What Exactly Is The "Mission" In Afghanistan?

When asked by reporters what they would do in Afghanistan, right now, if President,  Newt had the best answer.  It's time to reassess something that is unlikely doable.  Santorum said it would be wrong to leave the "mission" unfinished and Romney said it shouldn't be deterred by the actions of some crazy person.  Not one reporter asked what exactly the 'mission' was.

As for Mitt.  We know nothing of the soldier who committed the mass murders what's more what drove him to it.  All the talk about the death penalty and everything else being bandied about is premature to say the least. We owe it to him and ourselves to know all there is to know before acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Now, the mission.  Jay Carney, Obama's press secretary, said the mission is to "disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat" al Qaeda.  Did you know the last known death of an al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan was April 12, 2011?  And the last capture of one was in May of the same year? Bin Laden is dead.  The remnants that haven't scattered to Yemen and other such strongholds are holed up in Pakistan.  So we are in Afghanistan why?

Training their forces to protect them against who?  The Taliban.  We have no fight with the Taliban but we will if we stick around.  I believe what we're doing is called nation building.  Sure, we're building infrastructure and training police and military.  That's why Karzai hasn't thrown us out already.  He'd not like to have to dip into the funds he's already embezzled from us to do what we he's allowing us to do under nearly impossible constraints.  Yet on we march like lemmings to the sea.

I heard today that foreign policy is no where near the top of voters concerns in this Presidential election, but I would like the candidates to be able to articulate what the 'mission' of our military is in Afghanista.

I'd like, too, to hear some concern for the man who is allegedly at fault for the killings.  When you look around and all you see is death, horrible, violent death, for years on end it 's bound to have a negative effect.

Consider, we won't lift a finger to help the Syrian civilians caught up in massacre because we don't know who might follow in al Assad's footsteps.  So let them die.  Gaza is shelling Israel, Israel is bombing Gaza, the Palestinians are in an uproar and Libya is still trying to get itself straightened out.  Let them die.  Let them all die.  Just protect our re-election chances.  After all, what's most important here?

Ah, for Ron Paul. And Newt too.  Paul's theory of being nice isn't the answer, but  his and Newt's thought of getting the hell out just might be!