Bam's Afghan Adventure

This week Obama walked into "enemy territory" (or, at least that's how "thrill up my leg" Chris Matthews described the United States Military Academy) and delivered a speech that was neither inspiring, decisive, nor terribly thoughtful.

If you want insightful commentary on Bam's speech, read either Charles Krauthammer's take on it, or Mark Steyn's.

If you want something a little more amatuerish and about as will thought out as the Obama administration policy on Afghanistan, keep reading me!

Bam has decided to send 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.  At the same time, NATO allies have agreed to send an additional 7,000.  Together, this gets us pretty close to the 40,000 that Obama's hand-picked leader, General Stanley McChrystal, had asked for to carry out the counterinsurgency strategy that the administration had settled on in May 2009.

The real problem, from my perspective, with O's speech, is the continued politicization of the war that was the candidate's "necessary war."  As Steyn points out in his column, Obama invokes Afghanistan as the central battleground of the War on Terror (well, he doesn't use those EXACT words) for the entire WORLD.

Yet, he gives a timeline of 18 months to start a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Huh?

This is the central front of the most important war of the world, and we are going to leave in 18 months because....well, because Obama's left-wing nutroots demand some timeline to end all wars, and this is what Obama has chosen to give them.  As Steyn points, out, "Hey, Taliban, just hold on for 19 months, and all is well!"  I agree, if I was an Afghan strongman, I'd be working my best deal with the Taliban, rather than supporting an American initiative against them, when I knew the Americans would be departing in 18 months, leaving me and the Taliban (still) behind.

We will not successfully carry out a counterinsurgency operation without winning over the people who control security in every part of Afghanistan.  Just as in Iraq, the success of a COIN strategy rests with winning over the local population, and yes, the tribal (and often militia) leaders who control those parts of the country.  It is only with our backing, and the sure knowledge that we will be there to provide security for those same people against the Taliban, that we will win them over to our side.

A timeline is the worst possible thing Obama could have done, yet he did it.  A sop to his political left-wing (as if there could be a wing left of Obama).  He further mixed domestic concerns into his speech.  He can't make a speech without tying it somehow to his aggressive domestic agenda.  At least now, we won't have to hear Democrats complaining how much the War costs and how it's bankrupting the country, since they're doing a fine job of that with their out of control money and power grabs.

So, we on the right know that Obama has likely cynically given this promise to his Left.  He weaselly says the withdrawal will "begin" in 18 months.  Those on the right expect that in 18 months, he'll be reneging on that promise, should conditions require more troops, or the same strength.  In the winter of 2011, as the 2012 campaign is gearing up, does Obama want to be remembered as the President who lost Afghanistan?

We don't think so.  But, what if Obama faces a primary challenge from his left in 2012?  A Kucinich (laughable) or perhaps a Feingold (more credible to me)?  In that case, he might feel compelled to make good in some substantive way on his promise.  And, that could lead to disaster in Afghanistan.

I think, though, that it's more likely that Obama, in late 2011, will be facing a primary challenge from his right. As the economy continues to struggle (we're already in the midst of one of the weakest recession recoveries in recorded American history), I think the odds of a Hillary Clinton resignation and subsequent attempt to unseat Obama becomes more and more likely.  Especially if the GOP fails to bring forward a credible candidate, or, if the GOP candidate appears to be a far right conservative (Palin).  In this scenario, Hillary will see herself as not just the savior of the Democratic party, but of the country as well, and she may have a case.  If Bam's approval ratings continue to sink into Bush territory, even his uninidicted co-conspirators in the Legacy Media will leave him, and will relish the opportunity to be the ones to resurrect Hillary.

Possible?  I make it up, you vet it.

Obama vs. McCain Feud Proves Obama Not for Change

The dust-up this week between Obama and McCain on Iraq is emblematic of what Obama is and what he stands for. Let's review the facts and the history very briefly:

1. We invaded Iraq, for whatever reasons, we did it. Whether there were some who were hoodwinked or not into it, those included Democratic Senators Clinton, Kerry, and others. Sure, the most liberal Democrats didn't vote with the President on this. For those Democrats, that was an easy vote.
2. We didn't find mass caches of WMD, and the aftermath was bloody and poorly planned.
3. In 2007, we shifted to the "surge" strategy under General Petreaus and supported vociferously by Sen. McCain. The surge has inarguably worked.

This week, McCain's campaign issues this press release in response to statements Obama made in Tuesday's Ohio debate with Sen. Clinton:

"Last night, we also heard Sen. Obama say that once he withdrew
US forces from Iraq he would 'reserve the right' to act
'if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq,'
Is Sen. Obama unaware that Al Qaeda is still present in Iraq,
that our forces are successfully fighting them every day,
and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would
embolden Al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

In response, Obama unleashed this at a campaign event:

“But I have some news for John McCain, and that
is that there was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq
until George Bush and John McCain decided to
invade Iraq… he took us into war along with
George Bush that should have never been authorized
and should have never been waged.
They took their eye off the people who were
responsible for 9/11, and that would be al Qaida
in Afghanistan that is stronger now than
at any time since 2001.
I’ve been paying attention, John McCain!
That’s the news. So John McCain may
like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden
to the gates of hell, but so far all
he’s done is follow George Bush into
a misguided war in Iraq…”

First off, for the guy who is all about change, this is a typically Liberal reaction to McCain's statement. Obama panders to his far-left, anti-war crowd, who are still "all fired up" over the fact that we went to war with Iraq to begin with. There's no change, Senator Obama, when you're mired in the past. It's a childish, school-yard type response and not what we would expect from the guy who's going to change the way things work in Washington.

But, notice that he starts the reply off with a semi-falsehood, that there was no "al-Qaida in Iraq." While there may have indeed not have been any al-Qaida, nor any of the organization known as "al-Qaida in Iraq," there we certainly terrorists harboring in Iraq, and there was certainly a desire by al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein to cooperate on some levels.

Next, he wants to talk about "should have beens." I honestly ABHOR people who talk this way. It makes for nice flowing rhetoric and all sorts of "I'm smarter than you, because I knew what SHOULDA been," but, it is an attempt to divert attention from what IS the reality on the ground, and how Barack Obama would react to that. Mr. Obama, unless you have a time machine, you don't get to go back and change those votes. So, what are you going to do now?

Next, Obama tells us the real news, and that is, dun-dun-dun, that he's been paying attention! Wow!

Finally, he excoriates McCain for not, in Obama's estimation, doing enough to get Bin Laden. Does this mean that Obama would take the 140,000 troops we have in Iraq and take them all to Afghanistan (and Pakistan), maybe to do a cave-by-cave search? is he making an argument that we don't have the means to fight these two fronts at once? Liberals make the argument that fighting terrorism tends to be useless because for every one of them we call, they come back tenfold, yet, at the same time, they think that if we just chopped off the head (Bin Laden), we'd need n


I know the current talking points today are that a McCain administration is 4 more years of Bush. There is ONE defining issue in this election, it's who will prosecute the War on Terror in a way that keads to victory, and, do the American people believe that victory in Iraq is critical to that final outcome.

It may not be absolutely necessary, but, we're there, and we need to press on. McCain acknowledges that, and is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve that victory. Obama and the dems do not.


Nothing here!