Posted by 
“I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way,” President Barack Obama intoned this week. “I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary.” Had those words been uttered seven or eight months ago, they would sound more sensible than they do today. But they seem increasingly less so the longer the president reviews his own review of the strategy in Afghanistan.
The president has told us, over and over, that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity.” It is the war he never criticized, belittled or dismissed on the campaign trail, the one he focused on immediately upon taking office. In fact, with much fanfare, he announced “a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” in March of this year. The culmination of “a careful policy review,” according to the president, the strategy featured more troops and resources, increased focus, the firing of Gen. David McKiernan and the hiring of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The president even gave the new commander in Afghanistan “extraordinary leeway” and “carte blanche” control to choose “a dream team of subordinates,” as the New York Times dutifully reported.
As the president shifted Washington’s focus to Afghanistan, he called the situation there “increasingly perilous.” To those who questioned the need for doubling down in the AfPak theater, he explained, rightly, that “al Qaeda and its allies—the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks—are in Pakistan and Afghanistan….If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban—or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged—that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”
Back then, the president had “a clear and focused goal,” in his words, “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved.”
Through all the sober words and bold declarations, he reminded us that “America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. We were attacked by an al Qaeda network that killed thousands on American soil.” And he promised that “despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken.”
But actions speak louder than words, especially in a time of war.
When Gen. McChrystal asked for the resources necessary to win this war of necessity—including up to 44,000 additional troops—the president blinked and balked. The whatever-it-takes rhetoric crashed against the realities of waging war, and the president’s self-described smarter, tougher strategy was left on the drawing board. As a consequence, the general and his troops and their war of necessity are waiting. Deliberation has its place and purpose, but they have been waiting for almost nine weeks.
We can almost hear Gen. McChrystal quoting the words of U.S. Grant: “In war, anything is better than indecision. We must decide. If I am wrong, we shall soon find it out and can do the other thing. But not to decide…may ruin everything.”
When Britain pledged more troops to Afghanistan earlier this month, The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl shrewdly noted that taking such a step “wouldn’t make much sense if the United States were to scale down its own commitment.” Indeed, the British military’s chief of staff has hinted that it’s only a matter of time before the president approves Gen. McChrystal’s request: “I don’t want to put words in the mouths of the Americans, but I am fairly confident of the way it is going to come out.” If not the full 44,000, the president will, at least, choose some middle-ground option of 10,000-15,000 troops.
That makes the president’s very-public indecision all the more puzzling and counterproductive. It pays to recall that Gen. McChrystal is only doing what the president hired him to do—based on the president’s own “careful policy review.”
If the president was going to approve the troop request and the revamped mission all along, then why wait months—or even days—to do so? And if he was going to deny it, then why make all those sweeping declarations last spring?
Perhaps it has something to do with politics. As the president understood even before he was elected to the Senate, one of the most politically and rhetorically effective, if disingenuous, arguments against the war in Iraq was that it was a war of choice that diverted attention and resources from a war of necessity in Afghanistan.
It’s politically effective because it allows a politician to brandish a tough position on national security.
It’s rhetorically effective because America’s resources and the capacity of its policymakers, war planners and warfighters are, indeed, limited. Hence, material and human resources dedicated to operations in Fallujah and Tikrit cannot be used in Kandahar and Kunduz. (This is not to say it’s wrong to engage the enemy in more than one theater at a time. After all, FDR didn’t wait to fight the Nazis before vanquishing Imperial Japan. But that’s a subject for another essay.)
It’s a disingenuous argument because many of those who make this argument are uncomfortable with the application of U.S. power anywhere. The president’s embarrassingly drawn-out response to Gen. McChrystal’s request for more troops makes it appear that he embraces this view.
If the president won’t support the mission in Afghanistan with more than rhetoric and half-measures—a mission aligned with the national interest, approved by the Afghan government and opposition, blessed (and cursed) by heavy allied involvement, and sanctioned by the sainted United Nations—what sort of mission will he support?
Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security issues.
Virtual Assistant Philippines
Its amazing how the president is gungho and a very quick decision maker when it comes to the economy, stimulus package, cap and trade, a gillion page health care bill that gets jammed through without everyone having a chance to read and understand, but the war in Afganistan……he must take his time. He has to mull it over and think about it, while our insufficient forces are being picked off piece by piece. My hat is off to our military forces. It is incredible to watch them as they put their lives on the line no matter what an incompetitant commander in chief does. They defend the constitution by adhering to it and respecting the office of the president, while the other is dismantling it and has contempt for it. We the people have to stop him from completing his task next year and in 2012, or some day the military will have to do it for us.
The problem is that the general has not given a valid reason for more troops. It is disconcerting to hear so many conservatives' knee-jerk response that obviously the general is right and obviously Obama should send the troops. The general has said that he needs to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population in Afghanistan. At that point he should be removed from his position. His entire 66 page assessment does not even mention Islam or Jihad once. It would be highly irresponsible, even reckless, to commit FORTY FOUR THOUSAND more troops to this absurd mission in Afghanistan where they will be nothing more than targets for more random bombings hamstrung by absurd rules of engagement, there merely to win the hearts and minds of people whose religion beats into the very soul of its followers that we are filthy infidels. For crying out loud, every single cent spent in Afghanistan after the Taliban were removed and a new government installed has been a complete waste. The lives and limbs lost already will not have been in vain IF the U.S. learns the correct lesson, WE ARE NEVER GOING TO DEMOCRATIZE ISLAM AND HELPING THEM CREATE ISLAMIC STATES IS UTTERLY FOOLISH.
If we ever have to take out any Islamic governments or groups we need to just do that as quickly and efficiently as possible with bombs from the sky or select special operations forces on the ground, AND THEN GET THE HECK OUT OF THERE AND LET THEM FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO. Then if need be we repeat the process, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR ETERNITY. Staying there and trying to change Islam or build a democracy is a sickening waste of human resources and money and time.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/McCh...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Shar...
Dear Leader has now taken over the mantle of that Super Hero known as the Waffler. With his griddle of justice, coupled with his complete lack of decision making skills or fortitude to do so, he bashes his
enemies in the head, or, says one thing then another so fast as to cause his enemies to suffer from terminal vertigo. He will also burn his victims equally, leaving waffle like marks about their head and shoulders not akin to tire marks left by a speeding bus. Enemies and ex-supporters alike will suffer the pain of transgression.
And he has been working on a theme song. Kinda like: “Wafflama Man!! Oh! I am the Waffler! Golden crispy! The United States is history, yow!”
Mr. Obama has always been part of the surrender monkey crowd. You know you have a problem when the “Pacifist” in the Euro weenie crowd is sending and asking for more troops while are president tries to figure out what to do.
Campaigning is easy, Governing is hard
Mr. Obama is a great campaigner, but doesn’t have a clue on governing.
The Carthage Strategy must be employed or just get out. It is an either – or as containment will never work. Muslims are like Orks of Middle Earth and require an annihilation for them to stop jihadism.
Whatdo you expect when you put a Marxist Clandestine Muslim Community Tribalist Organizer in as the Commander-In Chief? I am of the opinion this inept fool is living up to his expectations of himself.
There is ZERO chance that in our lifetime we will employ the Carthage approach. The general that is there now wants to “gain the trust” of the Afghan population (a more foolhardy goal there could not be). Therefore, calling for more troops to Afghanistan is irresponsible. Containment, or rather, eliminating the existence of Islam in the West is our only hope. No Islam in the West, no involvement in their affairs except to destroy quickly any regime that causes any trouble for us. Having no Islam in the West would greatly reduce the cost of counter-terrorism efforts and eliminate the need to continually fight off the gradual imposition of sharia and the loss of freedoms and democracy.
Obama and crowd are planing a slow bleeding to death and a humiliating defeat a la Vietnam for America. Better to get the troops out now! Yes, we will have to go back when Al Qaeda reestablishes it base in Afghanistan and causes the American homeland so many causualties that it makes 911 fade from memory. And yes, it will cost America orders of magnitude more in blood and treasure than if Gen. McCrystal got the troops and resources he has asked for. But it is absolutely immoral to leave our best and bravest in that hell with no chance to successfully complete their mission let alone win stability for that sad country. Get our young men and women out and bring them home.
Ahhh…Timmy you lack the spirit for the cutting. You are right that it will neveer happened But there are many like you – pussyfied panty waisted mommy boy girly men who think they can talk their way out of anything and wouldn't fight no matter what the provacation or the threat.
“Please Mr Alligator, just eat me last”
Truthfully it does not matter if we stay there 1,000 years and spend 1 trillion dollars building up the country or whatever it is we are doing, the second we leave, literally the split second that the wheels of the airplane leave the ground, Afghanistan will revert to what it is, an Islamic country that will not accept democracy and that will forever be a place that Islamists can group for attacks on the infidels of the world. Rather than waste time staying there we should just monitor it, use spies, whatever it takes, and bomb from the sky any hut or village that we think is a problem.
You are a fool my man and a twit. I could take you any day one on one. I would crush your skull like a grape. Lay off the personal insults and “try” as much as your little brain will allow to “focus” like a laser beam on the problem, on actually solving the problem, not just on continuing to run around Afghanistan like a bunch of fools who don't even have a clue what the end game is. You are like a fool in a bar fight just swinging wildly going around in circles but you think that you are making progress. Grow up please.
Well containment won't work either, unless you want to employ some drastic measures. I remember there was a congressman who suggested that we might want to consider the use of nuclear weapons. Now, I am not endorsing this, necessarily, but it would, as he pointed out make the troublesome parts of the country (which is pretty much the whole thing) uninhabitable for years. Either all in or all out.
According to Gen McChrystal, 'nation building' is his goal in Afghanistan. If that's the goal, then we should be nation building in Mexico, a nation much more important to us and one that is coming apart. There's a video of the general explaining this at the 60 Minute site.
Nation building, the concept in itself, is a very liberal concept. It means literally changing Afghanistan into a freedom-loving democracy with health care for all Afghanis paid for with US taxes that of couse will increase; education for all Afghanis including girls, new highways, hospitals, colleges, and so on and so forth and perhaps, in 100 years or so, Afghanistan may be democratic…….in the meantime, how many Americans have died or become permanently disabled? How close to bankruptcy are we as a nation?
I hope Obama ends this war, the longest war in US history.
Absolutely right, Timmy. Islam & Democracy are completely incompatible where Muslims are the majority in any nation. Gen McChrystal did not mention Islam as the root of the problem so why would any clear-thinking American trust him?
What the West collectively has to come to grips with is that NOTHING will “work” when it comes to Islam. All that we can hope for is to save ourselves, save our own countries and hopefully save Western civilization. We just need to go cold turkey off the entire crazed concept that anything we “do to” or “do for” the Islamic world is going to change anything. There are limited resources. We should put whatever we spend into defending our own territories, expelling Islam from them, keep them free of Islam. Afghanistan, or any other Islamic country should only be interacted with to destroy problem regimes, then leave, period, no more anything, nothing. If a worse group moves in and takes over then we destroy them the same way. Containment only means keeping them out of our lives, they can mess with one another all they want. We could even encourage them to fight one another. This isn't a hands off head in the sand policy, it is a stand back and observe and crush them when necessary. The banal meddling, the dealing with all the different tribal leaders, the billions of dollars wasted, it is all truly insane.
So then people will say what about oil, well we either take it from them and let them try to stop us or we pay them for it but we don't care anything about that beyond an arms length transaction.
Yeah yeah…BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PIPELINE?
Don't you guys ever wonder why else we might be interested in Afghanistan….why Russia was interested in Afghanistan?
We have wasted too much money, time and lives for it to just be some sort of convoluted scheme to get an oil pipeline. If we wanted oil all we would have to do is either pay for it at market rate which would be much cheaper than this war or just take whatever oil we want by force which in reality is the best option since we need oil for our very survival. Russia was involved in Afghanistan for political reasons and in fact were asked to intervene by the Afghan government to assist in their battle with mujahideen. Gee, that sounds a lot like what we are doing now, wasting time fighting Islamists since there is a never ending supply of them. It isn't being a quitter to recognize reality. There is no number of Islamists that we could kill where we would reach the end. As long as there is Islam there will be Islamists.
That pipeline is not why were there. We're there to convert Ishmael to be just like us–happy democrats who live by the rule of law. It will work as well as if Islam invaded America to convert us into happy Islamists.