During World War II's pivotal Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, German forces had encircled the key town of Bastogne. Holding the Belgium town “at all costs” was deemed critical to the Allies defeating Hitler.
The Germans demanded an “honorable surrender.” To which Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, the acting commander of the beleaguered 101st Airborne Division, replied “Nuts!” The weather cleared, air reinforcements arrived, as did Gen. George Patton's ground forces, and Bastogne held.
Barack Obama should be as blunt with Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai.
On Thursday, the Afghan president, corrupt to the core and engaged in consensual intimate relations (he calls them “negotiations”) with the Taliban, molested the American sacrifice to save his country by releasing from prison scores of Taliban terrorists directly linked to the wounding or deaths of nearly three dozen U.S. or coalition forces and another two dozen Afghan security personnel or civilians.
Afghan officials, doing their best impression of Sgt. Hans Schultz, claim to “see nothing”; they categorically reject the clear evidence and might soon release 23 more terrorists.
Once again, the United States is played for the sucker, having sacrificed too much blood and too-generous treasure over more than a decade. Karzai's thanks can be measured in thievery and trolloping with the enemy.
It's past time for Karzai to be left to his own devices. And when the Taliban are on the cusp of returning to power and Karzai or any successor pleads for U.S. help, the answer should be simple, direct and forceful — “Nuts!”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.