… While his book focuses at the tactical level, West has the contacts and background to evaluate top-level decisions. As the title indicates, he has concluded that population-centric counterinsurgency will not work for this war. He then asks the very important question, “Since it would be disastrous to pull out and we can’t win with the current strategy, is there an alternative?”West sets out to answer that question by describing “the fighting, the objectives, the interaction with the tribes, and the different tactics our military has undertaken.” To provide background, West takes the reader through a years-long summary of key efforts in both the north and south of Afghanistan. In doing so, he provides context over time that pointedly illustrates both the grit of our forces and the failure of the current approach. (The Wrong War written by Bing West; Review by Col Thomas X. Hammes, USMC (Ret); Marine Corps Association & Foundation)
… Marines see an attack taking shape around them, the current rules of engagement mandate that they cannot shoot unless they are first shot at. The insurgents know this, so they often “drop and go”: firing from a distance, then abandoning their weapons. Sometimes Marines never get a single shot off in defense, an exercise in restraint that is especially taxing for the American military’s hardiest warriors. “It’s hard as hell holding back when you know what’s coming every time,” says a lance corporal from Lima Company, Third Battalion, Sixth Marines. … (Will Petraeus Change the Rules for Shooting Back? By Jason Motlagh; Time; 7/7/10)
The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. …“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.
…The rules of engagement today also place restrictions on dwelling assaults, but Mr. Obama’s language of “extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk of life and limb” sets the bar much higher. ; By Rowan Scarborough; Washington Times; 11/26/13)
… the recent New York Times article is that the original plan was to allow U.S. military forces in Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda targets (the counterterrorism mission) but not Taliban, Haqqani, or other non-al Qaeda targets (the combat mission?).… the article suggests that U.S. forces will continue in 2015 to have authority to attack at least Taliban targets…though not based simply on positive identification of their membership status. Rather than status-based targeting, in other words, the contemplated rules of engagement will be threat-based. An unnamed senior official explains in the article:“We will no longer target belligerents solely because they are members of the Taliban,” the official said. “To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to Al Qaeda, however, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe.”…This leaves the question whether status-based targeting will be an option for al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. I’ve not seen it publicly stated that the military’s ROE in Afghanistan currently provides for status-based targeting, though I’m guessing that it does. Nothing in the article suggests that this would change in 2015, and indeed the emphasis on changing from status-based to some notion of threat-based targeting for Taliban fighters in 2015 implies that the rules will be otherwise (i.e., will remain status based) for al Qaeda.… (Rules of Engagement for the War in Afghanistan in 2015; By Robert Chesney; Lawfare Blog; 12/3/14 10:44 AM)
Separations proceedings were initiated against Army Major Matt Golsteyn on the same day that Congressman Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.) published an article in the Daily Beast highlighting Golsteyn’s case, according to a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.The letter, signed by Hunter and addressed to Secretary of the Army John McHugh, states the investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Golsteyn began on November 29, 2011, and concluded on November 24, 2013, with no charges being pressed.Hunter’s original article appeared on the the (sic) Daily Beast‘s website on Tuesday, February 3, 2015. The Army initiated proceedings to eject Golsteyn from the military the same day, the letter states.The letter also raises questions about whether Golsteyn was offered appropriate due process in response to the decision to revoke his Silver Star made late last year, noting that, “denial of [Golsteyn’s] appeal appears not to have been reviewed by the appropriate authority–underscored by the fact that Matt was notified of his record change via a system generated e-mail on January 8, 2015.” Hunter goes on to ask McHugh to confirm that the appeal was reviewed by the appropriate authority and was not influenced by McHugh’s office.The letter also suggested that there had been “questionable actions” on the part of investigators during the course of the inquiry into Golsteyn, and offers to share information regarding those actions with McHugh’s office.…Hunter’s letter concludes by noting that “from the beginning, I have urged the Army to bring a case forward against Matt should the full scope of evidence point to a crime.”However, instead of criminal charges, Golsteyn has faced exclusively administrative actions that offer little chance for self-defense, now including the initiation of proceedings to eject him from the Army after thirteen years of service.… (BREAKING: Army Starts Proceedings to Kick Golsteyn Out of Military; By Aaron MacLean; Free Beacon; 2/9/15 2:16 pm)
February 9, 2015Honorable John McHugh Secretary of the Army 101 Army PentagonWashington, DC 20310Dear Secretary McHugh:The Army’s case against Major Mail Golsteyn continues to lack clarity and consistency. I am especially confused by your decision to revoke Matt’s valor awards without substantive justification—when Army officials have said that all decisions related to Matt now sit with his command following the conclusion of the investigation. Several individuals within the Army have indicated that decisions regarding Matt are being influenced from outside his command. I hope this is not the case.Matt’s situation demands objectivity, which I fear has not been provided. Most recently, separation proceedings were initiated by Major General Richard Mustion, Human Resources Command, on February 3, 2015—the same morning I introduced Matt in a Daily Beast commentary indentifying (sic) failures in leadership. Such timing is unlikely a coincidence, given that the Army’s investigation started on November 29, 2011, and concluded on November 24, 2013.In fact, you will recall that the Commander of Criminal Investigation Command was surprised to see Matt at Will Swenson’s Medal of Honor ceremony, stating that he thought Matt was no longer serving in the Army. He too must have been confused by his own investigation.That same investigation is what the Army is imposing on Matt’s command. Unfortunately, the investigation fails to thoroughly account for some information—including Matt’s relationship to Swenson and the Army’s conduct with both individuals. Questionable actions by investigating agents continued throughout the investigation—and I am willing, once again, to provide that information at your request. Bottom line: I have serious concerns that the investigation into Matt was neither fair nor objective, yet the command is being asked to make judgments, reportedly under influence from Army leadership, on that same investigation.Moreover, when you revoked Matt’s valor awards under your authority, it was stated that Matt is entitled to an appeal, and that the appeal would not bear the Army’s mark in any manner. Though denial of the appeal appears not have been reviewed by the proper authority— underscored by the fact that Matt was notified of his record change via a system generated email on January 8, 2015. As such, I ask for confirmation that the appeal was reviewed by the proper authority—and not influenced by your office. I would also like to make an official request for a detailed timeline of communications between your office and HRC related to the valor awards you personally revoked. This includes any communications pertaining to Matt’s appeal.Mr. Secretary, from the beginning, I have urged the Army to bring a case forward against Matt should the full scope of evidence point to a crime. It’s been over three years since the Army started its investigation and a high-level operator has been sidelined as a result. Still, Man has yet to be charged with a crime or convicted of any wrongdoing. Yet the Army is going to great lengths to administratively punish him.You are probably aware that I have made several requests to discuss the latest developments in Man’s case. I hope you will reconsiderSincerelyDuncan HunterMember of Congress
Golsteyn’s Silver Star came for actions on Feb. 20, 2010. He assembled his unit after his base had come under sniper fire from an insurgent wielding a Dragunov rifle, according to an Army narrative of his actions. He directed his troops to launch an assault across 700 meters of open fields, but an armored truck known as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle sank into mud under gunfire after about 175 meters. Under heavy machine-gun and sniper fire, Golsteyn ran about 150 meters to the trapped MRAP to retrieve a powerful 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, an anti-tank weapon. While moving under gunfire, he coordinated a medical evacuation for the wounded Afghan soldier and then opened fire with the Carl Gustav, said the Army narrative, which was obtained by The Post. Captain Golsteyn was alone running in the open through enemy gun fire that had over 80 men pinned down, and from the crow’s nest on top of [Forward Operating Base] McQueary, it looked like Captain Golsteyn was alone fighting 30 enemy fighters out in the poppy fields,” the award narrative said. Enemy reinforcements continued to arrive on the battlefield, so Golsteyn organized airstrikes by both F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets and a Predator drone. No American or coalition troops were killed in the battle despite a barrage of enemy fire that lasted four hours, the narrative said.”
John R. Houk
© May 17, 2013
Danny Jeffrey wrote an essay complete with a pictorial entitled “The Cave Dwellings of Afghanistan”. The theme is that Afghanis are primitive people that survived centuries of invasions because of their mountainous terrain that has developed cave dwelling system for periods of defense and reclaiming their land after wearied invaders either left or were assimilated into the tribal situations. Thus Afghanis are not now nor will be amenable to Western ways.
I concur with Danny but there were legitimate reasons for America to invade Afghanistan. Now those reasons have been answered and it is time to leave.
The reason for invading Afghanistan is because the then ruler – the One-Eyed Mullah Omar – provided protection to Usama bin Laden as the head of al Qaeda sent Islamic terrorists to the USA that became responsible for around 3000 deaths on American soil. We chased UBL for about a decade until we found him and killed him out in Pakistan.
Being Americans we have attempted to build an infrastructure in Afghanistan that includes democratic principles. Frankly I was all for that agenda; however time has proven that Islam and Western democratic principles are incompatible.
So what’s left? In my thinking it would be to get Mullah Omar who protected UBL. The thing is the One-Eyed Mullah is only alive by reputation. He has not made any verifiable appearances since he fled the collapse of his Taliban regime as the American led forces commenced their invasion:
“…there have been no verifiable communications on paper, by phone, or in audio or video recordings from the so-called Leader of the Faithful, since he disappeared into the Kandahar mountains on the back of a motorcycle in November 2001 as his regime collapsed.” (Taliban Forces Desperate to Hear from Their Absent Leader, Mullah Omar; By Ron Moreau; The Daily Beast; 5/1/13 4:45 AM EDT)
If Mullah Omar is alive he is hiding so deep that the Islamic Terrorists that swear allegiance to him don’t even know if he is running the Taliban terrorist show.
So here’s my thinking: UBL is dead, the Afghan Muslim people are less than pleased with any contribution to Afghanistan and Mullah Omar isn’t running the Taliban operationally.
It is time to leave Afghanistan to its own devices with a warning of future devastation if any Afghan government supports Islamic terrorism on the American homeland. Incidentally devastation does not mean another invasion; it means some kind tactical military action up to and including a small nuke strike to make a point about the long arm of American military might.
John R. Houk
© February 7, 2012
After al Qaeda pulled a Pearl Harbor-like attack that killed over three thousand Americans in New York City, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 America invaded Afghanistan beginning October 7, 2001. The connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan was the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar harbored al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Omar refused to give up bin Laden to American justice.
Here we are in February 2012 just a few months over the tenth year of Americans fighting Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan. After the initial easy military victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists, the Taliban and al Qaeda disappeared into the intricate caves of Tora Bora and across the border into Pakistan. It is my opinion this is where America botched the AfPak Theater of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The American led coalition forces relied too much on Afghan Northern Alliance and respected the Pakistan border too much as well. America should have gone into Tora Bora with extreme prejudice militarily and crossed the border into Pakistan to cut off any retreat of the Taliban and al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. This kind of an aggressive strategy probably would have ended our involvement in the AfPak Theater by capturing bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Sure Pakistan would have protested vehemently and perhaps even ended a political alliance previously promised to America to fight the GWOT; however hindsight has shown Pakistan promises are diluted in favor of Pakistan National Interests.
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) preferred a strategy of supporting Taliban that were pro-Pakistan and fighting Taliban that were anti-Pakistan with the end game of keeping Pakistan tentacles on Afghanistan to compliment Pakistan National Interests with local enemies primarily against India and secondarily against Shia-Iran. In other words Pakistan set out to be duplicitous with America at the outset depending on the ebb and flow of what affected Pakistan National Interests.
So America should have ignored Pakistan denials of entering their sovereign territory in the interest of ending America’s involvement in Afghanistan much earlier. Unfortunately it was and probably still is politically incorrect to go all out to do what it takes to have a complete victory. Western Leftist apologists have forgotten what it takes to end an evil despotism as was undertaken against Hitler’s Nazi Germany. The Allies bombed cities on route to victory in WWII. The American led Coalition should have had the same demeanor toward a victory at the outset of the initial invasion of Afghanistan.
The goal of the invasion was to capture or kill bin Laden and punish the Taliban for supporting bin Laden. A complete victory at Tora Bora would have accomplished those ends. Then America could have extricated itself from the affairs of Afghanistan to let the Afghanis fight over whoever will control the reins of government. America’s invasion and the success of its end game goals of an all out offensive would serve as a warning that America would be back to any Muslim nation that harbored Islamic terrorists that attacked American soil in order to exact justice.
Now after writing about what should have happened, here we are a little over ten years deciding an exit strategy that is complicated. The Afghan U.S. installed Karzai Administration is corrupt and not popular enough to sustain the Administration of the whole of Afghanistan’s borders. The situation is somewhat similar to the corrupt South Vietnamese government that southern Vietnamese people disliked enough that there was no popular support to resist the North Vietnamese usurpation of the South. Fortunately the Taliban does not have the military hardware like the Taliban to exact a sustained offensive to bludgeon its way to Kabul. However, the Taliban has enough unbelievable popular support that a Karzai led Afghan government would lose territory to a Taliban offensive. The Taliban then declare its own government and acquire the weaponry to sustain the usurpation of the rest of Afghanistan if the U.S. sponsored Afghan government does not find a leader to inspire Afghanis against the purist Islamic religious rule of the Taliban.
With all this in mind America has sent out feelers to the Taliban negotiate a peace that might incorporate the Taliban in the electorate and government of Afghanistan. If such a negotiated peace with the Taliban did occur, who thinks the Taliban would effectively organize a political victory? Well I believe that is exactly what will happen! And yet, the Taliban entrance into the Afghan government would be the simplest solution for America to end the Afghan Theater of the GWOT.
George Friedman’s STRATFOR article today is what developed my musings of this post.
John R. Houk
© December 29, 2011
Shoebat.com has posted a video that is a documentary of the death of Usama Bin Laden. The important theme of this video is that Pakistan aided Bin Laden in hiding him in plain sight.
This is not a surprise because Pakistan’s Intelligence community – Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – is a byzantine style government within a government and the ISI were and are very supportive of the radical Islam of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Pakistan’s military are not really supportive of radical Islam as much as it supportive of Pakistan National Interests. The primary objective of Pakistan’s National Interests is to focus on its mortal enemy India. In 1947 the British succumbed to India’s nationalist movement and departed; however the political expediency in the hope to prevent an India civil war was to create a rough division between India’s Muslims and India’s Hindus as well as other ethnic and religious people that were neither Muslim nor Hindu. The non-Muslim/non-Hindu population pretty much stayed with the Hindu side of India. The foolish non-Muslim populations that determined to live in the Muslim majority areas which became known as Pakistan found themselves a persecuted people. The Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims of the new Pakistan fled to India or became exploited in Pakistan. For the most part Christians that could not afford to flee remained in Pakistan. In 1947 Pakistan was one nation separated by the immense Indian Sub-Continent. East Pakistan eventually became the independent nation of Bangladesh. It is the Pakistan of the west that is a nuclear power that is the arch-enemy of India which also is a nuclear power.
The one thing that unites the byzantine elements of Pakistan is the hatred of India. The Pakistan military over the years since 1947 has taken a secular approach to its contribution in governance. The ISI appears to be more inclined toward the religious interests of the Pakistan people; i.e. the religious interests of Islamic Supremacism.
I would be surprised if the Pakistan military actively hid Usama bin Laden but I am certain that ISI interaction with the military provided elements that were aware bin Laden was in Pakistan. I am absolutely convinced the ISI was actively hiding bin Laden in Pakistan AND that means keeping bin Laden from America. Getting bin Laden is one of the primary objectives in going to war with the then Taliban dominated Afghanistan.
So what would be the reason that the ISI pretend to be a friend with America and hide UBL? I speculate that reason was hatred of India. The ISI wanted to protect the Taliban in case they could be used as an agent of subversive activities if the American supported Afghan government began to show favorable relations with India. In the ISI’s eyes an economic-trade situation between Afghanistan and India might lead to the Indian military establishing bases of operation under the auspices of protecting Afghanistan but surrounding Pakistan with the threat of military action. AND the threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and India has been on the precipice over the years.
Ultimately Pakistan cannot be trusted because their National Interests are focused on India and Pakistan Foreign Policy as it concerns the USA is at best an element of manipulation. It would behoove America to begin secret negotiations of a military alliance with India. Pakistan will eventually sell-out America especially if there is a drawdown of the American military in Afghanistan as the perception grows that America has down all it can for the Afghan government. It is at this point the Taliban will test the Afghan government to see if it is too corrupt to sustain administrative control of the Afghan nation. If the Taliban finds success, you can count on Pakistan probably through the ISI will begin planning with the Taliban to bring down the American supported Afghan government.
STRATFOR analysts have pieced together a speculated scenario on the capture and killing of public enemy number one. STRATFOR used a combination of publically released data and private (if not also anonymous) sources to piece together how Osama bin Laden was more than likely sent to the fires of hell.
If the STRATFOR link does not work or STRATFOR requires a subscription, you can read the article in its entirity at SlantRight 2.0.
A Multiply friend sent this awesome article about Pastor Terry Jones-Quran Burning, Afghanistan Muslims and the American response. This is much better than the critique that I wrote entitled “Quran Burning and Afghanistan”.
John R. Houk
© April 4, 2011
Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan have used the Quran burning (about 17 minute mark) inside the walls of Pastor Terry Jones’ Church is being used as a propaganda tool to enrage the Muslim Afghan majority. There have been violent protests by Muslims over an incident enacted by a Pastor fed up with the theopolitical nature of Islam which embraces violence as a propagation tool and as a submission tool against Muslim believers and non-Muslims (kafir) alike.
Military commanders among the NATO forces battling the Taliban have ran into a public relations problem with the Afghan populace who have been ingrained with Islamic Supremacism hence the rioting. Part of the strategy against the Taliban is to win the sympathy of the Afghan people for the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai and antipathy toward the purist Islam of the Taliban. NATO commanders have begun condemning the burning of the Quran in the small Church in Florida.
I have no doubt the United Nations will cite it’s don’t blaspheme Islam (Defamation of Religions) resolution to condemn Pastor Jones probably with a call for criminal charges because the religion of peace executed seven U.N. workers in Afghanistan.
With the NATO commanders coming down strong in condemning the Quran burning undoubtedly to appease the populace they are fighting to keep free from intolerant purist Islam of the Taliban, could there be a move in America to criminalize those of us that openly condemn the violent nature of Islam. Will Christians who evangelize in America be accused of hate because part of that preaching is telling the Good News of deliverance from participating in the dark world that promotes violence and moral impurity?
Islam promotes violence against non-Muslims determined to not bowing down to Islamic Supremacism and against Muslims who have determined to walk away from submission to Islam. Pastor Terry Jones allowed the Quran to burnt in such a public manner may have been a mistake; however its symbolism to expose that Islam is inimical to America’s Christian foundation and inimical to the U.S. Constitution is a valid act.
Where is the outrage over how Islam persecutes Christianity in Muslim lands? Christianity is violated by the ability of Muslims to destroy property, kidnap children to force conversion, kidnap women to force conversion or to rape and squelch any form of Christian worship including the open use of the Holy Bible in public. This treatment of Christians occurs all over Muslim dominated nations even in Afghanistan.
The question should be: Is Quran burning by a small group in a small Church an incitement to global hatred or is the open persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim lands incitement?
John R. Houk
© November 21, 2010
Below is a Tony Newbill email that diverges from his usual “End the Fed” Conspiracy Theory emails. It differs because the theme of the email is about something I have become somewhat a crusader about; i.e. Exposing the violent nature of Islam and that theopolitical ideology’s total incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution guaranteed rights for individuals. A good reference to previous posts that might offer some background understanding could be these two titles as examples:
Tony’s email is from a National Geographic photo shoot of Afghan women involved in the Islamic culture of Afghanistan. Newbill provides the link at the end of his very righteous indignation. To get to the picture of the subject of Newbill’s ire you have to go through about four or five clicks of the National Geographic photo display.
Then after the Newbill email I have a piece from AllVoices.com talking about this same subject. Now honestly the AllVoices.com post was obviously written by someone translating into English or a foreign person with broken knowledge of English grammar. For example the writer uses male pronouns like “he” and “his” when the meaning is obviously “she” and “her”. I will place the link to the AllVoices.com post if you wish to read the original; however I am going to utilize some literary liberal (not Leftist) editorial license to allow better readability.
NEVER EVER Allow the Circumvention of the US Constitution
Nov 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM
THIS Is why American People MUST NEVER EVER Allow the Circumvention of the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment to Speak Freely about the Need for a FREE COUNTRY LIKE THE USA to BE a Safe Haven against these Crimes Against Humanity!!!!!!!!!
Scarred for Life: Hey America do You Want Sharia Law in your COURTS?????????????? Here’s what you will get to see and have happen to your family members!!!!!
Bibi Aisha was 19 when I met her in Kabul’s Women for Afghan Women shelter in November 2009. Her husband beat her from the day she was married, at age 12. When he beat her so badly she thought she might die. She escaped to seek a neighbor’s help. To punish her for leaving without permission, her husband, who is a Taliban fighter, took her to a remote spot in the mountains. Several men held her while he cut off her nose, ears and hair. She screamed—to no avail. “If I had the power, I would kill them all,” she told me. I wanted to be strong for Aisha to give her hope she would be fine again. But when she described that moment, I began to cry. Aisha arrived in the U.S. in August for extensive reconstructive surgery.
The young Afghan Aisha Bibi regains profile
Oct 14, 2010
Last August she turned his face to the world by the hand of Time magazine. Aisha Bibi is a 19 year old girl whose husband cut off her nose and ears for having run away from home, where she was a slave. Now, Bibi is presented to the public in Los Angeles wearing a very natural appearance, as she received a prosthetics and a prior reconstructive treatment step by the Grossman Burn Foundation paid in California.
Aisha Bibi’s story is relatively common in Afghanistan. Her father gave her and her baby sister to pay a blood debt because the uncle of the (two) girls had killed a man. Bibi was delivered in Uruzgan to the family of her new husband who was a Taliban fighter. In the house of the Taliban husband’s in-laws were the two girls. (The two) girls were the slaves of the in-laws receiving blow and insults. The girls were made to sleep in the barn. Desperate to what was happening, Bibi decided to flee south to Kandahar with the help of two neighbors who really wanted to sell (her). A police patrol discovered them and eventually spent five months in jail until her husband got her. In Afghanistan Taliban courts she was sentenced to punishment from her husband. The husband cut off her nose and ears in the desert where he left to her fate. No one knows exactly how Bibi got out of this bind. Some say she crawled to the house of her grandfather [or perhaps] others found her almost by accident that were American volunteers from an NGO. The truth is that she was sent to the shelter for Afghan Woman Woman (WAW) [SlantRight Editor: I am guessing the organization is listed incorrectly] where she spent ten months. Slowly and with the help of a psychologist Aisha spoke again and sometimes even smiling. She received news of being sent and to be operated [on] in Los Angeles by a foundation to cover expenses. Now I have to wait for definitive surgery and especially get free my sister who has been ten years at the home of the husband’s family. Aisha’s sister is probably still paying for what her uncle has done.
SlantRight.com Editor: I discovered there are related posts at the bottom of this article by Karasiwo. I don’t know how long this article will be up so below is the first of the related posts articles.
Afghan girl gets a prosthetic nose
Oct. 16, 2010
Bibi Aisha, the disfigured Afghan woman who had her nose and ears cut off and was featured on the cover of Time magazine, has received temporary prosthetics.
Aisha was treated at Los Angeles’ Grossman Burn Foundation, where the 19 year-old was fitted with a prosthetic nose, something she can use in public until her multiple reconstructive surgeries are completed.
Aisha’s husband, a Taliban member, and his family, cut off her nose and ears when she tried to escape being abused in her home. She was then left for dead, barely surviving the ordeal.
Aisha made her way to a medical center run by the U.S. military, who eventually transferred her to a privately-run women’s shelter. She was then sent to the Grossman Burn Center for a series of surgeries that were offered on a pro bono basis.
Aisha was recently presented with an award by the First Lady of California, Maria Shriver and met with Former First Lady of the United States Laura Bush, who is an active member of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council.
Crazy Sharia Exacted Bibi Aisha
John R. Houk
© November 21, 2010
NEVER EVER Allow the Circumvention of the US Constitution
The young Afghan Aisha Bibi regains profile
Afghan girl gets a prosthetic nose
© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2010. All rights reserved.