In 2015 Summer, if the Taliban launches a renewed offensive, Kabul might fall by the time a new President (or the old one) is sworn in. Thus preventing any policy changes until then.

This is a great observation.

But when one of these enemies does something harmful, it may be much more than a sidenote.

It makes me wonder if BO got a promise of no enemy action from these guys until after January, 2017?

Also makes me wonder (facetiously) if he got a promise of being warned when and where the nuke will explode so BO can be far away.

Shame on Fox and all honor to our glorious and brave man-g-d.

One day there will be a jihadist massacre at a shopping mall or elementry school or sporting event. Next there will be a nuke in a shipping container at a major port.

Terrorism expert David Schanzer is playing fast and loose with the facts.

“The decade since 9/11 has seen less terrorism (of all ideologies) than other recent decades. There were 168 attacks in the ten years after 9/11, but in the 1970s, there were 1357 attacks.”

In the same article he states,

“The Global Terrorism Database operated by the START Center at the University of Maryland has the most comprehensive listing of terrorist incidents around the world from 1970 to 2011. The database identifies 104,689 attacks over the past 42 years. There were 5008 attacks in 2011 alone, an all-time high”

Worldwide, a more honest List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks consists of 23,118 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.

The list of Islamic Terror Attacks from September 11th, 2001 through 2014 is at the bottom of the linked page.

And while it may be true that al Qaeda has been seriously weakened, it’s only a temporary weakness. The ideology from which al Qaeda springs is alive and well.

Indeed.

To paraphrase (because I don’t remember the wording or provenance), we may be tired of war, but that doesn’t mean the war is tired of us. This isn’t a kid’s game we can quit because we’re weary. The War on Terror is over either when we end the enemy as a threat to us or the enemy ends us as a threat to him.

Our soldiers are weary, it’s true. However, they haven’t been sacrificial lambs. They’ve been in the arena fighting the enemy as our champions while simultaneously building the peace for future generations.

Yet they’ve been more effective than many credit them.

To wit, here is the industry view from David Schanzer, Director of the Triangle Center of Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy:

As the 9/11 attacks demonstrated, al Qaeda was a powerful and dangerous organization 12 years ago, but is now a shell of what it once was. Central al Qaeda and its affiliate organizations around the globe still aspire to execute attacks inside America, but their capabilities to do so are dramatically diminished. The threat is present, but no longer acute.
. . .
What is the trend today? Is terrorism being used less now than it was a few years ago, or are we just not hearing so much about it?

The decade since 9/11 has seen less terrorism (of all ideologies) than other recent decades. There were 168 attacks in the ten years after 9/11, but in the 1970s, there were 1357 attacks.

In the months after the 9/11 attacks, there was a general expectation-and dread-that 9/11 was just the first of many terrorist attacks inside the United States. Yet the total number of attacks since then is relatively few. Why is that, do you think?

The counterterrorism strategy against al Qaeda that has been executed since 9/11 has been extremely effective. We eliminated the safe haven that al Qaeda enjoyed in Afghanistan and captured or killed hundreds of senior leaders and thousands of rank and file militants. It is also important that governments in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen, who were on the sidelines prior to 9/11, joined the fight because they felt threatened by al Qaeda as well. We have also tightened our visa issuance process and border security (at a great cost to our international image and economy) so that it is much harder to enter the United States, especially from certain countries. . . . we have crippled the organization that attacked us on 9/11 to the benefit of the United States and the world.

In other words, President Bush handed to President Obama a counter-terror campaign that was firmly progressing toward the end of the enemy as a threat. Obama simply needed to stay the course from Bush.

Had Obama done so, it’s not unreasonable to conjecture that instead of worrying about the consequences of Obama’s virtually unconditional release of the 5 most dangerous, senior Taliban commanders back into the world community, we might right now be looking forward to the imminent end of the enemy as a threat.

Obama has negligently squandered the dearly won progress earned by our soldiers. As a result, the enemy “crippled” under Bush has been resurging in the gaps opened by the diminished American leadership under Obama. Now this – the shocking, virtually unconditional release of the 5 most dangerous, senior Taliban commanders back into the world community goes beyond fumbling away his presidential inheritance. Obama actually seems to be trying to reverse the trend of the War on Terror in favor of the enemy.

Homophobic and/or racist. If all else fails, Bergdahl will reveal (or it will be revealed on his behalf) he has an African American great great grandparent. In this era of Elizabeth Warren, merely stating it is enough. In this era of George Zimmerman, the media may impose any ethnic label they choose to suit desired ends.

So the biracial Bergdahl is a victim of racist slander. Jeez, why are Republicans so RACIST?????!!!!!

True. However Obama may yet pull defeat from the jaws of victory. There’s speculation that Obama plans to shut down Guantanamo and release all the prisoners. No exchange, just release them all. If so, there’s no escaping the charge that Obama cares less about the undeniable danger he’s placing Americans in and no denying that he’s giving aid and comfort to our enemy in a time of war. Treason, plain and simple. Nor will all the denial in the world change that reality. That’s the real outrage, as Andrew McCarthy explains:

“the federal criminal law that makes material support to terrorists a serious felony. The president has knowingly provided personnel–key, experienced, highly effective jihadists–to terrorist organizations that are still very much at war with the United States. That is material support to terrorism.”