• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

Second rate reporter says what?

John Fetterman: Too Manly for Pennsylvania.  Paid for by the Oz for Senator campaign.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

The next time the wall wtreet journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

Everybody saw this coming.

“More of this”, i said to the dog.

This fight is for everything.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Consistently wrong since 2002

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

Americans barely caring about Afghanistan is so last month.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Republicans in disarray!

This really is a full service blog.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War / -2 Friedman Units

-2 Friedman Units

by $8 blue check mistermix|  February 2, 201210:51 am| 52 Comments

This post is in: War

FacebookTweetEmail

This didn’t get much attention yesterday, but it seems important:

The US plans to wind down its war in Afghanistan a year or more earlier than scheduled by ending its combat role in the second half of 2013.
[…] “Hopefully by mid to the latter part of 2013 we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role,” Panetta said on his way to Brussels for a Nato meeting about Afghanistan. “It’s still a pretty robust role that we’ll be engaged in. It’s not going to be a kind of formal combat role that we are [in] now.”

Here’s some more Afghanistan news:

A secret US military report says the Taliban, heavily backed by Pakistan, are confident they can win the Afghanistan conflict, and that they are gaining popular support at the expense of the Kabul government.
[…] Its conclusions, that the Taliban’s strength and morale are largely intact despite the Nato military surge, and that significant numbers of Afghan government soldiers are defecting to them, are in stark contrast to Nato’s far more bullish official line, that the insurgent movement has been severely damaged and demoralised.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Komenfraude
Next Post: Rectal Probe Amendment Attached to ‘Mandatory Ultrasound’ Bill Fails to Pass Virginia Senate »

Reader Interactions

52Comments

  1. 1.

    redshirt

    February 2, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Once we’re gone and the sands sweep over the remains of our bases, it will be as if we were never there.

    Except of course in the lives/dead that were directly impacted.

  2. 2.

    comrade scott's agenda of rage

    February 2, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Of course it didn’t get much attention. Imagine if President McCain had been doing this. Totally different coverage.

    Ugh, the mere mention of “President McCain” requires a brain bleach.

  3. 3.

    Linda Featheringill

    February 2, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Why don’t we leave Afghanistan completely in 2012, say in the middle of February?

  4. 4.

    patroclus

    February 2, 2012 at 10:56 am

    I think that it is absolutely key to note that this timeline will be applicable if and only if Obama is re-elected.

  5. 5.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    February 2, 2012 at 11:03 am

    @Linda Featheringill:
    We want to leave a government in charge, even if it’s not the one we would like to have. Leaving while the two sides are fighting to fill in the void would put our troops in danger.

    I think, like in Iraq, the time frame is meant to give the two sides a reason to resolve things with us in between.

  6. 6.

    General Stuck

    February 2, 2012 at 11:04 am

    The Taliban will re occupy and control the historical Pashtun tribal lands in Afghanistan, with something like the Northern Alliance reconstituting and defending the rest of Afghanistan, hopefully doing a better job of it than before our arrival in that country. The Taliban will slowly lose the influence of the now deceased OBL, and his pipe dreams of a global caliphate, and the Taliban will concentrate on their age old struggles in both Pak and Afghanistan, to mostly be left alone. And life and death will go on like it has for ages. Pakistan is the big worry with their nukes and hair trigger status with India, also with nukes, and now in a death hug and spiral with the Taliban fueling more instability for all concerned. I suspect they will reach some kind of tenuous cease fire with each other, and it will be not much our business as long as jihadi Arabs aren’t filling Mullah Omar’s head with grandiose plans to bring the west to its knees.

    just uninformed speculation on my part. Except the part that mostly, our interests there were mostly dumped at sea with OBl now sleeping with the fishes.

  7. 7.

    Villago Delenda Est

    February 2, 2012 at 11:04 am

    The only way to win in Afghanistan is to commit genocide. To wipe out most Afghanis to save them from themselves.

    Are we willing to do that?

    If this were the deserting coward malassministration, it would be a possibility After all, killing hundreds of thousands to get rid of one obstinate former client was considered an acceptable cost. Besides, we need to throw some shitty country against a wall every ten years just to show everyone how tuff we are.

  8. 8.

    The Moar You Know

    February 2, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Nobody wants to be the last man to die for a mistake.

  9. 9.

    Villago Delenda Est

    February 2, 2012 at 11:06 am

    @comrade scott’s agenda of rage:

    By this time in the McCain administration, it would be President Palin, because Gramps would have succumbed to some sort of “accident” about two years ago.

  10. 10.

    Frankensteinbeck

    February 2, 2012 at 11:07 am

    He said he’d give a try to fix the mess Bush made, and if he couldn’t we’d leave. He tried, we couldn’t, we’re leaving. He also said he’d get the original target, OBL. I find it refreshing to have a president who’s not speaking in code.

  11. 11.

    The Moar You Know

    February 2, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Why don’t we leave Afghanistan completely in 2012, say in the middle of February?

    @Linda Featheringill: The pragmatic explanation is that you simply can’t get all of our assets out of the country that fast. Iraq took almost four years to clear out of, they started back in 2008.

    There’s a lot of stuff that we probably don’t want to leave behind, these guys are already well-armed enough, if you catch my drift.

  12. 12.

    Butch

    February 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I think that long ago we should have started working with the regional powers – China, India, Russia – to take a larger role in Afghanistan, rather than shouldering it mostly alone.

  13. 13.

    kindness

    February 2, 2012 at 11:21 am

    I understand the need to communicate with your adversaries but why is it we keep shipping Pakistan a billion dollars every year?

  14. 14.

    The Moar You Know

    February 2, 2012 at 11:25 am

    I think that long ago we should have started working with the regional powers – China, India, Russia – to take a larger role in Afghanistan, rather than shouldering it mostly alone.

    @Butch: They all refused. At least two of those nations have fought there before. Maybe they knew something we didn’t (rolls eyes).

  15. 15.

    Villago Delenda Est

    February 2, 2012 at 11:25 am

    @kindness:

    Because they have nukes.

    A lot of that aid is to help them with control protocols for their deadly toys.

  16. 16.

    Alex

    February 2, 2012 at 11:26 am

    “The secretary of Defense said that on a day certain, the middle of 2013, we’re going to pull out our combat troops from Afghanistan,” Romney said, according to reports from Las Vegas.

    “He announced that. So the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it. Why in the world do you go to the people that you’re fighting with and tell them the date you’re pulling out your troops?” Romney said. “It makes absolutely no sense.”

    Romney concluded that Obama’s “naivete is putting in jeopardy the mission of the United States of America and our commitments to freedom.”

    ————-

    Remember: A vote for Romney is a vote for permenant war

  17. 17.

    amk

    February 2, 2012 at 11:32 am

    @Alex: Of course, if willard had his way, the pullout will be as orderly as it was in vietnam.

    Send one of your useless sons to afpak, miit.

  18. 18.

    slag

    February 2, 2012 at 11:35 am

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    He also said he’d get the original target, OBL.

    Personally, I thought we should have ended the war the day we ended Osama Bin Laden. But then, as a rule, I prefer very clear goals and tangible accomplishments.

  19. 19.

    Frankensteinbeck

    February 2, 2012 at 11:38 am

    @Butch:
    It’s always worth remembering that Bush didn’t just get us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. He abandoned Afghanistan to do it. Once the conquest was over, he made zero effort to rebuild either nation, and just kept the troops around to fight any rebels. He screwed a lot of pooches, but Iraq and Afghanistan were the biggest and hardest.

  20. 20.

    scav

    February 2, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Afghanistan v. Elsewhere has one hell of a record.

  21. 21.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    February 2, 2012 at 11:42 am

    @slag: I want to fight your wars: They seem so simple.

  22. 22.

    Maude

    February 2, 2012 at 11:43 am

    A lot of the heavy military equipment is coming out of Afghanistan this year. That is the beginning.
    Mittens thinks that withdrawing US combat troops is misguided.
    It is Afghan. Afghani is a gun.

  23. 23.

    4tehlulz

    February 2, 2012 at 11:44 am

    >India…take a larger role in Afghanistan

    I can’t think of a better way to guarantee a In/Pak nuclear exchange.

  24. 24.

    handsmile

    February 2, 2012 at 11:46 am

    It should be noted that the story behind the second of mistermix’s links above (secret US military report on Taliban) was first broken and heavily promoted yesterday morning by the BBC, emphasizing the steadfast relationship between the Taliban and the Pakistan intelligence services.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218

    I have little doubt that the report was leaked in advance of Panetta’s statement on US combat strategy in Afghanistan to embarrass and constrain the Obama administration. (CNN was right on cue this morning with this line of attack, i.e., how can the US leave now that the Taliban is boasting victory.)

    While I realize that I recently posted this link, there is a superb and deeply informative essay, “Afghanistan: The Best Way to Peace,” in the last issue of the NYRB written by British journalist and policy analyst Anatol Lieven. He summarizes a number of recent books on the subject written by American, European and Pakistani journalists, scholars and diplomats. Lieven’s own recent book, Pakistan: A Hard Country, is comprehensive and authoritative.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/09/afghanistan-best-way-peace/?pagination=false

  25. 25.

    Bill H.

    February 2, 2012 at 11:58 am

    @patroclus:
    I think you miss the point. This is a talking point to get him reelected and has nothing whatever to do with what will or will not happen after he is reelected.

    @Maude:
    Actually, Afghani is Afghan currency.

  26. 26.

    Villago Delenda Est

    February 2, 2012 at 11:58 am

    @Maude:

    It is Afghan. Afghani is a gun.

    I stand corrected, but the two seem interchangeable nowadays.

  27. 27.

    boss bitch

    February 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    @Bill H.:

    Announcing that you are working on pulling out of a decade old war a year or early is not a talking point.

  28. 28.

    Butch

    February 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    @Frankensteinbeck: I think I need to apologize that my comment came off as hawkish and I didn’t mean that at all. I’m sorry if it was misconstrued.

  29. 29.

    Maude

    February 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    I was told this by an Afghan. It was embarrassing.

    @Bill H.:
    That, too.

  30. 30.

    Dave

    February 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    The Graveyard of Empires remains undefeated…

    At least President Obama recognizes our time here is done. You can’t fight a war successfully when an ally-in-name-only provides material support and a porous border to your opponent.

    God help us if Mitt wins. He’ll keep us there another 10 years just to prove that Republicans don’t “cut and run”.

    Of course, in his case they up and go to France and live in mansions.

  31. 31.

    PeakVT

    February 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    @Butch: You’re kidding, right?

  32. 32.

    Linnaeus

    February 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Just found that that the son of a couple of professors in my department was killed in Afghanistan. I didn’t know him, but I know his parents reasonably well. Apparently, he had really found his niche in the Marines and earned the respect of his fellows there. He had some good plans for his life once his deployment ended, which would have been about six weeks from now. And now he’s dead. I don’t know what to say other than it’s a tragedy.

  33. 33.

    patroclus

    February 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    @Bill H.: Well, Obama had a “talking point” the last election about how he was going to both end the Iraq war and get bin Laden in Pakistan and both happened, so I’m inclined to believe that, if he’s re-elected, thie year’s “talking point” about ending the Afghan war is likely to have the same result.

    If Obama hadn’t have ended the Iraq war as promised and gotten bin Laden as promised, then you might have a point, but he did so you don’t.

  34. 34.

    slag

    February 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Hey–In my wars, the getting there may not be simple. The simple part would be knowing where the there is and being able to recognize when you’ve gotten there.

    But that requirement originates from my own limitations. I’ve never ever been able to achieve a successful result without first knowing what the successful result looked like. Though I’m sure there are some people who are able to do that. Maybe.

  35. 35.

    Mnemosyne

    February 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    Since there are some other knitters/crocheters here, I thought I would remind everyone that Afghans for Afghans is looking for hand-knitted or hand-crocheted children’s clothing (sweaters, socks, mittens, hats and blankets) by Feb. 29th. The restrictions are that it must be made of animal fibers (wool, alpaca, etc.) since non-animal fibers are not warm enough for Afghan winters, and socks must be knitted, not crocheted.

  36. 36.

    Bill H.

    February 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    @patroclus:
    Obama did not end the Iraq war at all. The troops came out of Iraq on precisely the schedule which Bush and Maliki agreed upon before Bush left office, which was considerably slower than Obama promised in his campaign. (“One brigade per month beginning the month that I take office.”) Obama tried to negotiate with Maliki to keep them there longer and failed. That is not me being anti-Obama, that is simple fact.

    So it would seem “I might have a point.”

  37. 37.

    General Stuck

    February 2, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    @Bill H.:

    A median number of troops for a brigade is about 4000 troops. you do the math with the 150 thousand that were in Iraq when Obama took office. And it is endearing the mental gymnastics some of you go to to criticize Obama. Or, the implication that luckily we had Bush to thank for getting our troops out of Iraq.

    Obama could have kept troops in Iraq without legal amnesty in that country, if he’d wanted to. And there is no evidence he pushed very hard for protections of US troops, that almost certainly Maliki would have relented, but maybe enough to innocculate himself politically from GOP cries of cutting and running. But that doesn’t change the fact the troops are gone, and you can parse it any way you wish for Obama fail.

    You folks will never trust anything the president says or does, and the GOP thanks you for playing.

    This president has earned the trust of dems, or should have by now, as presidential promises go.

  38. 38.

    Brachiator

    February 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    The only way to win in Afghanistan is to commit genocide. To wipe out most Afghanis to save them from themselves. Are we willing to do that?

    Probably, if Pakistan cannot continue to play it’s own political game and contain the Taliban.

    The Taliban were primitive thugs who pushed Afghanistan back into the Middle Ages. If they do so again, and give protection to terrorists, there will be a loud clamor not to send troops, but to bomb them back into the Stone Age.

    A Democratic Party president might try to cool the blood of the mob. A Republican president will happily oblige them.

  39. 39.

    patroclus

    February 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    @Bill H.: The argument that Bush ended the Iraq war is really one of the most absurd ahistorical arguments that I have ever seen and is paradigmatic of something Dear Leader Greenwald might say. Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war from the beginning; Bush started the war based on baldfaced lies. When Bush left office, the war was ongoing; with multitudinous deaths still occurring. When Obama leaves office, the war will have been over for years.

    The SOFA was negotiated after Obama’s election and the Iraqis took Obama’s suggested timeframe and used it in the negotiations; thereby effectively forcing the Bush administration to go along. If they hadn’t, then there would have no legal veneer authorizing the continuing occupation by U.S. troops.

    No historian will ever take your view because it is utterly nonsensical. You have no point and you know it.

  40. 40.

    Brachiator

    February 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    @Bill H.:

    Obama did not end the Iraq war at all. The troops came out of Iraq on precisely the schedule which Bush and Maliki agreed upon before Bush left office, which was considerably slower than Obama promised in his campaign.

    This is nuts, and typical of a strange GOP world view.

    You write as though once Bush set the process in motion, neither his successor in the White House nor anyone else could do anything but watch it happen.

    This is doubly odd given the saber rattling by some of the GOP presidential contenders that they would have found a way to keep troops in Iraq.

  41. 41.

    gene108

    February 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    @General Stuck:

    Pakistan is the big worry with their nukes and hair trigger status with India, also with nukes, and now in a death hug and spiral with the Taliban fueling more instability for all concerned.

    Pakistan needs more space to train terrorists to attack India. Afghans make good foot soldiers and give Pakistan some level of denial ability in their involvement, as with the incursion into the Kargil pass in 1999.

    @Butch:

    I think that long ago we should have started working with the regional powers – China, India, Russia – to take a larger role in Afghanistan, rather than shouldering it mostly alone.

    The problem is Pakistan.

    Pakistan already is getting nervous with India’s aid to Afghanistan. I’m not sure what Russia and China’s involvement in Afghanistan is, but I’ll bet there’s some involvement.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/05/india-regret-supporting-karzai-afghanistan

    As long as Pakistan feels a pliant government in Kabul is the most important thing for their security, there’s not much hope for reconciliation between Karzai’s government and the Taliban.

    The Taliban exist because Islamabad props them up. They seized power in the 1990’s because of aid from Pakistan.

    There’s not much anyone can do, as long as Pakistan feels the most important thing for their western neighbor is they are dependent on Pakistan and willing to help advance Pakistan’s agenda, i.e. be a thorn in India’s side.

  42. 42.

    Robert Sneddon

    February 2, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    @Brachiator: It’s not difficult to contain the Taliban or whatever you wish to call the Pashtun tribes in the south-west of Afghanistan. The British figured it out after learning from events such as the Elphinstone Expedition — hold the Khyber Pass and sow discord and the Pashtun tribes will gnaw at each other’s vitals. Give them an enemy they can unite against standing on their own territory and they will fight like demons and make money; a lot of the Afghan economy is currently predicated on the flows of wealth into that country from the invaders. Take that money away and the problems the Taliban cause in the surrounding countries such as Pakistan will decrease substantially.

  43. 43.

    DanielX

    February 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    I do believe I’ve seen this movie before, what with MACV – er, NATO – proclaiming triumph to be right around the corner, and the opposition being completely confident in eventual victory once the foreigners run out of time, patience and money. There’s even a relevant quote:

    You will kill ten of our men, and we will kill one of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.

  44. 44.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    February 2, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    the issue in political terms is that obama is on the side of getting out of afghanistan at the earliest feasible opportunity.

    thus, leaving the republicans on the side of more troops and continued war. lets see raw money or newt make that case.

    if the election hinges on the troops staying or coming home, i think the issue is a winner. though, batten the hatches for an assault on patriotism and all that.

  45. 45.

    Mark S.

    February 2, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    From the second link:

    The authors, American researchers attached to special forces, conclude that the weakness and venality of the government in Kabul is an increasing source of strength for the insurgents. “In the last year, there has been unprecedented interest, even from [Afghan government] members, in joining the insurgent cause. Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over [the Afghan government], usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders.

    I am amazed that any government could be less preferable to the Taliban, but there it is. We’ve completely backed a loser in Karzai. It’s really time to get the hell out of this shithole. Our main goal, destroying AQ, has been accomplished.

  46. 46.

    Marc

    February 2, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    @patroclus: This.

    I look forward to reading the next firebagger comment about “Obama’s endless wars.” He ended two and just put a date on the third. But we have to make sure he gets the chance to make good on it.

  47. 47.

    Mnemosyne

    February 2, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    @Bill H.:

    You mean that in the course of negotiations to keep the troops in Iraq (which was something Maliki actually wanted — he did not want US troops to leave), the Obama administration offered a condition that they knew perfectly well would not be accepted?

    Weird, it’s almost like the Obama administration didn’t want to stay and so they offered conditions that would be impossible for Maliki to accept.

    Though I do have to laugh when people claim that Obama only withdrew because the law required him to. Because obviously the invasion was totally legal in the first place, so there’s no way Obama could possibly have gone against the law, amirite? It’s not like we had overwhelming military power or anything.

  48. 48.

    Brachiator

    February 2, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    @Robert Sneddon:

    It’s not difficult to contain the Taliban or whatever you wish to call the Pashtun tribes in the south-west of Afghanistan. The British figured it out after learning from events such as the Elphinstone Expedition—hold the Khyber Pass and sow discord and the Pashtun tribes will gnaw at each other’s vitals. Give them an enemy they can unite against standing on their own territory and they will fight like demons and make money; a lot of the Afghan economy is currently predicated on the flows of wealth into that country from the invaders. Take that money away and the problems the Taliban cause in the surrounding countries such as Pakistan will decrease substantially.

    The British never figured out much of anything.

    People seem to forget the increasingly brutal, paranoid and xenophobic reign of the Taliban.

    And as noted, the Pakistan Intelligence Service is playing a dangerous game, trying to throw the Taliban bones to keep them from making more moves against Pakistan itself. Meanwhile, the Taliban is playing its own game against its supposed Pakistan handlers.

    This reminds me of how the US foolishly believed that they could easily control Musharraf. Then again, the US has been pointlessly trying to “handle” Pakistan since the Cold War.

    The Saudis and the government of Pakistan have the major responsibility for containing the Taliban. And they failed spectacularly before. Apart from this, talking about the faded glories of the past British hegemony are faded and empty reveries.

    @gene108:

    Pakistan needs more space to train terrorists to attack India. Afghans make good foot soldiers and give Pakistan some level of denial ability in their involvement, as with the incursion into the Kargil pass in 1999.

    Nothing like this was necessary for the more recent 2008 Mumbai attacks.

  49. 49.

    Samara Morgan

    February 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    hahaha

    now who has been telling you guys this for months?
    mememememe!
    guess what else i see in my quantum crystal ball….Imran Khan is gettin’ Zardari’s job in 2013.
    could there be a connection?
    Khan doan liek America much.
    He led he Arab Spring style sit-in that closed the NATO supply routes last spring and is suing the US for droning civilians in Waziristan.

    tolejasotolejasotolejaso

  50. 50.

    mclaren

    February 2, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Magnificent! America is making the transition from hopeless quagmire to endless debacle, and much sooner than anticipated. How wonderful.

    Meanwhile, that secret army report offers proof once again that America boasts the greatest military the world has ever known. 1.2 trillion dollars per year spent on America’s military, and we can’t defeat a bunch of 15-year-old kids who are armed with bolt-action rifles from WW I. Doesn’t it make you proud?

    Everyone join in praising Barack Obama’s supreme wisdom and peerless insight in sliding deeper into the bottomless quagmire misnamed “Afghanistan” by changing the name of the hopeless endless futile mission from ‘war’ to ‘nation-building.’ Repeat after me: “Obama is a genius!”

  51. 51.

    mclaren

    February 2, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    From the second link:

    The authors, American researchers attached to special forces, conclude that the weakness and venality of the government in Kabul Washington D.C. is an increasing source of strength for the insurgents.

    There, fixed that for ya.

  52. 52.

    xian

    February 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    wish we could put mclaren and toko-loko in a roomful of mirrors together

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • eclare on Late Night Open Thread: America’s Rural Dependents Cousins (Jan 29, 2023 @ 3:47am)
  • SpaceUnit on Late Night Open Thread: America’s Rural Dependents Cousins (Jan 29, 2023 @ 3:34am)
  • Cathie from Canada on Fibbie McGonigal : New Information Never *Mitigates* the Original Crime (Jan 29, 2023 @ 3:28am)
  • NotMax on Late Night Open Thread: America’s Rural Dependents Cousins (Jan 29, 2023 @ 3:24am)
  • NotMax on Saturday Evening Open Thread: A Start Is Made, in Memphis (Jan 29, 2023 @ 2:50am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!