Analyst's note:  As you would expect a U.S. Marine General provides a clear, blazingly obvious factual summary on this matter. 

[...] al Qaeda and other Islamic jihad groups are more assertive and aggressive than ever, all around the world. Of course they will be more active in Afghanistan after U.S. forces leave than they are while American troops are there. But the presence of U.S. troops there doesn't do anything to lessen their capacity to bide their time and wait us out, and we are there in service of a corrupt and ungrateful Sharia regime that it is pointless to support. U.S. troops should leave Afghanistan now, and should have long ago, and be redeployed in more intelligent and realistic ways to contain the jihad threat.

Fox News Host: We Are in a "Holy War" Against Terrorists

When the news broke that President Obama engaged in negotiations with terrorists from the Taliban to trade five of their imprisoned leaders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the move not only shocked many Americans, but left them scratching their heads.

Why would the president make this decision? Does he seriously not understand the level of danger he places our troops and citizens in by releasing terrorists who have already stated they plan to rejoin their colleagues on the battlefield?

The president's decision to completely ignore U.S. policy about negotiating with terrorists has some believing he's using the "war on terror" for political gain.

Obama continues to make plans to bring home the troops, and end the war, but he isn't taking  into account whether or not the enemy will actually allow us to leave the battlefield.

According to some journalists and political pundits, America is locked into a "Holy War" with radical Islamic terrorists, and they aren't willing to give up the fight anytime soon.

Here's what she said:

"The truth is, we are in a Holy War. This is a Holy War. Whether we want to see it that way or not, whether it's politically correct to say it or not, this is the truth. And the enemy gets a veto. They get a vote as to whether or not we're still in this war. So this Commander-in-Chief could come out publicly and say repeatedly the war is ending, it's over, we're bringing home our guys. The enemy has a vote on this. And this Jihad will be perpetual, until the Infidel is done, gone, killed, or in submission. That is the truth of the other side. We're not in this Holy War because I'm saying it, but because the enemy is saying it.

******

This is why Dunford has risen so high: he can see the blazingly obvious facts while most people in the Washington establishment work tremendously hard not to see clear and unmistakable truths.

Anyway, al Qaeda and other Islamic jihad groups are more assertive and aggressive than ever, all around the world. Of course they will be more active in Afghanistan after U.S. forces leave than they are while American troops are there. But the presence of U.S. troops there doesn't do anything to lessen their capacity to bide their time and wait us out, and we are there in service of a corrupt and ungrateful Sharia regime that it is pointless to support. U.S. troops should leave Afghanistan now, and should have long ago, and be redeployed in more intelligent and realistic ways to contain the jihad threat.

"US commander in Afghanistan sees 'significant' risk of Al Qaeda returning," by Anna Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 2014:

Washington — In America's longest war, words like "victory" have long faded from the US military's lexicon.

But even by these standards, the prospects that the top US commander on the ground offered Thursday for Afghanistan's future were notably less than robust.

The current pace of withdrawal of US troops from the country "could result in Afghanistan forces being sustainable," Gen. Joseph Dunford told lawmakers, a phrase that fell short even of faint praise.
Recommended: Are you smarter than a US Marine? Take the recruitment quiz

There is an equally good chance, too, that even after 13 years of war, Afghanistan could revert back to being a safe haven for terrorists, he said.

When asked to rate the possibility that Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters could migrate back to Afghanistan after US forces draw down and resume training operations in pre-9/11 mode, Dunford called that risk "significant."

He told senators, too, that he did not necessarily support President Obama's decision to announce a withdrawal date for US forces in Afghanistan.

"I think all of us in uniform, including the Afghans, would have preferred for that to be a bit more ambiguous," he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Dunford was called to testify because he is nominated to be the next commandant of the Marine Corps, the service's top officer. But during his confirmation hearing he faced tough questions about his current job commanding US war efforts.

During his testimony, Dunford acknowledged that he is "not confident" that Afghan security forces will be able to sustain themselves after US troops leave.

That's because the Afghan military is still not particularly skilled at doing things like budgeting, or ordering spare parts for their vehicles, or paying their soldiers, Dunford said.

The other big problem is that it does not have its own intelligence capabilities or a developed aviation system. Though it is in need of special operations forces to fight insurgent operatives and lingering Al Qaeda elements, the Catch-22 is that it cannot adequately develop these forces without intelligence or aviation assets, Dunford explained.

Women are also not faring well in Afghanistan, especially when it comes to integrating them into key government jobs, including military positions. "That's not a particularly good news story," Dunford told lawmakers.

The goal has been to have the Afghan national army and police force be comprised of 10 percent women, but the number is currently closer to one percent. "I wouldn't for a minute understand the cultural challenges," he said, "that are going to make progress for women very slow."

There are some reasons to be hopeful in Afghanistan, however – and reasons why the country is not necessarily destined to follow the path of Iraq, Dunford said.

These reasons include, most notably, the fact that both of Afghanistan's presidential candidates actually want US troops to stay. So, too, do regional powers, with the exception of Iran, he added.

What's more, Secretary of State John Kerry's mediating role in Afghanistan may have helped to avert a civil war, Dunford told lawmakers. Instead of creating parallel governments that could have competed with each other – and could have led to a "significant" possibility of civil war – the two leading presidential candidates have agreed to a power-sharing arrangement.

That is vital, because there will be no progress without political reconciliation, Dunford told lawmakers.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, a leading hawk in Congress, seconded this sentiment. "If there's a failure to get this election closed out, no amount of American troops is going to make Afghanistan successful," he said. "As a matter of fact, if that doesn't happen, I'll be the first one to say, 'Get the hell out of there.' "