All the king’s horses and men struggle to put Afghanistan together again
It’s impossible to know how much credence to give such reports, but a story out of Washington by McClatchy Newspapers suggests that Gen. Stanley McChrystal might resign as commander of allied forces in Afghanistan unless President Obama gives him the additional troops he is requesting:
“In Kabul, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.
Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.
“Yes, he’ll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far,” a senior official in Kabul said. “He’ll hold his ground. He’s not going to bend to political pressure.”
The Washington Post doesn’t go quite that far, but it does report growing impatience in military circles with the pace of deliberation within the administration. Karen DeYoung writes that McChrystal’s grim assessment of our prospects in Afghanistan “opened a divide between the military, which is pushing for an early decision to send more troops, and civilian policymakers who are increasingly doubtful of an escalating nation-building effort.”
U.S. Marines march on patrol Tuesday in Afghanistan's southern Helmand Province. (AP Photo)
Personally, I’m thinking the military brass needs to take a very large chill pill and allow the elected civilian leadership to work this through. Furthermore, if McChrystal really is ready to resign if his request is not granted, I hope he doesn’t hesitate in doing so. He is by almost every account a very good general, but a general who can’t in good faith carry out the mission given to him by his president doesn’t belong in command.
When Obama took office, we had roughly 45,000 troops in Afghanistan. In February, he announced the commitment of another 17,700 combat troops and an additional 4,000 military trainers; those reinforcements are still flowing into Afghanistan. That alone represents an almost 50 percent increase in manpower.
Now, word out of Washington is that McChrystal is pushing for another surge of as many as 40,000 additional troops. That would represent a major and more or less open-ended escalation of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan, and no administration should be asked to make such a critical decision in haste.
In the assessment leaked to the Washington Post, McChrystal acknowledges that after eight years of fighting, the United States is losing in Afghanistan. He makes a strong case that without a change in strategy and additional resources, mission failure is likely.
To avoid that failure, McChrystal advocates a “comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign” in Afghanistan. That’s hardly surprising, given that his immediate superior, Gen. David Petraeus, supervised drafting of the military’s counterinsurgency doctrine, known as FM 3-24. McChyrstal was brought in precisely to lead such an approach.
The problem is that when you compare the situation in Afghanistan as described in McChrystal’s assessment with the doctrine as prepared by Petraeus, the contrast is deeply sobering. Additional troops and a change of strategy may not be capable of closing that enormous gap.
For example, the Petraeus doctrine recommends 20 troops per 1,000 civilians as a rule of thumb for fighting an insurgency such as the Taliban. In Afghanistan, a nation of 28 million, that works out to 560,000 troops, and there’s no way we can or will field a force that size.
In addition, McChrystal suggests that the first order of business for the augmented force must be to protect the Afghan populace, retake the initiative from the Taliban and reverse insurgent momentum. In FM 3-24, those tasks are described as “emergency first aid,” the first things to be accomplished upon taking the field against an insurgency. In other words, after eight years of struggle we are essentially being forced to start over.
Even more sobering, FM 3-24 stresses the importance of a legitimate host government that the local populace can rally around. “The primary objective of any COIN (counterinsurgency) operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government,” the doctrine states.
In fact, the doctrine lays out six possible measures of host-government legitimacy:
“- The ability to provide security for the populace (including protection from internal and external
threats).
- Selection of leaders at a frequency and in a manner considered just and fair by a substantial majority
of the populace.
- A high level of popular participation in or support for political processes.
- A culturally acceptable level of corruption.
- A culturally acceptable level and rate of political, economic, and social development.
- A high level of regime acceptance by major social institutions.”
As recent elections have demonstrated, the current Afghan government fails every one of those tests of legitimacy. To his credit, McChrystal’s assessment acknowledges the difficulty of the situation:
“The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials … have given Afghans little reason to support their government. These problems have alienated large segments of the Afghan population. They do not trust (the Afghan government) to provide their essential needs, such as security, justice and basic services. This crisis of confidence, coupled with a distinct lack of economic and educational opportunity, has created fertile ground for the insurgency.”
So here’s the problem in a nutshell: To be successful, the strategy recommneded by McChrystal requires much more than more troops. It requires a legitimate Afghan government that can inspire loyalty from the local population. Given that no such government exists or seems likely to exist, and that U.S. soldiers and Marines, like all the King’s horses and all the King’s men, are simply not equipped to put it all back together again, what can we hope to gain through open-ended escalation?
If the administration is taking some time to think that one through, good.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
245 comments Add your comment
Normal
September 22nd, 2009
5:15 pm
Mr. President, bring our troops home, now!
md
September 22nd, 2009
5:20 pm
“In Afghanistan, a nation of 28 million,”
Sounds to me as if the country has enough bodies to implement a draft to take care of the problem and bring our boys and girls home. Its getting a little old doing the heavy lifting in countries that don’t have enough “skin in the game”. Its high time they get their butts out their and fight for THEIR country.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
September 22nd, 2009
5:20 pm
Or run from it screaming.
ew
Bush had it right, minimal forces with superior capabilities, lightening fast intel and no whiners in the Executive Branch.
Oh, for those days.
Public Option's A Gol
September 22nd, 2009
5:23 pm
During Bush Patraeus had carte blanche to kill as many troops as he chose. Americans don’t support Repubozo Kay Baily Hutchison’s simplistic nebulous “we gotta fight ‘em over there and add troops foevah”. Hutchison gets very quiet when anyone mentions her children enlist via draft.
There is no support for repeating Iraq in Afghanistan at 30% cost more troop, when no other country is dumb enough to waste lives along with us. We don’t have the troops to protect Afghanistan, and interestingly no Repubozos support a DRAFT which is what it takes to get the number of troops that the McCrystals of the world will continue to waste.
The National Guard is on their 4th deployment and there is no definition as to what victory in Afghanistan and Pakistan means. Bush wasted 8 years and a lot of lives there.
Yo Stanley McCrystal door can hit your butt. Buh Buh.
Public Option's A Gol
September 22nd, 2009
5:26 pm
Bush was a total failure and killed a lot of people and there is nothing to show for it. Iraq is a total clusterfaux as is Afghanistan.
We paid and armed tribal war lords in Iraq who have no loyalty to us.
British got massacered in Afghanistan; Soeviets got massacered; now the Americans are lining up to get massacered.
Public Option's A Gol
September 22nd, 2009
5:30 pm
Comparison in dollars of what the Federal Employee Pays and What You’d Pay Under Baucus’s plan written by the insurance company.
Boy would you get screwed bigger than ever before.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/baucus-proposes-new-limits-on-insurance-premiums/?src=twt&twt=nytimes
Pogo
September 22nd, 2009
5:30 pm
GET OUR SOLIDERS OUT NOW. One drop of American blood is worth more than the whole putrid country. If you ain’t prepared to do what it takes to win, get out. Obama is not prepared to do what it takes to win. In fact, he doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know about winning.
Offtopic, I find Obama’s response to New York Governor David Paterson very interesting. He is encouraging the governor not to run. He didn’t like the Governor appointing a replacement for Hillary Clinton that he himself did not pick. He doesn’t like the Governor’s low poll numbers so in another words, he wants to pick the candidate himself. The people of New York are pretty much suckers.
But the thing I find the most interesting is the bit of advice the “Great Evader” Charlie Rangel gave to the New York Governor about the election. Charlie’s concern about the election was that Paterson would draw off almost all of the “black vote” which could make for a dicey situation on election day for the democrats. Now what exactly was Charlie saying here? I think, if I read it right, Charlie was saying the “black people are going to vote for the black candidate, each time, everytime, no matter if the candidate is the best candidate or not” . Now that says a lot about what is at the heart of the Democratic party, doesn’t it? It appears that the Democrats rely upon the unquestioning loyalty of the black voters and they know that this loyalty towards black candidates can even become too much for them. Another words, what Charlie and Obama are saying is, “we love your support as long as it is on our terms”. Obama and Rangel should be very proud. As matter of fact, every liberal should be very proud. If this is what it takes to win, then winning ain’t worth it.
AmVet
September 22nd, 2009
5:33 pm
So after eight freaking years we need a mulligan?
Bush got NOTHING right.
This colossal coward’s failures merely ensured that nearly 5,000 flag-draped coffins came home. He’s ruined countless lives in untold numbers of American families.
And the yellow fools and chickenhawks cheered him on…
Brad Steel
September 22nd, 2009
5:33 pm
McChrystal sounds like he has a tough argument for executive buy-in. Perhaps he should hire Orly Taitz to craft his argument.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
September 22nd, 2009
5:36 pm
For example, the Petraeus doctrine recommends 20 troops per 1,000 civilians as a rule of thumb for fighting an insurgency such as the Taliban. In Afghanistan, a nation of 28 million, that works out to 560,000 troops, and there’s no way we can or will field a force that size.
Let’s see here, Iraq has 25,000,000 citizens and Bushie won that war with how many troops? 500,000?
I don’t think so.
Remember during the 08 presidential kampaign when we told you all about democrats and their myriad National Security Failures?
When will you ever learn, when will you eeeeeeevvvvvvvvveeeeerrrrrrrr learn?
Mrs. Godzilla
September 22nd, 2009
5:36 pm
Ok so now we know what it will take to “win” in afghanistan.
We need to decide if it’s worth it.
I say no.
GEORGE AMERICAN
September 22nd, 2009
5:39 pm
JUST LIKE GEORGE AMERICAN HAS ALWAYS SAID, OBLARMA AND HIS CHICKEN COOP DON’T HAVE THE GUTS TO FIGHT A WAR.
SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP OBARMA!!! LET A SOLIDER AND REAL AMERICAN TAKE CARE OF THIS FOR YOU!!!
YOU GO BACK TO DOING WAHT YOU DO: WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS ON ACORN AND ILLEGALS.
Public Option's A Gol
September 22nd, 2009
5:40 pm
Paterson can’t beat Rudi 911 and Coumo can. Every liberal is proud. We is passin’ public option and beatin up on Baucus and Grassly and the Senate Finance Six and their bill written by insurance companies to force you to pay 20% of your income for insurance that will cancel you when you get sick.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa
Will Farrell’s Commercial that we must protect the insurance companies
Public Option's A Gol
September 22nd, 2009
5:40 pm
George American–make sure everyone in your family is included in the Draft you support.
md
September 22nd, 2009
5:43 pm
The Afghan army currently has 90,000 troops. Let them draft another 90,000 and ship our boys home.
Problem solved.
GEORGE AMERICAN
September 22nd, 2009
5:45 pm
REAL AMERICAN’S SIGN UP OF THERE OWN FREE WILL!!!
WE DON’T NEED TO BE DRAFTED, COWARD
eagle scout
September 22nd, 2009
5:46 pm
can anyone say Vietnam Part Deux???
Stephanie
September 22nd, 2009
5:48 pm
Although we all would like to decisions to be made now, stepping back and assessing the situation ma be better in the long run. If we are going to pull out we need to find the opportune time. If we are going to stay, we need to find the best strategy to accomplish our goals.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/finding_the_right_path_in_afghanistan
Paul
September 22nd, 2009
5:48 pm
Democrats have a difficult situation.
Their ‘good war, the just war, the war that was ignored’ is no longer ignored. But is it still the good war, the just war? Democrats embraced Afghanistan largely because Bush embraced Iraq. Now Iraq is fading, Afghanistan is center stage, the left of the Democratic Party wants out, the American public is growing weary. Yet Democrats are still left with their pronouncements.
The elections were a great complication, for they demonstrate corruption throughout the political process – something we definitely do not want to be associated with, let alone fight to perpetuate. Nothing else has changed, yet that event illustrated the gulf between what is and what we want.
Strategy? Pres Obama announced a new strategy in March. Then it was, what, August? he said we needed a review. A new strategy. His goals for Afghanistan have not changed, just the strategy to achieve them. He told the military what he wanted to accomplish. They said what they needed to do to achieve his goals. No it appears the Commander in Chief is dithering.
This is far more serious than sending troops into combat without all the gear or armored humvees they need. Far more. This is sending troops to die while the troops believe if there were more soldiers, less of them would die.
The US military does not have a tradition of senior officers resigning under protest. The closest we’ve come in recent years was the early retirement of General Ronald Fogleman, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, shortly after the election of Pres Clinton. But even he carefully laid out the reasons why he retired and made the case it was not a resignation.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICK/is_1_15/ai_75578148/
The President made some pretty encompassing, absolute comments about why we are still in Afghanistan and what we will do there. Maybe it’s time to revise the goals. Reality has a way of doing that. After all, this is the same President who said he would never let Iraq get the Bomb and there was nothing he would not do to keep them from getting one. It appears they will obtain the capability during his term. Time to start laying the groundwork of revising goals.
DoggoneGA
September 22nd, 2009
5:48 pm
I think the Pentagon’s “impatience” is more than a little late. Where was all this push to hurry the process along for the last 8 years? I think it’s more than “ill-timed” to decide that NOW – with a different President – that all of sudden we’re “losing” Afghanistan. It waited 8 years, it can wait more than a few months.
Or maybe Obama was the Pentagon’s “Messiah” too and they, TOO, are disappointed that his magic wand waving isn’t working.
AmVet
September 22nd, 2009
5:49 pm
The ONLY silver lining to these dual clusterf&cks is that the neo-cons got beaten like red-headed step children at the polls for botching EVERYTHING about them. Staggering, humiliating and epic losses. One that will never be seen again – a 0 win, 36 loss campaign! Talk about industrial strength losers.
Americans in droves FINALLY started seeing through these gutless chickenhawks and chest pounders. But by then BushCo had already shiite the bed like some imperious little Hitler.
I wonder why the Pogonians waited for this late date to realize the obvious?
Where was that sentiment years ago? What has happened recently that has changed his mind?
I think we all know…
I assure you non-valorous George Aryan has never darkened the doorway of an AFEES station. Like virtually ALL of his fellow neo-conned chickenhawks, he just plays brave on blogs.
md
September 22nd, 2009
5:50 pm
“can anyone say Vietnam Part Deux???”
At least the boys in Vietnam didn’t have to fight with one hand behind their back and their lawyers number in their pocket.
Nothing is Free
September 22nd, 2009
5:51 pm
Either give the military what they need or bring them home. People like Uncle teddy and Robert Byrd already killed 50,000 Americans because they didn’t have the stones to fight a war.
Obama, grow a backbone or bring them home.
AmVet
September 22nd, 2009
5:53 pm
WOW! Even NOTHING has joined the chorus. Again I implore where was that voice years ago?
Transparent as they are gutless…
DoggoneGA
September 22nd, 2009
5:53 pm
“Either give the military what they need or bring them home.”
Yeah, and did you say that any time in the last 8 years?
Nothing is Free
September 22nd, 2009
5:55 pm
Amvet
**The ONLY silver lining to these dual clusterf&cks is that the neo-cons got beaten like red-headed step children at the polls for botching EVERYTHING about them. Staggering, humiliating and epic losses. One that will never be seen again – a 0 win, 36 loss campaign! Talk about industrial strength losers.**
We are STILL in Iraq.
We are still in Afghanistan with many more casualties.
The economy is heading further south every month.
Our major corporations’ boards of Directors are being chosen by Washington and
It is a constant battle catching the White House in one fascist scheme after another
and you are whining about Bush.
It’s expected, at least from you.
Hef
September 22nd, 2009
5:55 pm
md-from accounts of friends who served in V.Nam,yes they did. ie your post @5:50
Paul
September 22nd, 2009
5:55 pm
Let IraN get the bomb. But you all knew that.
Nothing is Free
September 22nd, 2009
5:57 pm
DoggoneGA
In the last eight years?
So you are bragging about the fact that Obama has changed nothing? I would try to point out the lunacy of your answer, but I just don’t have the desire or the time.
Hef
September 22nd, 2009
5:58 pm
md-But I’m sure the resident” expert on all things him” would be better to answer that in say a 20-30 page short answer tirade. Get ready
Nothing is Free
September 22nd, 2009
6:00 pm
md
**At least the boys in Vietnam didn’t have to fight with one hand behind their back and their lawyers number in their pocket.**
Oh yes they did. Remember, the Democrats were in charge of that one, too. A lot of defense plants were built in dim’s home states during that war. It only cost us 50,000 Americans.
N-GA
September 22nd, 2009
6:00 pm
Good afternoon, Paul.
This seems to be a situation where there are no winners. With all of our technology, we haven’t been able to get this done in almost 8 years. In conflicts like this, there is no absolute victory. By most measures we’ve won already. The enemy was the Taliban government and the terrorists they supported. They are no longer in power, yet the fighting continues.
It would seem that we have had eight years to recruit, arm, and train Afghan troops to take over the fight. Real victory can only happen if the Afghans can sustain their own government (so we can leave). Unfortunately I don’t see that happening…..ever. There will always be conflict there, whether it be conflict arising from religious beliefs or conflict driven by tribal histories.
Perhaps it would be cheaper (measured in American casualties, arms, money) to leave the country with these parting words: “If you attack us again, we will be back!”. I think they know that to be true.
Paul
September 22nd, 2009
6:01 pm
DoggoneGA
A lot was done over the 8 years. A lot. But the war with AQ, including Taliban as if they were AQ – that arena was more of a holding action. The Army had barely enough (as they were structured, and heaven forbid they would restructure without being forced to, other services included) to handle Iraq – never mind the TRILLIONS of dollars we gave them with their assurance they’d be able to fight a couple of wars at the SAME TIME. They got done in by one.
They weren’t about to ask for more for Afg when they had a tough time sourcing Iraq. They were the ones telling the White House they couldn’t do it. (BTW – as candidate Obama said the military’s extending tour dates was a terrible thing and it would change when he took over. Guess what? It hasn’t. He recently told soldiers who were due to return home they’d be there months longer. Add another item to the “Just Like Bush” file).
md
September 22nd, 2009
6:01 pm
Hef,
I hear what you are saying. And from my friends that were in Nam, it was hell on earth and they had no idea who the enemy was. But today in Iraq/Afghan, they are so skittish of committing “atrocities”, they end up getting killed because they have to ask the enemy if they are the enemy. Vietnam actually made it worse for these boys.
Dusty
September 22nd, 2009
6:02 pm
Oh my goodness…
AmVet doesn’t know that Bush is no longer president. Would somebody tell him?
Afghanistan is NOW Obama’s baby. If he wants to send more troops, OBAMA decides.
If OBAMA wants to bring all the troops home and desert Afghanistan, OBAMA decides.
Bush had experience as a leader and could make a decision. Obama has no leadership experience and others seem to make his decisions. We will just have to wait..and wait…and wait…..until somebody tells Obama what to say..
Here we are, lacking in leadership.
I say a prayer for our troops.
AmVet
September 22nd, 2009
6:04 pm
No read a little more carefully, Nada.
I excoriate YOU and those like YOU for enabling those f ups in the first place.
You voted for the fascist coddler twice. And you cheered loud and long when he was acting like Caesar ready to conquer the world.
And now you hide under mommies skirt rather than admit it. Why?
And worse YOU act like you have suddenly found your stones, and your voice and are calling for reason to prevail.
You can cut and run, neo-con, but you can NEVER hide. I will always find you.
So save your mystical new-found sense of outrage for somebody else who will buy into your sham. Someone who is as big a sap as YOU…
Nothing is Free
September 22nd, 2009
6:05 pm
N-GA
The problem is that we can never leave. We are STILL in Japan and Germany. 65 years later. If we leave Iraq or Afghanistan, it has all been for naught.
Curious Observer
September 22nd, 2009
6:07 pm
Comparison in dollars of what the Federal Employee Pays and What You’d Pay Under Baucus’s plan written by the insurance company. Boy would you get screwed bigger than ever before.
The article you reference is flat-out wrong. The figures listed should be per pay period , not per month. Federal employees get paid every two weeks, so that the figure listed should be multiplied by 26 to derive the employee’s annual contribution–in other words, $90 every two weeks is deducted from the paycheck. I know what I’m talking about. I was a federal employee. Some anti-reform writers will undertake any contortions necessary to discredit reform.
Nothing is Free
September 22nd, 2009
6:07 pm
Amvet
** I will always find you.**
Just another coward making threats over the internet. Say it ain’t so.
Nothing is Free
September 22nd, 2009
6:08 pm
Amvet
BTW, half-wit. Bush is gone. We have YOUR man in charge now. How is that working out for you?
Paul
September 22nd, 2009
6:08 pm
Good Afternoon, N-GA
I agree. I’ve made the point we went in to take down the government (Taliban) because of their support of AQ, and to defeat AQ. We pretty well did both. Then the mission morphed, and morphed, and morphed, and the Taliban and AQ reconstituted.
Seems to me we’ve brought in the type of government that would give us the best assurances of protecting our interests. Maybe we should think about using their traditional power centers to achieve that.
The Obama Administration’s statements early on of goals and what Will Be rather remind me of a parent’s dreams upon the birth of a child. The child will be like this, will go to these schools, will have a wonderful life. Then reality intrudes and the child’s choices do not follow the parent’s hopes.
Sometimes it’s just not possible to get what you want. Particularly when so much depends on someone else.
N-GA
September 22nd, 2009
6:11 pm
Nothing is free (your 6:05): I really don’t understand your reasoning. Are you saying that if we leave Iraq or Afghanistan then our period of world domination is over? Or are you saying that it will mean that we are no longer the world’s policeman? More specifically, are you suggesting we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan forever?
AmVet
September 22nd, 2009
6:11 pm
Don’t pee your panties, Nada, I use the term metaphorically.
I’m no John Ashcroft who might just be spying on you at this very moment! Bwahahahahahahaha!
You’ve done a helluva job Connies.
Be afraid! Be very afraid!
Hef
September 22nd, 2009
6:13 pm
md-As I was sayin,yes the wars to me are very simular in regards to political correctness. I believe we the USA should never enter into a conflict/war unless the mindset is to win. I believe you go into war to defeat your opponent as I believe the enemy’s mindset to be the same. You allow your military to fight the wars and the politicians to provide the objectives and then get the F*CK out of the way.
md
September 22nd, 2009
6:13 pm
And why in the world is the most technologically advanced military in the world putting “boots on the ground”. If we are going to fight a war, then do it with all the power and might we have or come home. These PC wars get too many of our boys killed.
AmVet
September 22nd, 2009
6:13 pm
Sorry nothingness, hate to disappoint you.
I voted AGAINST BHO.
It is you that only operates in the Dem vs. GOP paradigm.
The one that has failed this nation for a generation or longer.
How did voting for McCain and Palin work out for you!
Bwahahahahahaha again.
Disgusted
September 22nd, 2009
6:15 pm
Bush had experience as a leader and could make a decision.
Yup, the hero of the Texas Air National Guard really lowered the boom on Karla Faye Tucker, regardless of what all the preachers wanted him to do. That’s the kind of “experience” he had before he entered the White House–that and two or three failures at running businesses.
DoggoneGA
September 22nd, 2009
6:15 pm
” I would try to point out the lunacy of your answer, but I just don’t have the desire or the time.”
Oh too right. Bush had 8 years to screw it up and that was fine, but now Obama has only been the Pres for 9 months and he’s supposed to turn it all around JUST LIKE THAT? How about giving HIM 8 years? With NO COMPLAINTS. Can’t see THAT happening.
I think the Pentagon is just trying it on to see if Obama will jump or not. They knew that Bush wouldn’t. So they waited for the new guy. And I think they are WAY underestimating his “fear” factor.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
September 22nd, 2009
6:16 pm
People would do well to understand that Obozo thinks victory is when he spews against the United States, like he did today at the UN.
There is no hope for Afghanistan.
Dusty
September 22nd, 2009
6:17 pm
Will sombody say “BOO!” to AmVet. He is trying to scare folks.
Sorry, AmVet, but it is not Halloween and nobody is afraid.
You forget that we are fighting terrorists, not Americans. Did you get a bit mixed up on that?