Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

Mr. President, it is time to decide

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

A sad reminder of the cost of indecision:

This is not to say that casualties of war will end when a decision is made; but keeping troops in Afghanistan with insufficient resources and support to adequately defend themselves will lead to more casualties.

As a result of the President Obama’s now obvious reluctance to make a decision, the loss of lives, whether related to the president’s extended agonizing over a decision or not, is now coupled with a loss of confidence in our president’s ability to lead.

As stated at Thinkin’Bout Stuff on October 30th:

But the question before President Obama requires a decision to be made in the best interest of our country.  If the President does not believe that this war is worth the loss of any lives, then he needs to pull out all of the troops now.

Because if we do not plan to fight to win, if we do not plan to provide enough resources and support for the troops who are already engaged, if the President is hesitating to send more troops because of experiences such as this, he will need to explain to the folks who lose a loved one tomorrow, next week, next month, why their son or daughter died waiting for him to make a decision.

Is pulling out the right decision?  Should he send more troops into harms way?  Ignore the advice of generals and just stay the course?  Frankly I don’t know… that’s above my pay grade, but not above President Obama’s.

Time to stop deliberating like a senator, campaigning like a candidate and reading press clippings… time to start leading like a president.

Time to decide Mr. President.

For someone who supposedly came into office with Afghanistan high on his list of priorities, he really seems to be just now giving it some thought.   Two months ago, an exceptionally long time in the age of modern warfare, we were wondering when he would make a decision:

President Obama is waiting until he has ALL POSSIBLE DATA before making a decision.   That works well in the academia world of hypothetical wars, but waiting to make a decision is a decision to continue on the current path.  If that is the right answer, then say so.  If we need to pull out, say so.  If we need to send more troops, say so.

Leaders do not have the luxury of waiting until all possible data has been gathered before making a decision… the rest of the world keeps moving forward and opportunities, and potentially lives, are lost.

If the correct military strategy and solution is to send more troops into the arena, why are we waiting to consult the civilian, diplomatic and development side; why does it matter what the result of the election is; why do we need to consult everyone before deciding to do the right thing militarily?

Mr. President, this is not about putting the cart before the horse…  the horse is already out there.  Our men and women are already engaged with the enemy, and if you are saying that eight months into your presidency you still do not have a strategy in place for Afghanistan, you still don’t know whether we should send more troops, you still have not even had an opportunity to consult all of the folks you believe you need to consult…  you do realize keeping our country safe is your top priority as president, don’t you?

Maybe you need to set aside your social engineering agenda for a couple of days and take the time you need to make a decision here.  Health care “reform” can wait…

Time to decide Mr. President.

Nearly Three  months ago, an eternity, we were waiting for a decision:

So, is the war worth fighting? If not, great, pull everyone out and move on.  But if yes, isn’t it the president’s job to explain that to the American people? To explain why it is critical to our national security?

Isn’t this the war the Democrats said we should have been fighting all along?  But now that a poll says it’s unpopular, we should just keep it on life support and not provide the necessary resources to win, just to lose slowly?

If it’s all about the polls, guess we can end all of this debate over the Obama’s big plans to take over health care… we don’t want it.

Are Obama and Biden leaders or politicians (silly question)… Biden is concerned about how Americans would respond to sending more troops?  Frankly, we wouldn’t like it, especially if Obama can not explain why, can not explain the path to victory, can not even tell us what victory looks like.  But that doesn’t mean the answer is to not send troops or even discuss the option publicly… the answer is to do your job as commander in chief and tell us what needs to be done and why.

Time to decide Mr. President.

Mr. President… no more academic study, no more polling, no more waiting for something to happen… something is happening every day.

It is time to decide.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Europe falling out of love with Obama?

Friday, October 30th, 2009

We all know the story line… Europe hated Bush, they fell in love with Obama and we all lived happily ever after.

Problem with love affairs…  often they are based upon superficial infatuations and whirlwind courtships that lead to major disappointments when reality sets in.

Looks like the honeymoon may be ending for President Obama:

Der Spiegel on Afghanistan – The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January.

<snip>

Whether it means withdrawal or a troop buildup, NATO expects Obama to make a decision. So far, no one knows which direction he favors. Even experienced Washington insiders have encountered a wall of silence at the White House, leading Europeans to question whether Washington even believes in its war anymore.

<snip>

…  Europeans are still looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.

The cost of war, the cost of freedom, is sadly the loss of every country’s greatest treasure… the finest young men and women of a generation.

President Obama honored 18 of our fallen heroes Wednesday and I will not dishonor their memory by debating whether this would have had more meaning without the photo op.

But President Obama said something Thursday that, while understandable following such a sobering experience, at the same time may hint at a weakness that a Commander in Chief can not afford.

From AP - Hours after a personal encounter with the grim cost of war, President Barack Obama said Thursday the sight of 18 flag-covered cases holding the remains of Americans killed this week in Afghanistan can’t help but influence his thinking about sending more troops overseas.

<snip>

Speaking softly and somewhat haltingly, Obama said losses such as these are “something that I think about each and every day.”

Asked whether the somber experience — watching cases carrying the remains come off a giant C-17 cargo plane one by one in the darkness and meeting privately with families so fresh in their grief — will affect his overhaul of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, the president didn’t hesitate to say that it would.

“The burden that both our troops and their families bear in any wartime situation is going to bear on how I see these conflicts,” he said, adding nothing more.

How could anyone not be affected witnessing the return of these Americans, lives cut short, and the grieving of family and friends.

But the question before President Obama requires a decision to be made in the best interest of our country.  If the President does not believe that this war is worth the loss of any lives, then he needs to pull out all of the troops now.

Because if we do not plan to fight to win, if we do not plan to provide enough resources and support for the troops who are already engaged, if the President is hesitating to send more troops because of experiences such as this, he will need to explain to the folks who lose a loved one tomorrow, next week, next month, why their son or daughter died waiting for him to make a decision.

Is pulling out the right decision?  Should he send more troops into harms way?  Ignore the advice of generals and just stay the course?  Frankly I don’t know… that’s above my pay grade, but not above President Obama’s.

Time to stop deliberating like a senator, campaigning like a candidate and reading press clippings… time to start leading like a president.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Obama voting “present” on Afghanistan?

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

President Obama spoke today about the potential for sending reinforcements into Afghanistan:

Transcribed from the video:

When I came in I had to make a series of immediate decisions about sending additional troops to ensure that the election could take place during the fighting season but I was crystal clear at the time that post-election we were gonna need to do an additional assessment.

General McChrystal has carried out his own assessment on the military strategy but its important that we also do an assessment on the civilian side, the diplomatic side, the development side, that we analyze the results of the election and then make further decisions moving forward.

My determination is to get this right and that means broad consultation not only inside the US government but also with our ISAF partners and our NATO allies and I’m going to take a very deliberate process in making those decisions.

So I just wanna be absolutely clear, because there’s a lot, been a lot of discussion in the press about this, that there is no immediate decision pending on resources because one of the things that I’m absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make determinations about resources, you don’t make determinations about resources and certainly you don’t make determinations about sending young men and women into battle without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is gonna be.

So we are gonna proceed and make sure that we don’t put the cart before the horse.

Don’t we already have men and women in Afghanistan?  I could see if this was a decision about whether we should be entering into a war in Afghanistan in the first place, but we already have boots on the ground.  Are we placing these men and women at risk by not providing the necessary support as requested by General McChrystal?

But President Obama hasn’t said no; he hasn’t said yes either;  for now, Obama is voting “present”.

He says we need to have a strategy first?

Wait… you have been president for how long?  And you are just now getting around to thinking maybe you need a strategy for Afghanistan?  And this is number what on your to-do list?

In June 2008, candidate Obama said (From HotAir):

“… it is my job as president, it would be my job as commander in chief, to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we’re having in Afghanistan, in light of the problems that we are having in Pakistan, the fact that Al Qaida is strengthening, as our national intelligence estimates have indicated, since 2001.”

So he clearly knew it was his job, so why hasn’t he done it?

President Obama is waiting until he has ALL POSSIBLE DATA before making a decision.   That works well in the academia world of hypothetical wars, but waiting to make a decision is a decision to continue on the current path.  If that is the right answer, then say so.  If we need to pull out, say so.  If we need to send more troops, say so.

Leaders do not have the luxury of waiting until all possible data has been gathered before making a decision… the rest of the world keeps moving forward and opportunities, and potentially lives, are lost.

If the correct military strategy and solution is to send more troops into the arena, why are we waiting to consult the civilian, diplomatic and development side; why does it matter what the result of the election is; why do we need to consult everyone before deciding to do the right thing militarily?

Mr. President, this is not about putting the cart before the horse…  the horse is already out there.  Our men and women are already engaged with the enemy, and if you are saying that eight months into your presidency you still do not have a strategy in place for Afghanistan, you still don’t know whether we should send more troops, you still have not even had an opportunity to consult all of the folks you believe you need to consult…  you do realize keeping our country safe is your top priority as president, don’t you?

Maybe you need to set aside your social engineering agenda for a couple of days and take the time you need to make a decision here.  Health care “reform” can wait…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

War on Terrorism? What War on Terrorism?

Monday, August 31st, 2009

With 9/11 soon to become just another national day of whatever we can all take comfort in the knowledge that President Obama is fully prepared to protect our country from terrorists with all the resources at his disposal in a way not seen in this country since the days of President Carter:

From Yahoo/Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers:  The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama’s administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.

<snip>

However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.

So, is the war worth fighting? If not, great, pull everyone out and move on.  But if yes, isn’t it the president’s job to explain that to the American people? To explain why it is critical to our national security?

Isn’t this the war the Democrats said we should have been fighting all along?  But now that a poll says it’s unpopular, we should just keep it on life support and not provide the necessary resources to win, just to lose slowly?

If it’s all about the polls, guess we can end all of this debate over the Obama’s big plans to take over health care… we don’t want it.

Are Obama and Biden leaders or politicians (silly question)… Biden is concerned about how Americans would respond to sending more troops?  Frankly, we wouldn’t like it, especially if Obama can not explain why, can not explain the path to victory, can not even tell us what victory looks like.  But that doesn’t mean the answer is to not send troops or even discuss the option publicly… the answer is to do your job as commander in chief and tell us what needs to be done and why.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk to the media, said Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the U.S. can’t make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaida .

He’s probably right… so what are they going to do about getting the country behind winning this war?

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier,” a senior Pentagon official said. “We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

Translation…  the commander in chief is a weenie.

Monday’s assessment initially was to include troop recommendations, but political concerns prompted White House and Pentagon officials to agree that those recommendations would come later, advisers to McChrystal said. Although the White House took a hands-off approach toward Afghanistan earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said they’re now getting more questions about how many troops might be needed and for how long.

Say what you want about George Bush, he never abandoned the troops and he never let polls get in the way of making what he believed to be the right decisions…  granted he should have done a better job of explaining why we were in Iraq, but right up until the end the troops knew he was behind them.  Doesn’t look like they have that same confidence with the new guy.

Try, if you can, to reconcile the mixed message from team Obama…

On the one hand:

Obama now feels that McChrystal and his superior, Army Gen. David Petraeus , the head of the Central Command, are pressuring him to commit still more troops to Afghanistan , a senior military official said. The official said that retired Marine Gen. James Jones , Obama’s national security adviser, told McChrystal last month not to ask for more troops, but that McChrystal went ahead anyway and indicated in interviews that he may need more.

On the other hand:

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Obama administration inherited an under-resourced war in Afghanistan , but he stopped short of promising more troops.

Got that?  It’s Bush’s fault there are not enough troops in Afghanistan and this administration does not appreciate folks pressuring them to send more troops when clearly that would not be very popular.

Administration officials said that the White House is planning a series of “quiet discussions” among top advisers over the next six weeks or so about the way ahead.

“What the president is going to want to do is review the report and then discuss and talk with all of those that have equities in it to get their viewpoints and to ensure that each and every person is heard on this, and that’s what the president intends to do,” Gibbs said Monday.

Uh what?  Discuss and talk with all those who have equities to get their viewpoints over the next six weeks?  Like who… who has “equities” that require six weeks of chat?  Is he commander in chief or committee head in chief?  Take your time, no rush here.

Just curious… if we decide to not send troops, or even pull out all together, where is the front for this war on terrorism?

I’m thinkin’ it may be right here…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Headline: “Afghan War Likely to ‘Absorb’ Potential Savings From U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq”

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

Interesting headline at FoxNews…  more from the article:

President Obama’s projected savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years by scaling back the wars may be undermined by his request for $68 billion in military spending in Afghanistan next year, marking the first time more war funding will be spent in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

That proposal may ultimately cost more than what the Obama officials said could be paid for by withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Here at Thinkin’Bout Stuff, following the September 28 presidential debate, I said:

A couple of areas that I think should have been explored further: Obama indicated troops need to be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan and other countries that harbor Al Qaeda; then seconds later he says we can not improve health care because of the $10b/month it costs keeping troops in Iraq. If those troops are redeployed elsewhere in the world, how does Obama plan to redirect those funds to domestic programs like health care… sounded like double counting. This is not new.. I heard him say this same thing in the past and discussed it here at the time.

Looks like it was double counting… so much for $10b/month being redirected from Iraq to health care…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

War deaths? No biggie…

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

Seems that way now that Obama is president.

How many of us even know that US deaths in Afghanistan are at a record pace in 2009?  Think that wouldn’t be major headlines in every paper and every MSM news report if Bush or McCain were president?

How do I even know this?  Because it was mentioned in the second to last paragraph in an AP article that leads off with the following:

“A rare rocket attack on the main U.S. base in Afghanistan early Sunday killed two U.S. troops and wounded six other Americans, including two civilians, officials said.”

A RARE rocket attack.  Just an isolated incident.  Nothing to be overly concerned about.  These things happen.  Hey, wonder how Barack is spending Father’s Day.  He’s such an inspiration.  Don’t you just hate Bush even more now that you know how wonderful things are with Barack Obama leading us as the father of our country?  Jennifer Weiss, writing for the SF Chronicle, actually said this:

“On this Father’s Day, the American public should proudly note that our president takes his personal role as father (and spouse) as seriously as he does his job as father of the country.”

Excuse me?  Father of our country?  Excuse me while I wretch.

But I digress…

Bottom line:  the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror in general… no longer really news worthy now that we can all rest easy in the knowledge that any deaths now are for a good cause and therefor hardly worth getting upset over.

One other thought along a similar line:  after months of being told that the health care system is broken and we will all be losing our health care, polls are showing that Americans consider health care a major issue that needs to be addressed… shocking.

After months of being told that Israel needs to be more flexible and the Arab states have gotten a raw deal, polls are showing support from Americans dropping dramatically.

So… when we are told something is true over and over, is it any surprise that polls show we actually start believing in this new version reality?

Nor should we be surprised that these polls, influenced by our president, are then used to justify his positions… shocking.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

A Nuclear Taliban?

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

According to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton:

FoxNews: “I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists. But look at why this is happening,” she told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “If you talk to people in Pakistan, especially in the ungoverned territories, which are increasing in number, they don’t believe the state has a judiciary system that works.”

That’s the answer all right.  If Pakistan, or any country for that matter, wants to prevent terrorists from taking over, they need a judiciary system that works.

Yeah, that’ll stop ‘em.  Arrest the Taliban, throw their butts in jail.

I hope President Barack Hussein Obama has a better plan than that.  Are we really counting on Pakistan to prevent a Taliban takeover?

Isn’t this just a wee bit too important to wait and hope that verbal admonishments from the US Secretary of State in front of a House subcommittee will somehow wake up Pakistan and they will fix their judiciary system, thereby stopping the Taliban in their tracks?

Let’s consider, for the moment, the remote chance that a better judiciary in Pakistan will, against all odds, not prevent the Taliban from getting their hands on some of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.. then what?

HRC and BHO spend so much time pointing to the perceived failures of the Bush administration, they are totally blinded to their mounting failures….  and we may all pay the price for their arrogant, narcissist induced ignorance.

Pray they wake up before the Taliban has some new toys… the alternative may be the first nuclear exchange in the history of our planet…

And that would be very bad for Mother Earth…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share