The Council on American-Islamic Relations announced Monday night that it had successfully prevented retired Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin from speaking at an upcoming prayer breakfast at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

“We welcome Mr. Boykin’s withdrawal from this event and hope that the speaker who replaces him will offer cadets a spiritual message that promotes tolerance and mutual understanding,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad in a statement.

When are we going to stop bowing to this terrorist front group????

West Point initially balked at the calls to remove Boykin — a former military intelligence officer — from the event.

Lt. Col. Sherri Reed of West Point told The Associated Press that cadets are “purposefully exposed to different perspectives and cultures.”

I can well understand why our future military officers would be exposed to “different perspectives and cultures”.  Wasn’t it Sun Tzu who said “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.”  Since we ARE fighting against Islam, who declared war on us a long time ago, our young men and women need to know all they can about the ‘enemy’.

“The National Prayer Breakfast Service will be pluralistic with Christians, Jewish, and Muslim cadets participating,” Reed said. “We are comfortable and confident that what retired Lt. Gen. Boykin will share about prayer, soldier care and selfless service, will be in keeping with the broad range of ideas normally considered by our cadets.”

I’d really like to know why there are Muslims at West Point, and in our military in the first place. Would FDR have allowed Nazis to sign up? Would West Point have accepted Brown Shirts? I see no difference in the two! Muslims were allies of the Nazis, and yet, here we are, trying to suck up to a group that would see our demise.

CAIR and the group VoteVets.org pushed hard for a retraction of Boykin’s invitation to the event due to his “Islamophobic” views.

CAIR and People For the American Way failed to stop a speech Boykin gave in Ocean City, Md., last week. This week it seems they have been successful.

I am completely disgusted that this Lt General would cave to the enemy since they evidently failed from intimidating him previously.  Muslims and socialists working together to silence him, and many others, should give EVERYONE pause!

Shared by Jack.

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

EXACTLY!

I’d really appreciate it if our government officials would stop whining, quit kowtowing, and knock off the ‘we’re so sorry’ for any and every little thing.  This is a freakin’ war.  WAR!  This trash are killing our young men and women, and honestly, I wouldn’t walk across the street to whiz on a one of ‘em if they were on fire.  They do not deserve any respect, dead or alive!

If the President and the Congress are able to realize their plans for the US military, it will leave American with, as the title to this piece suggests, a hollow force. It will also place America in a great deal of danger because our military will be a great deal smaller in numbers of troops.

Think about that for a moment. Not only will our military lose so much of its war fighting materiel, it will lose many thousands of troops. That’s bad enough but there is something else — and no one seems concerned about it.

You see, when the military cutbacks come, we will lose the experience of troops who have actually been on the battlefield, who have actually looked the enemy in the eye, who have dealt with the pain of taking another human being’s life, and the deep abiding pain of losing a friend or companion in battle, who have fought the fight and lived to tell about it. BUT – they will not be available to train the raw recruits that will always be necessary to keep the much smaller fighting force flush with young, robust, well-trained fighting men.

Everything, these days, seems to have a price in dollars and cents. Not experience. The value of experienced combat soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines is inestimable. It also holds true, not just for enlistees, but for officers as well — mustangs and academy graduates, alike. Experienced officers are a must for a military to even consider executing a victorious military campaign. Book knowledge is absolutely necessary but it can’t hold a candle to experience on the battlefield.

Read the entire column here.

For a country to gut it’s military during a time of war, and yes, we are in a war on several fronts, is not only insane, but extremely dangerous!  You can call what is going on around the world isolated incidents by radical Islamists, but the truth is…they aren’t all that isolated, and they aren’t just ‘radicals’. They are Muslims, plain and simple! Just a few examples of those isolated incidents for the 9th and 10th of January, courtesy of “The Religion of Peace“:

2012.01.10 (Yathreb, Iraq) – Three schoolboys between the ages of 9 and 11 are dismantled by ‘insurgents’ while walking to school.
2012.01.10 (Jamrud, Pakistan) – Three dozen people waiting in line at a gas station are torn to pieces by Islamist bombers.
2012.01.10 (Sharan, Afghanistan) – Civilians and guards are killed during an assault on a telecommunications building by suicidal Fedayeen..
2012.01.09 (Baghdad, Iraq) – Sunni bombers detonate a car bomb at a Shiite mosque, killing five.
2012.01.09 (Baghdad, Iraq) – At least seven people at a market are blown to bits by Jihadi car bombers.
2012.01.09 (Dabori, Pakistan) – The bodies of ten local troops, abducted during a Taliban raid, are found brutally beheaded.

The day isn’t over yet!  And how many so called ‘honor killings‘ have we had right here in the U.S. of A.?  Not to mention the OBVIOUS terror attack on a U.S. military base, the shooting of recruiters, the attempted bombing by the ‘crotch bomber‘, the attempt at Ft Dix, the incident in Florida within the last few days, and the list goes on and on.

Are you aware that the difference in the numbers of males and females in Muslim countries is extremely dramatic?

Yet, the Obama administration thinks it’s a good idea to ‘save money’ by gutting our military.  Calling him the Commander in Chief is beyond laughable, but it reality, he is one very dangerous man/child, and we are ALL put in danger by his actions.  If he truly wanted to ‘save money’, he’d stop creating more bureaucratic BS! And perhaps, he could pay back the taxpayers for all those luxury trips he and the ‘queen’ have taken. There are MANY ways for the government to cut spending, but the military isn’t one of them!

Do we really want to become a third world nation, allow our borders to continue to be breached, and allow a total takeover of the rest of the world by a theocratic dictatorship, and see even more blood of the innocents in the streets?  If Congress would grow a pair, on BOTH sides of the aisle, and stop this stupidity, we just MIGHT have a chance to survive, and save our nation for our children!

The Iranian threat yet again finds itself on the front page of America’s newspapers this morning, this time with news that the rogue regime has sentenced a U.S. citizen to death for working for the CIA and that it has started refining uranium deep inside a mountain bunker. Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is launching a week-long trip through South America in order to bolster ties with his allies in the region in hopes of strengthening the country’s challenge to the United States.

This news comes just after a series of Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz–a provocative move that would cut off a quarter of the world’s energy supply and wreak havoc on the global economy. Of course, on top of this verbal threat, Iran is continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons despite an uproar from the international community.

Despite this emerging threat, President Barack Obama traveled to the Pentagon last Thursday to announce that the “tide of war is receding” for the United States, thereby justifying massive cuts to the U.S. military. “In short, we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership. That makes us safer and it makes us stronger.”

The President, though, did not mention the Iranian threat, North Korea’s new 28-year-old leader whose finger rests on a nuclear trigger, and the growing dominance of China as a regional power. In other words, the President is pursuing a strategy to cut the U.S. military by a half-trillion dollars over ten years based on the argument that the world is a safer place, yet he is totally ignoring the very real threats around the world today. Defense expert Mackenzie Eaglen explains how the military plans to cope with the resulting reduction in funding and forces, one component of which includes a “strategic pivot” from southwest Asia to East Asia in order to counter a rising China:

Pentagon leaders plan to skirt the lack of capabilities through an increased reliance on National Guard and reserve forces–the same men and women who are worn out from a decade of multiple tours overseas. DoD plans to assume more risk in the active component and the capabilities that are available immediately in the event of conflict or crisis. Examples include heavy armor brigades and tactical fighter wings.

Another tenet of the “pivot” to Asia is the transition from a military focused on manpower-intensive counterinsurgency to the light footprint doctrine of counterterrorism. Panetta has mentioned unmanned or remotely piloted aircraft, cyber, and special forces as key areas that must be protected from budget cuts. They may even get more money.

Of course, the Pentagon will do its best to answer the call to duty under the limitations that the White House imposes. But that does not mean that it will be as well-equipped as it could and should be to defend the United States, at home and abroad. As Heritage’s James Carafano writes, “It is completely unreasonable for the White House to argue the world has changed so much that we can just do all this with less.” That is especially true given the threats that are lurking around the corner from the likes of Iran, North Korea, and China.

President Barack Obama will join top Pentagon commanders to unveil a new “more realistic” vision for the US military, including cuts to ground force numbers as a result of budget strains, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will hold a news conference fleshing out the contents of the strategic review of US security interests after Obama’s brief remarks on Thursday at the Pentagon, the officials said.

They said the review would emphasize military investment in Asia as well as US air and maritime power, while reducing the pace of growth in Pentagon budgets overall and relying less on ground troops for American engagement abroad.

God help us!  It would be absolutely hilarious if it weren’t so scary!  And just what does D’Bama know about the military and realism?  Not a dadgum thing!  If he did, he sure as hell wouldn’t be announcing plans to the freakin’ world!  What the blazes is wrong with that fool????

The Army will develop a policy allowing Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets to ask for permission to wear religious headdresses with their uniforms.

The decision came in a letter dated Monday, the response to an October complaint filed by the Council of American-Islamic Relations on behalf of a Williamson County student.

Gadeir Abbas, a staff attorney with the council, said the decision was a victory for all.

“This is sending a message that the JROTC is a program for all Americans,” he said.

Well, that message would be real nice, except for one thing.  Muslims and American freedom, fought and won by the U.S. Military, do NOT mix.  They are a total contradiction.  This is just one more example of the wussification of our military, thanks to the politically correct, but utterly ignorant!

The student, Demin Zawity, was the first to challenge the JROTC policy, Abbas said. Demin, Muslim and a freshman at Ravenwood High School, quit the JROTC program earlier this year because she wasn’t allowed to wear a religious headscarf in a parade. She said the scarf protected her modesty.

Give me a flippin’ break! So what if she quit! Here’s a huge WHO CARES! And those ‘headscarves’ are not religious! They are tradition in backwards countries, where women are suppressed. This is the U.S., not some 3rd world country stuck in the middle ages!

In Monday’s letter, Larry Stubblefield, deputy assistant secretary of the Army’s diversity and leadership division, confirmed the policy would change. He wrote that officials from the JROTC planned to contact Demin and offer her the chance to re-enroll in Ravenwood’s program.

“Diversity and leadership division”? Are they kidding? There is only one color in the Army….that’s green, or camo…depending on where said soldier is located at any given time. What’s this ‘diversity’ horse manure? There is no ‘diversity’ in the military, or shouldn’t be! They should be soldiers, ready to defend this country and her citizens, not a bunch of pussified whiners!

Demin said previously that she probably wouldn’t return to JROTC because she was too busy with her studies but that she hoped other Muslims would join. She didn’t return messages left Thursday.

And there, problem solved! Now pull your collective head’s out of CAIR’s hind end, and start acting like strong Americans….again….instead of a bunch of PC bowers and scrapers to the enemies of the country.

To date, five exceptions have been granted nationwide. Four of the exceptions were for servicemen belonging to the Sikh faith, and one was for an Orthodox Jewish rabbi serving in the Army Reserve, Wright said, adding that he didn’t know how many people had applied for an exception.

“Persons who are in active combat are less likely to get granted,” he said. “They have to have a good seal around their neck to prevent the leakage of their gas mask equipment, and a beard and/or a turban could be problematic.”

The turbans of the Sikhs, and the yamaka of the Orthodox Jews, ARE religious. That head scare is NOT.

“We are an emerging group in the U.S., and as we emerge, there are inevitably going to be instances where rules, albeit not intentionally, disadvantage Muslims,” he said. “But there is a difference between possible discrimination and safety. If the rule is designed around safety, that’s just acknowledging a reality.”

And there in lies the problem. An “emerging group” that wants to destroy the U.S. FYI CAIR….I’m one of those who will NOT be bowing to Mecca. I’ve no doubt there a whole lot of us who will push back!

On this day 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and requested a declaration of war against Japan following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt’s words carried forth across the nation via radio, and the consequences of the actions America would take would be felt around the world–and across history. The lessons America learned in those fateful days should be remembered even today.

Roosevelt noted that the day of Japan’s attack would be “a date which will live in infamy,” and he also pledged the following:

I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces — with the unbounding determination of our people — we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.

Just as Roosevelt proclaimed that “hostilities exist” 70 years ago, those words are true today. The United States faces threats at home and abroad–as we were reminded on September 11 and with every man and woman in military who makes the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms. The hostilities we face today are different from those we may face tomorrow, and there is no telling what challenges may lie around the corner. For that reason, our military must stand ready, prepared, and adequately equipped and funded to meet all threats, foreign and domestic.

Unfortunately, the U.S. military’s ability to effectively carry out its mission is in jeopardy. Today, there are those who would like America to return to an era of disengagement while also slashing military spending to dangerous levels. Under the Budget Control Act (BCA), the military budget will be cut by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts come on top of successive rounds of deep cuts in defense dollars and capabilities that Congress and the Obama Administration have already implemented. In a new paper, Heritage’s Mackenzie Eaglen writes that those cuts will undermine U.S. power and influence around the world and reduce the ability of the military to meet future threats:

The military is a vital tool of U.S. foreign policy. Slashing defense spending without any reduction in U.S. foreign policy commitments around the world is not only dangerous, but also more costly in the long run than maintaining stable defense budgets. A review of roles and missions will not change U.S. foreign policy; only the President can do that. Starving the military as part of a deficit reduction plan may cost taxpayers more in the future if it makes the country less safe and increases the risk of another terrorist attack or the likelihood of U.S. forces being drawn into yet another overseas mission.

The only responsible way to fund defense is to identify the nation’s vital national interests, ask what is required to defend the nation and those interests, determine what military capabilities are required to do so, and then build a defense budget to match the foreign and defense policies of the United States.

Eaglen recommends that Congress tackle debt reduction responsibly with American security interests in mind. That means stopping the current rounds of defense cuts, budgeting responsibly for America’s foreign policy needs and objectives, and repealing the debt ceiling deal “trigger.” Other actions she recommends include stabilizing the military’s modernization accounts, aggressively promoting foreign military sales and increasing cutting-edge defense exports to friends and allies, and forcing the Department of Defense to innovate even as budgets fall.

Some would have Americans believe that defense budget cuts required under the BCA would reduce only the rate of increase in the overall defense budget. While precise defense budget projections under the BCA are not possible, it is a certainty that the overall defense budget will decline under its terms. And those are reductions the military can ill afford. Since President Obama took office, more than 50 major weapons programs at a value of more than $300 billion were cut or delayed. On top of this, the Administration told the military to cut almost $600 billion more over the next 15 years. That was even before the BCA took effect.

This is no way to fund a military or to fulfill the Constitution’s prescription that the primary role of the federal government is “to provide for the common defence.” That duty is just as important now as it was 70 years ago when America faced one of its greatest challenges. Just as they did then, Congress and the President should ensure that the federal government carries out its responsibilities today and fully funds our military.

The Senate this evening is poised to vote on a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals–or bestiality.

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

From Leviticus 18:
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Abomination-
1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.

23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.

Perversion-
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.

Pervert-
1. to affect with perversion.
2. to lead astray morally.
3. to turn away from the right course.
4. to lead into mental error or false judgment.
5. to turn to an improper use; misapply.

“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”

For this administration to use our young men and women of the military as a tool to promote his agenda, is an abomination, and a perversion! He professes to be a Christian, but it’s obvious by his actions, he is not!  I do not judge people, that’s not my job.  I do however take God at His Word.  Obviously, the current resident of the White House and his cronies aren’t aware of the consequences of defying God.  For some reason, I don’t think they actually care.

“We are here away from our families, and the chapel is the one place that feels like home,” a service member at Camp Marmal told POLITICO. “With the cross on the outside, it is a constant reminder for all of us that Jesus is here for us.”

“Not having it there is really upsetting,” added another. “I walk by the chapel daily on the way to chow and the gym, and seeing the cross is a daily reminder of my faith and what Jesus accomplished for me. It is daily inspiration and motivation for me to acknowledge my faith and stay on the right path.”

The service member said he asked the base chaplain, a military officer, what had happened to the cross. “I had to take it down,” said the chaplain, according to the solider, without further explanation.

Pentagon spokesperson Commander William Speaks confirmed the cross was removed and told POLITICO, “The removal was, in fact, in accordance with Army regulations” and pointed out that the Army chaplain manual prohibits permanent display of religious symbols.

“Distinctive religious symbols, such as crosses… will not be affixed or displayed permanently on the chapel interior, exterior or grounds,” reads the manual.

Speaks said the cross had been up since mid-October; the service members said it was longer.

The two characterized the removal of the cross as an attack on their religion and noted that there had been no complaints from Muslims — there are two mosques on the base — or Jews, who had recently conducted a service in the chapel without incident.

“I really don’t understand why Christians are always attacked. If it was a crescent moon on top of a mosque, it would never be taken down,” said an Army serviceman.

“We would just like to know where the line is. The chaplains wear different religious symbols on their uniforms depending on which religion they are. Is that the next thing to be targeted?” added a second service member.

I honestly cannot come up with the words to express my total disgust!

The U.S. military and America’s national security stands at the brink. This week, a congressional “super committee” was due to develop a plan to reduce the federal deficit by more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Failing to enact the plan by January 15, 2012, would result in automatic cuts to military spending–a scenario that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta describes as “devastating.”

The super committee’s ability to succeed remains in serious doubt, with reports of its deadlock and failure headlining newspapers this morning. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates are set to take the stage tomorrow night at Washington, D.C.’s Constitution Hall in a debate on foreign policy and national security co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. With the future of America’s national security hanging in the balance, the question of which presidential candidate would best protect America has more importance than ever.

In letters sent to Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last week, Panetta detailed the danger of further defense cuts if the super committee fails to meet its target. Panetta said that under the worst-case scenario, “the total cut will rise to about $1 trillion compared with the FY 2012 plan,” which in practical terms means “the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of  ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history.”

What’s more, as Panetta explained, the Pentagon would face the prospect of terminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; littoral combat ship; all ground combat vehicle and helicopter modernization programs; European missile defense; all unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. It may also have to delay the next-generation ballistic missile submarine; terminate next-generation bomber efforts; and eliminate the entire intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) leg of America’s nuclear “triad.”

And amidst these potential reductions to U.S. forces, Panetta wrote, “Unfortunately, while large cuts are being imposed, the threats to national security would not be reduced. As a result, we would have to formulate a new security strategy that accepted substantial risk of not meeting our defense needs.” Tragically, America’s military is being threatened despite the fact that national defense is the priority job of the national government, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The Defending Defense Project lays out three key facts about military spending today that the GOP presidential candidates should bear in mind as they seek the White House.

First, the main driver of America’s growing debt and deficit is domestic spending–especially entitlement spending–and not defense spending. Mandatory and discretionary domestic program spending has experienced almost exponential growth since the 1970s, contrasted with spending on national defense, which has stayed comparatively stable.

Second, defense spending has been subjected to several rounds of reductions under President Obama, with long-term cuts amounting to roughly $850 billion already. Heritage’s Mackenzie Eaglen debunks the myth that the military hasn’t already faced cuts:

Using Washington math, some say there have been no defense cuts. But President Obama’s started slashing military plans and priorities since taking office. His first defense budget canceled or delayed some 50 major equipment programs, including ships, missile defense, cargo and fighter aircraft, and ground vehicles valued at more than $300 billion. Then, behind the scenes, the White House took another $78 billion out of the military’s budget last winter.

Eaglen writes that Obama was so pleased with these defense cuts that he vowed to repeat them by cutting another $400 billion from the military. If Congress fails to pass into law a massive deficit-reduction bill as required, then long-term defense will be again cut–this time, by as much as $500 billion.

The third fact? In order to maintain global leadership, the United States must make commensurate investments in defense of its national security and international interests. Heritage’s Jim Talent explains why that mantle of leadership is so crucial:

Ever since the end of World War II, American power has been the chief deterrent to aggression: the shield under which the tools of diplomacy, trade, and engagement have produced unprecedented progress toward freedom and democracy. But the shield is cracking. America’s global influence is being checked and rolled back, and even the homeland is no longer safe from attack.

The United States continues to face threats at home and abroad, yet slashed military spending would undermine America’s ability to confront these challenges. America’s debt and rampant spending are serious problems that needs to be addressed, but eviscerating the military–which has already been cut–is not the way to do it.

The killing of Osama bin Laden was a hard-won victory for the United States, but the gains made in pursuit of that day of justice and in waging the war in Afghanistan–including putting al-Qaeda on its heels–could be squandered if the Obama Administration continues its plotted course. When Republican presidential candidates lay out their foreign policy agendas in next Tuesday’s debate hosted by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute on CNN, they should pay significant attention to this seminal war that is so crucial to America’s struggle against terrorism.

In June, President Barack Obama announced his decision to bring home 10,000 troops by the end of this year and a total of 33,000 troops by next summer–despite requests from the Pentagon and General David Petraeus to limit the initial withdrawal to 3,000 to 4,000, as the Los Angeles Times reported. That decision, as The Washington Post wrote, wasn’t based in a “convincing military or strategic rationale.” Rather, it was “at odds with the strategy adopted by NATO, which aims to turn over the war to the Afghan army by the end of 2014.”

At the time, Heritage’s Lisa Curtis wrote that, apart from denying his military commanders flexibility to determine the pace and scope of withdrawal based on conditions on the ground, the President “also risks upending the major achievement of eliminating Osama bin Laden across the border in Pakistan.” Curtis also noted that the decision would “further discourage Pakistan from cracking down on the Taliban leadership that finds sanctuary on its soil” and “reinforce Islamabad’s calculation that the U.S. is losing resolve in the fight in Afghanistan and thus encourage Pakistani military leaders to continue to hedge on support to the Taliban to protect their own national security interests.”

Unfortunately, after the President’s decision, the United States reaped a bitter harvest sown by the Pakistani government. On September 13, the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, was attacked, and reports revealed that those responsible were linked to Pakistani intelligence officials. Then, in testimony before Congress, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that Pakistan’s military intelligence service is directing the Haqqani network, a militant group responsible for attacks on Americans, including the assault on the embassy.

Sadly, Pakistan’s support of insurgent groups in Afghanistan is the most significant obstacle to achieving stability in the country, and refusal by the Pakistani military to take action against the Haqqani network seriously undermines U.S. and NATO success in the Afghan mission. And that mission is critical to the United States’ continued prosecution of the war against terrorists. Heritage’s James Carafano and Jessica Zuckerman explain why that war is central to America’s global response to terrorism:

Al-Qaeda’s core leadership remains in Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, and the Taliban (whose leadership is allied with al-Qaeda) continues to threaten stability in Afghanistan. In order to stop terrorism at its source, the U.S. must remain committed to its counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which aims to prevent the Taliban from regaining influence in the region.

There are steps that the White House should take to ensure success in Afghanistan, and they revolve around dealing with the main obstacle to progress: Pakistan. First and foremost, the U.S. should reverse its withdrawal plan in order to show Pakistan that America is not turning its back on the region and to ensure that there is no void that the Taliban can once again fill.

Next, since half of all supply routes to the NATO mission go through Pakistan, the U.S. should develop additional supply routes into Afghanistan. In response to the attack on the U.S. embassy, the U.S. should freeze aid until Pakistan takes actions against perpetrators of the attack and helps shut down the Haqqani network, designate the Haqqani network a foreign terrorist organization, establish a congressional commission to investigate Pakistan’s role in fomenting the insurgency in Afghanistan and the extent to which its actions are preventing the U.S. and NATO from achieving their security objectives in the region, and pursue an aggressive drone campaign against the Haqqani network.

There is much at stake in the war in Afghanistan, and Americans–particularly the brave men and women in uniform–have already made tremendous sacrifices. But their sacrifices should not be rendered meaningless for the sake of scoring political victories at home. The United States has made significant strides in the war against terrorism, but the President–and those who seek the White House–must realize that unless the U.S. changes course, America will slide backward in its mission to secure itself against those who would do us harm.