compete with the influence of Qom. No such nobility, no such illusions now attend our war in Afghanistan. By latest cruel count, more than 1,300 American service members have fallen in Afghanistan. For these sacrifices, Mr. Karzai shows little, if any, regard.

In his latest outburst, Mr. Karzai said the private security companies that guard the embassies and the development and aid organizations are killer squads, on a par with the Taliban. "The money dealing with the private security companies starts in the hallways of the U.S. government. Then they send the money for killing here," Mr Karzai said. It is fully understood that Mr. Karzai and his clan want the business of the contractors for themselves.

The brutal facts about Afghanistan are these: It is a broken country, a land of banditry, of a war of all against all, and of the need to get what can be gotten from the strangers. There is no love for the infidels who have come into the land, and no patience for their sermons.

In its wanderings through the Third World, from Korea and Vietnam to Iran and Egypt, it was America's fate to ride with all sorts of clients. We betrayed some of them, and they betrayed us in return. They passed off their phobias and privileges as lofty causes worthy of our blood and treasure. They snookered us at times, but there was always the pretense of a common purpose. The thing about Mr. Karzai is his sharp break with this history. It is the ways of the Afghan mountaineers that he wishes to teach us.

When they came to power, the Obama people insisted they would teach Mr. Karzai new rules. There was a new man at the helm in Washington, and there would be no favored treatment, no intimacy with the new steward of American power. Governance would have to improve, and skeptical policy makers would now hold him accountable (Vice President Joe Biden, Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, et al.). Mr. Karzai took their measure, and everywhere around him there were signs of American retreat, such as the spectacle of the Pax Americana eager to reach a grand bargain with the Iranian theocrats.

Mr. Karzai didn't need to be a grand strategist. He had, as is necessary in his world of treachery and betrayal, his ear to the ground, his scent for the irresolution of the Obama administration. He saw the scorn of Iran's cruel leaders for America's diplomatic approaches. He could see Iranian power extend all the way to the Mediterranean, right up to Israel's borders with Lebanon and to Gaza. The Iranians were next door and the Americans were giving away their fatigue. Why not accept the entreaties from Tehran?

A year ago, the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, laid out the truth about Mr. Karzai and his regime in a secret cable that of course made its way into the public domain. "President Karzai is not an adequate strategic partner," Mr. Eikenberry wrote. The Karzai regime could not bear the weight of a counterinsurgency doctrine that would win the loyalty of the populace. There were monumental problems of governance but "Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance, or development. He and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further. They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending war on terror and for military bases to use against surrounding powers." In Mr. Eikenberry's cable, Mr. Karzai is a man beyond redemption, who was unlikely to "change fundamentally this late in his life and in our relationship."

In one of his great tales of the imperial age, "Lord Jim," Joseph Conrad depicts the encounter between a criminal and a noble figure. "Gentleman" Brown and a band of robbers had come into Tuan Jim's domain—a small world, Patusan, where Jim's writ ran and the natives honored and deferred to him. Everything was on the side of Jim—possession, security, power. But Brown senses the hidden irresoluteness of Jim, a man who had come to this remote, small world in the Pacific in search of redemption. We are equal, says Brown: "What do you know more of me than I know of you? What did you ask for when you came here?" Jim pays with his life. He had let the ruffian set the terms of the encounter.

A big American project, our longest war, is now waged with doubt and hesitation, and our ally on the scene has gone rogue, taking the coin of our enemies and scoffing at our purposes. Unlike the Third World clients of old, this one does not even bother to pay us the tribute of double-speak and hypocrisy. He is a different kind of client, but then, too, our authority today is but a shadow of what it once was. (Karzai and the Scent of U.S. Retreat.) 

No foreign invader has succeeded for very long in Afghanistan. Even the full might of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was crushed by the Mujahideen fighters, many of whom have become important elements in the fractured tribes that make up the Taliban. The administration of the former caesar, Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus Bushus, believed that American might would conquer all as the Israeliphiles within its ranks failed to realize that they were serving as recruiting agents for the Taliban just as surely as the Israeli Defense Force was the single largest recruiting agency for the Palestine Liberation Organization of the late Yasser Arafat and is at present serving the same function for the Hamas in Gaza and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. The administration of the current caesar, Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus, has played a cynical game with American lives by promoting a "surge" in Afghanistan that will never conquer the Taliban even as caesar himself tries to placate his leftist base by stating a deadline for the end of the surge.

No one has the courage to say: "This has been a failure. Bring the troops home now. Assign those who are still active-duty troops to a really important function that is vital to the national security of the United States of America: protecting our border with Mexico from the wave of illegal immigration and from the murderous activities of Mexican drug lords who are taking American lives (and the lives of a few honest Mexican police officials) with utter impunity at this time."

Sure, of course, there are a lot of no-goodniks in the world. It is not the business of the leaders of any one particular country to assert that they have the right to cleanse another country or countries of no-goodniks who pose no real, substantial, credible and imminent threat to the security of their citizens. Moreover, as has been explained on this site numerous times, no war may be prosecuted if it is not winnable, if there are no clearly defined goals and if, after making prudent calculations that are, most admittedly, subject to human error and debate, there is a determination that the cost in human lives or expenditures or the harm to the international community outweighs its prosecution. War must be undertaken as a regrettable last resort, not as an ordinary means of conducting a nation's geopolitical strategic policy-making.

American policymakers of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" believe in the Americanist myth that people in non-Western nations are just waiting to embrace American "democratic" ways that was described very well by the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

But the persisting blindness of superiority continues to hold the belief that all the vast regions of our planet should develop and mature to the level of contemporary Western systems, the best in theory and the most attractive in practice; that all those other worlds are but temporarily prevented (by wicked leaders or by severe crises or by their own barbarity and incomprehension) from pursuing Western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in that direction. But in fact such a conception is a fruit of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, a result of mistakenly measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet's development bears little resemblance to all this.  (Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address.)


Most American policymakers of the "left" believe that the mistaken foreign policy presuppositions of the "right" can be "corrected" by being obsequious to the real-life enemies of the United States of America.

None of those on the false opposites of the naturalist "right" or the naturalist "left" understand that nations can never be made secure when their citizens are at war with the true God of Divine Revelation by means of persisting in their own sins unrepentantly and by promoting one abject evil after another both at home and abroad. Empires have collapsed because of the decadence of the citizens and the overreach of emperors

None of those on the false opposites of the naturalist "right" or the naturalist "left" understand or accept these plain words found in Pope Pius XI's Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, that have been quoted so many times on this site but are worth repeating yet again:

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.) (Material in single indentation form came from my own:  Bag Man in a Karakul Hat, October 28, 2010.)

No President of the United States of America has ever governed according to principles of Catholic truth, no less to do what civil leaders are supposed to do, namely, foster those conditions wherein citizens can better sanctify and thus save their souls as members of the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. The state of nations depends upon the state of the souls of its citizens, and no amount of ranting or raving about how our current situation domestically and internationally has spiraled out of control because most men in most nations around the world have souls that are captive to the devil by means of what are Mortal Sins in the objective order of things—and thus affect the intellects and wills of those who commit them whether or not they know it—and/or are held captive to the devil by means of Original Sin. In actual fact, of course, there are far more unbaptized souls around the world than those who are genuinely baptized, and the numbers of the baptized who are in states of Sanctifying Grace are infinitesimally puny in comparison to the over six billion people alive today.

As Catholics, therefore, we must never be swayed by the anxieties of the moment, or the plaintive pleas made for American “interventionism” by the talking heads/babbling fools of naturalism and Americanism on all news cable networks. No canonized saint ever needed to listen to naturalists babble on and on and to know how to view the world and the events in it through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith.

The brutal fact that most Catholics in the United States do not want to face squarely is that most of the wars that this nation’s leaders have decided to fight have been unjust according to the principles of the Just War Theory as elucidated by Saint Augustine of Hippo and then refined eight centuries later by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Here is a summary that I hope will help Catholics to understand that the “American Way” has never been the “Catholic Way,” that, is, the “Way of Christ the King”:

Machiavelli’s embrace of amorality in warfare was meant to serve as a fatal blow to the Just War Theory that had been advanced by Saint Augustine, refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas and others, especially the theologians of Salamanca. As has been summarized on this site many times in the past—and in my lectures as a college professor of political science, the requisites of a just war are as follows:

  1. There must be a wound to justice that poses a real and imminent threat to the good order of nations and/or to the territorial integrity or well-being of innocents by an aggressor. The threat must be real, not imaginary, not concocted for political purposes.  
  2. All peaceful means to avoid armed hostilities must be exhausted. Diplomatic efforts to avert war must be genuine. It was the Holy Father himself who attempted to broker disputes in order to avoid war during the Middle Ages and at various times thereafter.  
  3. A duly constituted authority must make the determinations concerning the waging of war. This means that a legitimate governing authority, one that has not usurped power, or which seeks war unjustly to prosecute plans of territorial expansion and/or nationalistic or ideological ends, guided by right intentions and right principles must be in charge of the decision-making process.
  4. The goals of a war must be well-defined and have a reasonable chance of being realized. In other words, there must be a reasonable chance for success in the pursuit of narrowly defined goals. Goals are to be defined narrowly so as to limit the harm caused by a needlessly protracted war, yes, even when a nation is prosecuting a just cause.  
  5. The good end being sought must not be outweighed by the foreseen evil to be done. This is known as the Catholic principle of proportionality, which states that a good end can be rendered unjust to pursue if a judgment is made that the amount of the foreseen evil to be done in the prosecution of a just war will cause greater evils than the one the war is being waged to eradicate. This is different than the heresy of proportionalism (heretics use Catholic sounding phrases so as to connect themselves in the minds of Catholics as understanding Catholic principles), which asserts that a preponderance of "good intentions" and of the "relative exigencies of the moment" can make a moral act that is naturally evil capable of being pursued justly on the part of one who believes the weight of the evidence in his case justifies a subjective violation of an objective moral law to do good. Thus, proportionalism, which has been propounded by the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J. (not to be confused with the priest from the Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut, who fomented dissent at the University of Notre Dame and in his nationally syndicated columns until his death three years ago, Father Richard McBrien), can be used by a woman to justify the killing of her preborn child. After all, McCormick contended,
  6. “more good” will be done in her life by killing the child than if she permitted him to interfere unduly with her life's goals. We can never commit an evil act in the prosecution of a just end, and the truth is that much evil has been done by the United States of America in the pursuit of unjust ends.
  7. As far as is possible, noncombatants must never be deliberately targeted in warfare. The United States has a mixed record when it comes to the realization of this part of the Just War Theory. Our military forces have tried to use remarkable restraint in many instances. Other times, however, they have not. William Tecumseh Sherman used raw terrorism against civilian population centers as he cut a swath of fiery destruction from the Atlantic Ocean to Atlanta during the War between the States. As noted earlier, we aided bloodthirsty revolutionaries in Mexico. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki (the latter two of which were known to contain the highest concentrations of Catholics in Japan) were bombed during World War II. Something less than laser precision caused thousands of civilian casualties during the Gulf War and during our continued bombing in Afghanistan, which commenced on October 7, 2001, and during and after the American invasion and occupation of Iraq on March 20, 2003.  
  8. A just cessation to hostilities must be realized as soon as possible. Once again, the record of the United States in this regard is very mixed. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done so as to force an unconditional surrender from Japan, something that the Soviets insisted on in the Potsdam Conference as their condition for entering the war against Japan (so that they could recover claims lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.) Japan was willing to surrender conditionally. Those who are convinced of their absolute moral and racial superiority over others, though, cannot consider ending hostilities even if it is possible to conclude a peace that is just without having humiliated one's enemies.

No American president nor his national security team ever thought about the Afghanistan “end game” any more than that had given any thought to the “end game” in Iraq. These wars were needless, unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional, and Iraq is now a de facto client state of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose leaders hated the domestic brute, but internationally paper tiger named Saddam Hussein, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule will be a client state of Red China. The title of an article of mine published in The Remnant on January 31, 2003, “For What?”, applied to the then pending American invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq but it applied as well to the needless catastrophe of “American boots on the ground” in Afghanistan. For what have Americans died and trillions of American taxpayer dollars have been spent? For what? To fight an unwinnable war that had no constitutional warrant and that was unjust in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity from the very beginning.

Here is part of what I wrote when then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro had pledged to bring American involvement in Afghanistan to an end by 2011, something that did not happen, of course:

As critical as I was—and remain—of former President George Walker Bush, I do give the former Naturalist-in-Chief of the United States of America credit for having a set of simple, core beliefs about the world. Those beliefs were false. They were delusional. They exploded in his face over the course of the eight years of his presidency.

Nevertheless, my good and extremely few readers, George Walker Bush was committed to his belief that American "exceptionalism" had to be exported throughout the world as he stubbornly kept pouring troops and money into stabilizing a country, Iraq, that he destabilized and whose infrastructure he destroyed almost entirely. George Walker Bush, a morally obtuse man who believed that God Himself spoke ot him, will go to his grave convinced of the moral righteousness of his immoral war, which was conducted in full violations of the principles of the Just War Theory and outside of the framework of the Constitution of the United States of America itself, which happens make American military action contingent upon a declaration of war as stipulated in Section 8 of Article I.

Barack Hussein Obama has no such convictions about American military action. The speech that he gave about American military action in Afghanistan at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, on Tuesday, December 1, 2009, was cobbled together to give the appearance of doing something to fight the the forces of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network and to force members of the indigenous Taliban in Afghanistan to become working partners with the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai, recently "re-elected" in an election rife with fraud, or be killed. Lyndon Baines Walker Bush Obama offered a little something for the "hawks" as he promised a commitment of 30,000 troops to be sent immediately into Afghanistan, and he offered a little something for the "doves" as he promised that he would start withdrawing American combat troops at the end of 2011, just in time for the start of the 2012 presidential primary and caucus season.

There are only a few salient points that need to be made in what I hope will be a very brief article.

First, American involvement in Afghanistan, which has been justified as a response to the attacks that took place on the United States of America on September 11, 2001, that were masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his deputies, especially Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will be tried in a civilian court in the City of New York, New York, next year, fails according to the precepts of the Just War Theory on several grounds:

  • Although there has been a wound to justice caused by the attacks upon the soil of the United States of America, there is no clearly defined goal to be accomplished in the prosecution of a war against mountain tribesmen who know how to hide in rugged terrain and to wait until the heavy artillery of American forces is withdrawn
  • No American policy-maker, including Barack Hussein Obama, has ever been able to give a clear, coherent idea as to what would constitute "victory" in Afghanistan? The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, for example, does not guarantee that al-Qaeda or the Taliban would be stopped for any length of time.
  • A commitment of military forces into a conflict that has no clearly defined goals for victory is in se immoral.

Second, Caesar Obamus has told the Taliban that all they have to do is wait until the end of 2011 for them to resume attacks to seek de facto control of most of Afghanistan, if not control of the city of Kabul itself, where "President" Karzai is largely viewed as the "Mayor" of that city and nothing more in that forces loyal to him control very little of the rest of the country.

Third, the Taliban will escalate their attacks near the end of 2011 to make it difficult, it not impossible, for Obama to withdraw American troops according to the timetable announced two days ago. Obama will thus be forced with a decision to leave Afghanistan in a mess to satisfy his "left" flank or to keep the troops to satisfy his "right" flank in the American electorate who want Afghanistan to be as much of a "success" as Iraq.

Fourth, it is sheer madness to believe that foreign forces can do anything in Afghanistan except get killed. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics lost in Afghanistan after ten grueling years there. The United States of America has been there now for ninety-eight months, just twenty-two months shy of ten years.

Fifth, al-Qaeda has shifted its operations to Pakistan, another corrupt Asian regime that is supported by the murderous Red Chinese thugs. This is why there is not real effort on the part of the United States of America to use strategic forces in Pakistan to ferret out terrorist cells. A debtor nation, the United States of America, cannot afford to offend its chief creditor, the so-called "People's Republic of China.

Sixth, there is the nasty, little inconvenient fact that Article I, Section 8, Subsection 11 of the Constitution of the United States of America states the Congress of the United States of America lone has the power to:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 

It is not possible for the government of the United States of America to stabilize all of the volatile regions of the world. Terrorist cells are going to exist in various places in the world, especially as the America government continue its slavish support for the State of Israel and its government's persecution of Palestinian Arabs. One of the ways to secure the United States of America is to secure her borders, a duty that is incumbent upon anyone serving as president of this country, and this means that the free flow of Mohammedans into this country must be stopped. One of the men involved in the February 26, 1993, bombing of the north tower of the World Trade Center in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, Ramzi Yousef, listed his occupation as follows on his A-95 immigration form as he entered the United States of America shortly before the bombing: "Terrorist." The man was admitted into the country without a problem. Such is the state of political correctness that the borders of the United States of America cannot be secured by keeping out those who have proved themselves to be threats to our country's national security.

Bush the Lesser, who believed that he could spread the American "way" around the world, and Obama the Red, despite all of their other myriad differences, are joined at the hip in representing the false religion of Mohammedanism as one of "peace" that has been "perverted" or "distorted" by the lies of various terrorists:

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children. . .  .

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)  (George Walker Bush, Address to the Nation, September 20, 2001.)

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security. (Barack Hussein Obama,  Address on the War in Afghanistan, December 2, 2009.) 

This kind of insane political correctness, which is practiced also on occasion by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, keeps American policymakers from admitting that Mohammedanism of its demonic nature is an assault against God and seeks to destroy those who will not follow its false "god" and its false teachings, therefore predisposing them to let domestic terror cells form in the United States of America as a result of immigration laws based on political correctness and electoral self-interest. Weak, cowardly American politicians have made this country unsafe by their refusal to keep out those who seek to dominate here as they are now dominating throughout parts of Europe.

Moreover, of course, the United States of America has become a target of terrorist acts in large measure because its laws impose terrorism upon nearly four thousand innocent preborn babies every day while countless thousands more are killed as a result of chemical abortifacients. No country that imposes this kind of domestic terrorism from within is going to be immune from attacks from without by committed killers who have no more regard for our lives that we do for the weakest and most defenseless amongst us, little babies in their mothers' wombs.

The pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama, who has issued executive orders that have resulted in the deaths of innocent babies with our own taxpayer monies, had the audacity--and he is, after all, nothing if not audacious--to speak of American "values" as the foundation for securing the United States of America:

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people

There is only one path to true peace, my good and extremely few readers, and that is through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and her Fatima Message. (Taken from Lyndon Baines Walker Bush Obama, December 3, 2009.)

Where was that analysis wrong except that the Taliban victory occurred in 2021 instead of 2011 because of the advice given both Presidents Obama/Soetoro and Trump?

However, long before the present time, American presidents have countenanced injustices under of the cover of the civil law and during times of war, and our more recent presidents have not even bothered to fulfill the terms of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to secure an actual, honest-to-goodness declaration of war. War has been used by American presidents as a first resort, not as a regrettable last resort following the exhausting of all peaceful remedies.

Indeed, President Andrew Jackson, who was a bloodthirsty hater of Indians, engaged in a massive exercise in American social engineering in the forced relocation in 1831 of the Cherokees, Creeks, Seminoles, Chickasaws and, Choctawas from Georgia and Florida into what is now Oklahoma. Even his fellow Freemason and Tennesseean, United States Representative David Crockett, voted against the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Jackson’s darkened, Masonic heart was completely unmoved by the cruelty experienced along the Trail of Tears and the several thousand deaths that it caused, evoking, of course, memories of the Grand Derangement of the Acadians out of Nova Scotia in 1755 (see Applause For Killers).

This is part of what Crockett wrote in 1834, three years after the removal of the Indians had commenced:

I have almost given up the Ship as lost. I have gone So far as to declare that if he martin vanburen is elected that I will leave the united States for I never will live under his kingdom. before I will Submit to his Government I will go to the wildes of Texas. I will consider that government a Paridice to what this will be. In fact at this time our Republican Government has dwindled almost into insignificancy our [boasted] land of liberty have almost Bowed to the yoke of Bondage. Our happy days of Republican principles are near at an end when a few is to transfer the many. (Davy Crockett on the removal of the Cherokees.)

Unfortunately for Davy Crockett, he did not understand that he was witnessing even at that early stage in American history the degeneration of a nation founded on false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously-indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles. He thought Texas was to be a place of refuge. Many think so today as well. While Texas is a freer state than most, well, at least for the time being, there is really no hiding place from the slave drivers. No hiding place at all.

The government of the United States of America subjected the states of the Confederate States of America to such war crimes as the William Tecumseh Sherman's burning of Atlanta and his march to the Atlantic Ocean.

Many crimes against innocents were committed by the military forces of the United States of America during World Wars I and II, including the firebombing of Dresden, Germany, and the atomic bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945.

A onetime reader of this site was kind enough eleven years ago to provide a very fine summary of yet another attack upon Catholics by the government of the United States of America that occurred during Operation Keelhaul after World War II: 

"You may not be aware of it, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was responsible for implementing the very evil repatriation of millions of Eastern European refugees (many of whom were Catholic) who had fled from the communist take over. This evil was code named Operation Keelhaul. Many people actually committed suicide rather than to be forced back to their homeland under Satanic communist rule. The entire Yalta Conference was also part of this whole diabolical plot to further the Judeo-Masonic destruction of Christianity and bring about the reign of antichrist."

As has been noted many times on this site, the government of the United States of America also came to the financial and military assistance of the government of Plutarco Elias Calles as he was persecuting the Cristeros in the 1920s into the 1930—see Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part oneThen, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part twoThen, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part threeThen, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part four and Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part five.

Yet another reader of this site sent a treasure trove of documentation in 2012 to illustrate the crimes committed by the United States of America against Catholics in Mexico a century ago six years before the beginning of the Cristeros War in a period that was no less deadly for Catholics under the iron hand of Venustiano Carranza: 

On Thursday, April 29, 1920, The United States Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations heard Testimony taken at Washington D.C. Among the many people who testified were Fr. Francis P. Joyce, a Captain and Chaplain in the United States Army and Catholic nun Mother Elias De Sta Sacto, of the Discalced Carmelite Order.

Father Joyce testified of his visit to John R. Silliman: "...Mr. Silliman, personal representative of President Wilson to Carranza. I visited him in the office of Consul Canada, and asked that he take it up with the State Department and obtain a boat to ship those people out of the country. He said, "On what grounds?" I said to him, "If not on the grounds of religion, at least on the ground of humanity. These are women. The priests are men and will have to make shift for themselves." He then stood up and said, "It is generally admitted by everybody that the worst thing in Mexico, next to prostitution, is the Catholic Church, and both must go." To prevent a fight I was hustled out of the consul's office, and reprimanded in a military way for some words I had with Mr. Silliman."

Fr. Joyce also testified about how the U.S. Government refused all help for the refugees and noted "When the Americans evacuated Vera Cruz, I understood that more than 400 of the sisters were left behind. Afterward I was told that Carranza and Villa's army tried to have one prostitute to every four soldiers, and that many of these sisters were impressed as camp followers for Carranza's army..."

Mother Elias De Sta Sacto testified, in part, "They have closed the temples and prohibited the sacraments to the extent of shooting the priest who dares to hear confession or to administer the sacraments. The confessionals and some images of the saints have been burned in the public squares to the accompaniment of bands of music and impious speeches. They have profaned the churches, entering them on horseback, smashing the images, treading the relics under foot, throwing the Hosts about the floor and even giving them to the horses to eat with the fodder..." "...Immorality has increased to such a degree that they have profaned not only virgins but have violated nuns, carrying them away by force where they now suffer horribly. To the great suffering of my soul I have seen in Mexico the sad and lamentable fate of many sisters who have been victims of the unbridled passions of the soldiers. I found many bewailing their misfortune and that were about to become mothers, some in their own homes, others in maternity hospitals. Others unable to flee from despair have surrendered to a life of evil..." See full details here. (See Mr. Martin Hill, Historical details reemerge: U.S. Government supplied 10 Million rounds of ammo, 10,000 Enfield Rifles, military planes & tanks to Slaughter tens of thousands of Catholic Freedom Fighters.)

As I will never cease to remind the readership of this site, a Constitution that is based on no need to even recognize Christ the King, no less submit to His Social Kingship over men and their nations by means of the Indirect Power of His Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, will produce men who have respect neither for the laws of God or the true meaning of its own text.

Pope Pius IX explained what the end-product of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity would look like:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

These are perfect descriptions of the world in which we live today at a time when our minders make it their business to mind everything about our own business in the name of “national security” and, especially today, in the false name of “public health.”

How many Catholics understand this today, no less the naturalists of the false opposites of the "left" and the right"?

Then again, of course, the conciliarist in chief, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and his representatives keep insisting that “religions,” not only the true religion, Catholicism, play a “vital” role in assuring peace. How can false religions, each of which belongs to the devil, do anything except foment disorder among men and nations?

Certainly, of course,  we pray for those, including many Americans who might be taken hostage by the Taliban to be exchanged for the same huge sums of funny money that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro forked over to the Islamic Republic of Iran (see Obama’s $1.7 Billion Tribute to Iran Paid in Cash). Many Afghani nations face certain execution in the coming weeks and months, and you can believe that Mumble Mouth Biden and his spin doctor to end all spin doctors, Jennifer “Reality Is What We Say It Is” Psaki, will ignore this slaughter just as surely as they ignore and indemnify the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means in this country and around the world.

We must continue to remember that the situation we face in the world and in the Church Militant at this time is a chastisement that has been sent us by God Himself, Who permits men and their nations to suffer the consequences of rejecting and spitting upon the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by Holy Mother Church. No electoral victory by any group of naturalists, whether of the naturalist "left" or the naturalist "right," is a victory of Christ the King as there is only one thing that can come from naturalists: naturalism, which convinces men that there is something short of Catholicism that can "save" us from the statists at home and from the nogoodniks in the world. Men and their nations must convert to the true Faith.

There is no shortcut whatsoever to social order within a nation and/or peace among nations. The path to world peace runs through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. She has told us at Fatima that this is so.

Why are we so slow to believe her?

Why are we so quick to gush enthusiastically about everything except Heaven's Peace Plan: Our Lady's Fatima Message?

Vivat Christus Rex!