Gen. Jones has made some statements during his tenure that lead to questions about whether he serves to provide formerly-uniformed cover when the administration makes politically driven decisions. He threw out a perfect example of this recently.
Asked why al-Qaeda, which is comparatively safe in its current sanctuaries in Pakistan, would want to return to Afghanistan, where more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops are stationed, Jones said, "That's a good question. . . . This is certainly one of the questions that we will be discussing. This is one of the questions, for example, that one could come back at with General McChrystal."
The answer to this question is patently obvious to anyone who is conscious.
Because they always do.
You don't even have to get to the why, the fact is that they recruit, refit and then re-infiltrate. Period. The why isn't rocket science either, they want to rule the roost in Afghanistan. But when you are willing to actually pose a question as stunningly dense as the one he wants to go back at McChrystal with, you have to wonder why? Is he really that ignorant? I kinda doubt it, so that leaves other explanations and providing cover for the shameful delay in dealing with Afghanistan and the increasing possibility that some version of cut and run is about to be put in play is a reasonable deduction.
I didn't think that with all the posturing and big talk there was any chance they would start the bailout this early, but I have to say it sure looks like it. If so then I would love to hear what Obama will say when the families of those killed under his command ask why he sent their loved ones there this year. He sent 22,000 troops there by his decision and some of them have been killed. It looks like that was simply to fulfill campaign promises, not because of the grand strategy he announced earlier this year. This would be a huge betrayal and I hope this is not the case.