Tuesday evening at 8pm President Obama took a great step in his evolution toward becoming one of the greatest leaders our country has ever seen. Like many presidents before him, Obama argued his case for war, this time against against Al Qaeda. Unlike others however, he did so standing in front of West Point students—many of whom will see deployment in Afghanistan and may indeed lose their lives.

In his address to the American people, the President carefully outlined a point by point strategy for attacking the al Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made it crystal clear that victory would happen with the support of NATO forces, with the United States acting as a beacon of hope and liberty. This was what many people, myself included, hoped to hear former President Bush say after 9/11, but that unity was squandered amongst endless vendettas against Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically. In his speech, President Obama pledged to finally unite the world under the flag of liberty and security.

The additional 30,000 United States troops will not stand on the front lines alone, that the President made abundantly clear. Obama meant two things through that promise. First, the troops will be standing side by side with our allies, in particular Pakistani soldiers who have seldom cooperated with United States peace efforts. Secondly, and most importantly the President made a plea to the American people to support the troops and this effort to preserve peace and democracy.

Some people watched this address with immediate skepticism. Some said that Obama made a critical error by setting a firm deadline for troop withdrawal from the area (2011). For those interested in that argument, tune into C-Span or CNN and listen to Senator McCain argue against the preservation of liberty and safety of America. The majority of Republicans support Obama on this issue however.

Democrats are now the ones rushing to oppose military action. To these Senators and Congressmen, all I can say is that the damage has already been done. Obama is simply willing and able to stop the bloodshed in a very volatile and dangerous area of the world. Is the United States responsible for much of the current turmoil? Yes. But Obama opposed every single measure which led us to this point. Make no mistake, the President’s actions in this situation is that of a Commander and Chief and not of a timid little man who somehow weaseled his way out of serving in Vietnam in order to become this Nation’s worst president of the modern era.

President Obama has acted decisively and prudently. He is arguing for peace, standing up for the rights of all Afghans and even those Taliban forces that are willing to accept that freedom is the correct course for the Afghan people.

Numerous times I have stated that the President is arguing for something. This implies that he somehow needs to persuade the American public as well as the legislative branch to support his effort; all the while our troops look westward and see nothing but political squabbling and citizen unrest. This is unacceptable.

The truth is simple: President Obama is doing exactly what he was elected to do. Our Commander and Chief is bringing an end to open-ended war, unifying the world’s countries, and in the process repairing America’s image abroad. He is also fulfilling a greater promise to the American people, which is that he will do what is necessary to preserve our safety even against popular opposition. This is what America has lacked for eight long years; real leadership in the face of adversity.

WARNING: THIS BLOG MAY CONTAIN EXPLICIT LANGUAGE AND/OR ADULT THEMES

A report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released over the weekend details the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld blunder in 2001 that let Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden escape certain capture in the hills above Tora Bora. Apparently, American troops and their Afghan allies had bin Laden cornered and frantically called for reinforcements to complete the job. But, not only were their requests denied, they were ordered not to block any potential escape routes in any way!
Before you say, “Oh, that’s bullshit! Never happened!!”, here is an excerpt from the actual report:
“On or around Dec. 16, two days after writing his will, [Osama] bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.
Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.”
You should be saying, “Are you fucking kidding me??? Public Enemy #1 (with a bullet) was given a free pass?!?!?” Not surprising, really … if you look between the lines to see the reality of the situation.
The spin on this story is that even if bin Laden was caught or killed the war in Afghanistan wouldn’t have changed much from what we face today, and that he would have been made a poster-child martyr for Al Qaeda recruitment for years to come. While the latter assertion merits some consideration the former is not only full of holes, it is the very reason he was allowed to take a Sunday walk into the mountains of Pakistan.
When the tragedy now known as 9-11 happened, OBL was the face of responsibility that was put on it. The “War On Terror” was born with bin Laden as the target for success. Thus, if he had been “taken down” on that December day the “War On Terror” would have effectively been over before it was allowed to consume our attention and resources – both, financial and human. The Bush gang wouldn’t have been able to pursue the Taliban, which was used as the “logical” launching point for senselessly going into Iraq to hunt down the “guy who tried to kill my (Bush’s) father”.
Get it yet? Cheney wouldn’t have been able to make a disgusting fortune from his warmongering stake in Halliburton (anybody find that missing $9 billion, yet?); Bush and Rumsfeld wouldn’t have been able to make similar profits from their oil & gas investments that soared as the conflicts fueled a manipulated spike in the energy complex; and the right-wingers wouldn’t have been able to have their man in the White House for an additional four years, as a war-President is rarely voted out of office.
That’s right, they let the most sought after man in the world get away in the name of money and power. Like I said, not a big surprise. Appalling, yes. Disconcerting, absolutely. But, shocking? Not really. If you look at most of the decisions made by these Nazi-youth rejects you find that love of the almighty dollar and narcissistic hegemonic hunger are usually the motivating factors.
So, instead of claiming a quick victory in this war, that is beginning to span a second generation, we have squandered billions of dollars that could have solved all of our domestic crises – including healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Plus, we could have funded 100 “Manhattan Projects” to address our dependance on foreign oil (interesting how it always comes back to oil). Worst of all, these selfish and disturbing decisions have led to the loss of over 5,000 of America’s finest and physically changed the lives of over 50,000 (not to mention the mass psychological damage to our troops that never makes it into the casualty reports).
In effect, this miscarriage of responsiblity has done more damage to our country than bin Laden and Al Qaeda could have ever managed to accomplish themselves. Between accosting the Geneva Convention, lying to the country about the necessity for the Iraq invasion, and now the revelations that they aided and abetted our nation’s supposed biggest enemy, it is amazing to me that these repugnant crap-weasels haven’t been brought up on charges.
Enough with the Tiger Woods domestic crash coverage, people! THIS is the story we should be discussing, ad nauseum!! But, I guess everyone else would rather wallow in their ignorant stupor, watch another episode of Jon & Kate Plus Eight, and delude themselves that Michaele and Tareq Salahi are the real news story of the day. Well, not me, dickwads … not me!

President Barack Obama’s own top national security adviser has stated that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan and that they are not capable of launching attacks. What superheroes they must be, then, to require 100,000 U.S. troops to contain them.

The president handled that absurdity by conflating al-Qaeda with the Taliban.

We have decided to prop up a hopelessly corrupt Afghan government because, as Obama argued, “although it was marred by fraud, [the recent] election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.”

To quote Matthew Hoh, a former Marine captain In his letter of resignation as a foreign service officer in charge of one of the most hotly contested areas in Afghanistan: “ I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.”

Concluding: “In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan … I have lost understanding and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan.”

Full story

November 30, 2009

No one is all bad.  Obama does occasionally do things right. I’m amazed at Obama’s decision to send 30,000+ troops to Afghanistan.  This has taken tremendous courage on Obama’s part.  He has angered his support on the far left for the good of our soldiers in Afghanistan for the good of the American People.  Read the idiotic open letter below from Michael Moore (MM) to President Obama.  The letter is important for what it does not say.  For one, it appears that Michael Moore is not getting enough attention so he makes it an open letter. The second thing I would like to point out is the illogical things he says in the letter.  If Michael gets enough publicity from this letter we will surely see another one of his fake documentaries on the big screen.  MM is somewhat like an M&M, thin candy coating outside and full of brown stuff in the inside.  My comments pertaining to some of his more stupid comments are noted by “TP” and presented in bold type. 

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”?

TP – Come on Michael.  No president wants to be a “War president.”  But, we do have to defend our country and our way of life, so you can drive your big fancy car and project the image of being a defender of the poor.  Here is a quote from you recently: 

“I’m a millionaire, I’m a multi-millionaire. I’m filthy rich. You know why I’m a multi-millionaire? ‘Cause multi-millions like what I do.” (from brainyquote.com). MM, You are a hypocrite.

If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president.

TP – I you were not so stupid you would know that life is not as simple as you project it to be. You use words to inflame such as “you are the new war president.”  I am sure you have put this in your 3×5 card index for a future movie.

Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.

TP – So tell us MM how is Obama destroying “hopes and dreams” by protecting our way of life.  You do not have the advisors that the President has, you do not get the intelligence reports the president gets, and you do not have the responsibility of the entire nation on your shoulders.  Most of us are getting wise to you.  MM, you shoot your mouth off to make more controversies so you can mold them into another movie or book to add to your millions in the bank.  Why don’t you give your millions of dollars away to the needy.  You don’t need it.  You hate capitalism.  What do you do with all of your money you make from selling your books and movies using the capitalistic system?

With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics.

TP – MM, only the multitudes of young people that are not informed and not logical.  There is a great line from Wizard of OZ that goes, “What would you do with a brain if you had one.”  This is my question to you MM.  The world is not black and white MM.  You seem to think the people who elected Obama are stupid.  They will not automatically become disillusioned cynics because you say it is so.  You may think your are the messiah, but you are just a pudgy little film maker that makes money off of people’s fears.  

You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.

TP – This one-act by Obama does nothing to support your phrase “all politicians are alike.”  You are making a simplistic and over-reaching assumption.  I must admit you are one of the best at this.

I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

TP – Too much drama here MM.  Just stick to the facts, the real facts.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government.

TP – Politicians make wars that our military have to fight.  You have not basis of understanding the war decisions that Obama has to make.  Only a foolish president would not listen to his generals.  It sounds as if you want President Obama to make the decision sitting in the White House without input from his generals.  This would be stupid.  But course me may not be as smart as you.

WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that.

TP – If you have been watching the news rather than sitting at home watching your movies over and over you would have seen that the president wisely took the advice of his generals, the advice of his war council and HE made the decision.

And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

TP – you can always tell a person that pretends to be smart is really dumb when he has to resort to words above like “f*&in’.”  Do you do this because you think it is cute or is it because you just can’t come up with the right word? You hate generals?  These brave men have dedicated their lives to the United States so people like you can be free to make your millions and constant blow hot air.

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea — “Let’s invade Afghanistan!” Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

TP – You are correct on this one (unlike you, I will give credit where credit is due) but this is a different time, different circumstances, different people.  Heraclitus (MM he is a well-known philosopher) once said “A man never steps into the same stream twice.  The man is never the same man and the stream is never the same stream.”  Do you remember “9/11″ where 3,000 people died?  You probably don’t. 

There’s a reason they don’t call Afghanistan the “Garden State” (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan’s nickname is the “Graveyard of Empires.” If you don’t believe it, give the British a call. I’d have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number.

TP – This is not a laughing issue, so your joke about Genghis Khan falls flat.  Refer to the Heraclitus quote above. 

I do have Gorbachev’s number though. It’s + 41 22 789 1662. I’m sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you’re about to commit.

TP – Wow MM.  Please again refer to the Heraclitus quote above.

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the “war president.”

TP – This your opinion MM.  You have never fought in combat.  You have never had to be responsible for millions of lives.  You only inflame to make movies.  My son, SSG Darrell Griffin, Jr.  was a soldier that gave his life in Iraq.  He understood the Iraqi people.  He understood freedom is not free.  Since you hate capitalism so much, I can send you a list of countries that are not capitalistic.  Oh ya, you will have to give up your millions of dollars if you want to live in one of them.  And oh ya, you will not have the freedom of speech that you have in this country to make your inflammatory films and write your hateful books.  Do you have any other skills that you could use to make a living in one of these other countries?

 Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line — and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

TP – Are you aware that radical Islamist have been attacking the US since the end of WWII?  Remember the Beirut Barracks bombing, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, the last WTC bombing?  Laying down our arms as you suggest would only encourage them to push even harder to over throw our country. 

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn’t have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

TP – MM, you have no basis for your comments.  They are simplistic and without foundation, just more of your nonsense rhetoric.  MM, you need to start being factual in your rants.  You are fast becoming irrelevant to thinking patriots.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan!

TP – Stop the press, stop the generals, stop the president.  MM says there are only 100 al-Qaeda in Afghanistan!  Before we start sending all our troops home we should probably verify where you got your information.  MM, this statement only shows you are more stupid than I thought.

A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush’s Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

TP – Wow MM! Only 100 guys living in caves?  What have you been smoking MM?

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you’re doing it so you can “end the war”) will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you’ve said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone — and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout “tea bag!”

TP – MM who are the haters?  From your rants and ravings, your films and books I think you have established yourself as the captain of the hater team.  If the shoe fits put it on.  And I am sure it is a nice snug fit for you.

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

TP – MM, it is not the “corporate backers” as you call them, but the people of the United States that elected Obama.  I am confused.  Are you telling Obama that he should pander to his corporate backers?  Wow,  MM you are confused.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can’t take it anymore. We can’t take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of “landslide victory” don’t you understand?

TP – MM, cry babies like you call it caving in if Obama does not agree with you.  He is not just your president.  Even though I did not vote for him he is still my president.  He is doing what he feels is good for the country in this particular instance and he is not doing this for political reasons.  If you are shallow enough to judge his presidency from such a narrow view-point then take off your blinders.

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor.

TP – I can send you an address where you can send your millions of dollars and they will see it gets fairly distributed to the poor. 

You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn’t be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can’t change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

TP – “their incessant venom on hate radio and television” as you call it is free speech in action.  I have heard a lot more venom fall from your fangs that any talk show host I have heard.  You are so hateful that you are soon going to be irrelevant.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can’t be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it’s time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan.

TP – MM, I am a parent of a soldier that lost his life fighting in Iraq.  So if you want him to ask the soldiers I can answer for my son, and many other soldiers.  After my son was killed I was allowed to embed with my son’s combat unit in Baghdad to complete a book we were working on.  100% of these brave soldiers felt what they were doing was right.  Americans and in particular our soldiers want to win and leave, not abandon the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Sure the soldiers questioned our being in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they still fight for the freedoms we have in this country.  It is people like you that sadden our troops with your nonsense.  Read “Last Journey.”  This is the book my son and I wrote.  It will tell you how our brave and thinking patriot soldiers feel about what they are doing.   

Do you think they will say, “No, we don’t need health care, we don’t need jobs, we don’t need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, ’cause we don’t need them, either.”

TP – MM stay on the subject.  You are talking about the war.  Healthcare and jobs are important but do not confuse the issue you are addressing here. 

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that’s what they’d do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

TP – MM, obviously you did not do your homework on this issue.  The military demographics pretty much reflect the demographics of our U.S. population.  Our military goes to great lengths to make sure this is so.  We are all concerned about American Children sleeping in the streets and people standing in bread lines.  But, you use them to support your views on the war.  You do this because you know people are emotional about these issues.  These are important issues but shame on you for using their images to support your weak argument against Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan. 

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights,

TP – MM, more of your hate speech.  There was no torture on our part. What about the beheadings by the insurgents, the insurgents killing innocent people with suicide bombers?  MM, the Bill of Rights is still in place.  Why did you not capitalize the “Bill of Rights” in your letter?  Was it a Freudian slip?

invading nations who had not attacked us,

TP – We did not attack ourselves on 9/11 MM.

blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam “might” be in (but never was)

TP – MM, I don’t know if anyone told you but we did get Saddam.

, slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan.

TP – Do you remember Uday and Qusay, Saddam’s sons?  They used to go down the bridle roles of couples getting married to have “fun” with the bride to be.  This is one of many ways they got there kicks.  Are you defending their behavior?  Are you suggesting that we should have left them alone to their evil devices?

We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish — the full terror of which we scarcely know.

TP – Our soldiers have found hundreds of mass-graves from Saddam’s evil rain.  We have witnesses thousands of innocent Iraq’s and Afghan’s die from suicide bombers.  Are you suggesting we should turn our backs on them?

When we elected you we didn’t expect miracles. We didn’t even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn’t even function as a nation and never, ever has.

TP – Bad guys usually have guns (al Quada, Taliban, etc) so good guys have to use guns to protect innocent people from bad guys with guns.  MM, I hope this explanation was simple enough for you.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop.

TP – you are not being consistent.  Above you said Afghanistan has never been organized.  We are helping the Afghan people.  You are suggesting we abandon them, that we have no responsiblity to help the countries of the world out that has oppressive regimes that kill its people.  American is strongest country on the earth and we have a responsibility to use this strength for world good.  We can not turn our heads and ignore the raping, murdering acts of repressive regimes and organizations like al queda and the taliban.

For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God’s sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON’T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother’s son.

TP – MM, I will debate you anywhere any time.  If this is too much for you I will arrange for my 13 year-old son to debate you.

We’re counting on you.

Yours,
Michael Moore

I was perusing the offerings on The Huffington Post today and came across two articles, “Rupert Everett: Hollywood is Like Al-Qaeda” and “Critics of Obama’s Exit Strategy Have Argument Backwards,” both with different spellings of “al Qaeda”. I have no first-hand knowledge of Arabic so I cannot say with assurance how to spell it, but after some online research I came across WikiAnswers which claims the correct spelling is “Al Qaeda”. Any Arabic speakers who can second that?

In the first article it was spelled “Al-Qaeda”. In the second article there were two different spellings, “al Qaeda” and “al-Qaeda”. I think most Americans don’t know which spelling is correct (if one of them is correct), but for the sake of consistency, THP should choose one and use it wherever the word occurs.

Last evening, President Obama announced his plan for the United States’ ongoing war effort in Afghanistan. His strategy includes 30,000 additional American troops, and a withdrawal date of mid-2011.

The exit strategy put forth by Mr. Obama can be understood as an ultimatum to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Essentially, Mr. Obama is telling Mr. Karzai that the government reforms called for must be put in place quickly. Mr. Obama is trying to instill a sense of urgency. It is a calculated risk.

The success of the American military’s effort to create manageable conditions for an eventual transition of power is dependent on whether the Afghans will be able to assume a greater role in their own defense. The capability of the Afghans is a variable that the U.S. cannot predict. The Afghan government has had great difficulty in guiding it’s population through civil and military modernization and change. Michele A. Flournoy (American under secretary of defense) stated today in the New York Times that the pace, the duration, and the condition at the beginning of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan will dictate how quickly the drawdown happens.

Mr. Obama stated in his speech last night that success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to success in Pakistan. This is because the al Qaeda network and the various Taliban factions operating in the region travel back and forth between the two countries. Mr. Obama compared al Qaeda to a spreading cancer. However, there is some doubt as to al Qaeda’s ability to reestablish itself in Afghanistan in any formidable way.

Mr. Obama spoke of Pakistan so substantially last evening because Pakistan is immeasurably more important to American interests than Afghanistan. Pakistan has around 100 nuclear weapons and it is also the haven for the top leadership of al Qaeda. Pakistan’s involvement is complicated by its current state of governance. The Pakistani government only controls about 30% of its population; moreover, the Pakistani military is the primary, and possibly only, institution holding the country together. Furthermore, the growing profile of U.S. forces in the region is increasing anti-Americanism among the Pakistani populace.

Pakistan’s importance to American interests will not ebb when the United States leaves Afghanistan. Realistically, it will only continue to grow. However, the question remains whether Afghanistan is really all that central to America’s future global effort against terrorism. Currently, the answer isn’t clear.

Well am I the only one slightly nauseous after hearing Obama’s speech last night? He sounded like a French general in WWII. “We’ll fight, fight, fi… Oh, my look at the time. We must be leaving now. As you were.” Right. You know, it’s sad when I can say that I don’t remember in my lifetime a time that America actually fought to win a war. Obama states that we are going to put another 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. A start, certainly not enough, but a start. Then he turns around and ruins it by saying that in 18 months we will begin to draw down forces in Afghanistan. Uh, wait a minute, I thought we were in this war to destroy the enemy. At least that’s the impression I had when Bush was in office. Under Obama it seems that every conflict we are involved in we are working towards leaving, not winning.

You see, that is the difference between the wars since Korea and WWII, WWI and every other previous war. In the Revolutionary War, America was determined to win, regardless of the fact that we were fighting the most powerful army on earth at that time. Americans grabbed their guns and fought. And we fought to win. And we did. Because when Americans put our minds and all of our strength into a task, we are bound to do it. In the War of 1812 we repeated the victories of the Revolutionary War. We fought and contested for every inch of ground won or lost. And in the end, we had lost several key cities, yet we fought on. In WWI we started the war with less than 30,000 troops but through time, commitment and the overriding American spirit of ‘we are going to get this done’ we got suited up and we kicked German butt. In WWII we were still in the Depression. But we armored up, sending money, advisers and weapons to allies. Eventually we were attacked ourselves and got into the full swing of things. And you know what? It helped that we had some generals like Patton. Patton said “Your mission is not to die for your country but to make the other b****** die for his.” Not very politically correct was he? That is what we need now. Someone that will say ‘we’re going to find Al Qaeda and we are going to kill them all.’ The only thing that Al Qaeda and Islamofascists will respect is force. They see diplomacy as weakness and like sharks they attack when they sense weakness.

But since WWII, America has been locked in the military quagmire of political correctness and unwillingness to win. In Korea, we faced off against the Chinese and stalemated. That was not as bad as some will let you think. China sent massive amounts of troops to North Korea’s aid and we managed to fight them off to a stalemate. Going to war with China was a worst-case scenario and we should pray that it never comes to that, but if it does, we need to be resolute and say that we will do whatever it takes to win. A decade later though, the unwillingness to do the hard things to win left a lasting smirch on the U.S. war history. We could have won Vietnam if we had went right at them and cut the figurative head off of the North, but instead we were mostly content to play defense which ultimately led to our defeat and withdrawal.

Now, after we should have learned the lesson that we need to attack relentlessly against a ruthless enemy, Obama is telling our enemies that if they can outlast us for 18 months, we will leave and they can have the country back. Liberals in Congress wanted the same plan for Iraq but thanks to the surge, authored by brilliant General Petraeus Iraq is largely stable and will be a strong democracy when we leave. Now we need to do the same for Afghanistan. We need to focus all of our energy and power at killing off Al Qaeda and Taliban and destroying their hideouts. We need to flush them from the mountains and tribal areas like the rats they are. Use drones, use missiles, use bombs, use snipers, use blunt force, use everything in our disposal. BUT GO FULL BLOWN!!! Either destroy the enemy without recourse or take our soldiers out of harm’s way. If you send the troops to do a job without giving them everything they need to win, you are an accomplice to their death.

I listened to President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan last night, and I remain unconvinced.  Yes, there were definitely some things that represent a positive change in policy — more Congressional oversight, no more “no-bid” contracts come to mind immediately, as does the reality of whether we can afford the financial drain an open-ended commitment implies.  But I remain unconvinced that sending in another 30,000 troops will contribute to any long-term solution, regardless of the length of the surge.

The President spoke of the situation in Afghanistan as vital to our national security interest.  To be sure, Al Qaeda still wants to harm us, and the Taliban once gave them safe haven.  Yet, Al Qaeda has moved from Afghanistan to Pakistan.  So, given that Pakistan possesses something like 65 nuclear weapons, isn’t that the logical focus of our efforts?  And given that Pakistan is officially an ally, how do we best work with them to ensure both the safety of their arsenal and their active commitment to root out Al Qaeda, Taliban and other extremist elements while preventing their relocation back across the border into Afghanistan?  That seems to be the military objective.

What confounds me is why we still seem to put so much emphasis on the military option, despite frequently asserting that the situation doesn’t have a military solution.   We are told that one of the two primary military goals is to train up the local security forces.  But when the desertion rate for the Afghan national police force approaches 1 in 4, one must wonder if training Afghans to take over their own security is a viable solution, despite the assertion that several thousand Afghans, plus another 5,000 or so NATO troops will be added to reach the 40,000 that were requested.

In the lead up to the speech, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted that our mission in Afghanistan is not nation-building.  For heaven’s sake, in my mind that is exactly our mission there!  That unfortunate country needs schools over and above almost everything else.  Every time we bomb a wedding party or rack up another set of civilian casualties, we create more reasons for people to turn to the Taliban.

A national literacy rate of only 10% is very telling.  Teaching Afghans to read and offering them an alternative to poppy cultivation would be powerful tools against the Taliban.  We need many more Greg Mortensons working in Afghanistan.  If you’re unfamiliar with Mr. Mortenson, I urge you to read “Three Cups of Tea.”  Then, in the spirit of the holidays, make as big a contribution as you can afford to his Central Asia Institute.  The money goes to build schools in rural villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Schools that are required to be open to girls as well as to boys.

Then, lobby Congress to use our aid money in the form of micro-loans.  The model there is Mohammad Yunus.  Mr. Yunus has discovered that small loans, often only a few hundred dollars each, allow people to begin small, local, culturally and technologically realistic businesses that will improve their standard of living.  In most cases, the repayment rate would be a US banker’s delight.

Literacy and self-empowered economic development are powerful tools against extremism.  Unfortunately, the history of USAID tends to be reflected too often in warehouses filled with American goods that benefit mostly the American expatriate community there.

I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt.  He’s truly stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I was hoping to hear an explanation of a wider strategy.  What I heard was a speech by a very reluctant warrior that focused on the military option.

Latif Yahia interview with HARDtalk is scheduled to broadcast on BBC ,

The full interview with Latif Yahia will be broadcast on HARDtalk on Wednesday 2nd December 2009.

BBC News Channel: 0430 and 2330 GMT.

BBC World News: 0430, 0930, 1430, 1830, 2130 and 2330 GMT.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8388903.stm

http://www.latifyahia.com

Last night, addressing the nation before the US Military Academy at West Point, President Obama announced his plan for moving forward in Afghanistan.  He announced that he would send 30, 000 more troops into Afghanistan through the next six months, part of a plan to begin removing American military from that country within 18 months.  The new strategy will focus on defeating Al Qaeda, training Afghan police and military, correcting government corruption, and support for the stability of Pakistan.

To the dismay of much of the media, the speech was not filled with “bumper-sticker” quotes, but with reason and responsibility.  His goal was to explain the strategy and reasons for that strategy to, not only American civilians and military members, but also to the people of Afghanistan and the world.  Something that I feel was especially significant and powerful was when the President looked straight into the camera, addressing Afghans, explaining the purpose of the US military presence in their country.  He told them, explicitly, that the United States had no desire to occupy Afghanistan.  That part of the speech might be overlooked and, although it may seem like an insignificant part of the speech, this subtle overture is important to gain the trust of the Afghan people.

This decision by President Obama has been, and will continue to be panned by the media, bloggers, and politicians.  This is one of those decisions that will please very few, right or left, but that could be a good sign, actually.  When no one in this divisive political atmosphere is championing the President’s decision, then he must be doing something right.  He, his administration, and the military seem to be on the same page on this decision, however, which is most important.  Popular support for all wars continue to wane in this country, and for good reason, but the populous reacts emotionally, while our nations leaders must rule with reason. 

Conservatives and Republicans, who are against every decision the President makes, are complaining that there are too few troops, and that the 18-month timeline for withdrawal is somehow equivalent to surrender.  Of course, all of this is nonsense.  I know that they must find something to disagree with, maybe they should remember the advice that they have repeated, again and again, for the past couple of months–listen to the generals.  Okay, let’s see what Gen. Stanley McChrystal has to say:  (from UPI)

“The clarity, capability, and committment outlined in President Obama’s address are critical steps toward eliminating an insurgency in Afghanistan and terrorist safe havens that threatened regional and global security….I believe our renewed coalition campaign is fortified by the path President Obama has put forward.”   

Democrats, liberals, and progressives–my side of political thinking–are not happy about the decision, either.  Many of them feel that it is time for us to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan.  Although President Obama, during last years election campaign, clearly stated he would place more focus of the war in Afghanistan, people on the left are disappointed or angry about this ”surge” of troops.  They try to insult Obama by saying that he is acting just like George W. Bush.  That, too, is nonsense.  I only wish that President Bush would have placed the proper focus on Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, he forgot about Afghanistan.  He invaded Iraq.  He didn’t take care of business, so President Obama must.

There are no silver bullets for success in Afghanistan.  There seem to be no good options, but President Obama has properly deliberated over the facts and advice, and he has now announced the strategy that he believes is most likely to lead to success.  I don’t know if he is right or wrong but, as Americans, we should all hope that he is right.  It is time for Americans to unite.  ”United we stand, divided we fall.”

July 2011,Taliban,The text in quotes is Ralph Peter’s who Writes foir the N.Y POST, the text in BOLD is mine!

“Just plain nuts: That’s the only possible characterization for last night’s presidential declaration of surrender in advance of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan. ” (What a Commander in Chief, gives up before he starts)
“President Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan — but he’ll “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.” Then why send them?” (The election is in 2012 isn’t it)

“If you’re going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we’re leaving, what’s the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?” (Hang on Taliban, when we leave we wiull give the Afghanian people alot of equipment and munitions that you can rip off for your own)

“Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven’t been able to do in more than eight?”
(He knows not what he is doing and neither do his advisors)

“And what did this “new strategy” come down to, otherwise? More of the same, but more: More troops, more civilians, more partnership.” (How about more LIES)

“Well, the troops will go, the civilians won’t — and the partnerships are a fantasy.” (The civilians and our so called “partners” are both to smart to fall for this load of troops he is sending with orders not to shoot anyone)

“Our president is setting up our military to fail — but he’ll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.” (Once again it is all about Barack Hussein Obama and Chicago Machine Dirty Politics)

“He’s covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism’s worthy of a Saddam.” (Obama isn’t much on knowledge to be a President but he sure knows how to cover his ass)

“This isn’t just stupid: It’s immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.” (This President is worthless and self=absorbed and only interested in what is good for Barack Hussein Obama)

“On the other hand, the stage lighting and the camera angles at West Point were terrific. Our president looked good. Jaw jutting high (in his “hope” pose), he decried political partisanship — but spent more time blaming Bush and Iraq for our Afghan problems than he spent blaming the Taliban” (Why did he choose West Point for this televised speech? I know, you figure it out! Blaming GWB is getting real old, it’s been a year Barack, get off it)

“Nor did Obama miss a single chance to praise himself, insisting that he’s already transformed our relationship with the Middle East (please notify the Iranians, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas) and that all of his dithering demonstrated wisdom.” (Of course, Barack Hussein Obama can do no wrong, He just can’t see anything around him because of the brightness of his own self believed halo)

“This guy loves to hear himself talk. The last quarter of the speech was boiler-plate rhetoric that wandered off into the clouds. And that human-rights stuff? Where was that during his visits to China and Saudi Arabia? Hypocrisy, thy name is Barack.” (He talks and talks and talks and says nothing)

“Above all, where was the strategy? And where are the four-star resignations over a policy designed to squander American lives just to give an administration political cover?” (I wonder what will come of the numbers of our military killed in Afghanistan after this, will we be told truth or the Obamaized version?)

“After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?” (Obama will wave his magic wand and it will become so, Yeah sure it will))

“Target the insurgency”? Does that mean our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them? Nope. Those troops are going to “secure population centers.” We’ll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike.”( you betcha, rules of engagement will be very strict, Obama surely doesn’t want a high body count for the Taliban to militate against him)

When fighting insurgents and terrorists, if you’re not slamming them up against the wall and breaking their bones, you’re losing. Obama isn’t sending more troops — he’s sending more targets.

“By the time Obama finally got to Pakistan — the refuge of evil — he was spouting pure nonsense: “We are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust.” But our interests diverge, we don’t respect each other and we certainly don’t trust each other. ” ( What is it with Obama and Pakistan , better know as Evilistan, he always manages to make them appear the victims, maybe it is because he has so many wealthy Pakistani friends and donors to his campaigns!)

Mr. President, you are a dim bulb and have sent our troops into a trap and sold the country of Afghanistan down the river. You have made yourself (you think) bullet proof by trying to appease both sides, the hawks and the gutless doves! You have erred greatly and will pay as your asinine waiting for months and coming up with this cockamayme plan is nothing but political suiside!

RWD

It’s easy to have a hard time putting together all the pieces necessary to fully grasp what the President says in a speech.  When dealing with an issue as complicated as war, it’s no surprise that this is the case.  Although parts of the speech may be comprehended, there are deeper currents of meaning below the surface that are easy to miss.  CATO Institute does a great job in their December 2nd Daily podcast of putting some of the pieces together, and explaining what this speech means to you and I.

Listen to this short daily podcast from CATO Institute entitled “Obama’s Afghanistan Contradiction”.  (requires flash)

( http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=1043 )

Last night, President Obama spoke at West Point and laid out his strategy for the war in Afghanistan.  He announced that 30,000 more troops would be deployed there, but also said that a withdrawal of American troops would begin in July 2011.  The three core elements of the strategy are:

1. A military effort to stem the Taliban’s momentum and increase the capacity of the Afghan security forces to the extent that the US can start withdrawing in 18 months.

2. A civilian surge to provide assistance to NGOs and Afghan officials.

3. Developing an effective partnership with Pakistan to combat militants based in Pakistani territory.

It is very doubtful that sufficient military progress will be achieved in the next 18 months to allow American forces to withdraw from Afghanistan.  Hopes of training enough Afghan army and police personnel to secure the country without the continued assistance of 100,000 American troops in that timeframe are almost laughable.  The vast majority of Afghans are illiterate, which makes training Afghan soldiers difficult because manuals cannot be used extensively, and it is unclear if the US military will have enough trainers on hand given the need to use the surge troops for combat duty. 

A civilian surge is unlikely to succeed for two reasons.  One is that security problems and rampant corruption will hamper attempts to promote development and good governance.  The second is that the US simply does not have enough civilian capacity to be effective in warzones, partly because civilians cannot be ordered to go into dangerous areas and stay there.

Developing an effective counterterrorism/counterinsurgency partnership with Pakistan, which the US has been trying to do for the last eight years, will probably continue to be an elusive goal.  Members of Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban enjoy a safe haven in Pakistan because the Pakistanis do not believe it is in their interest to take on those militants; the security forces in Pakistan are busy fighting the Pakistani Taliban, not the Afghan Taliban, which is a separate group.  The president’s declaration that the US will begin to leave Afghanistan in 2011 will only strengthen the Pakistani government’s desire to maintain ties with the Afghan Taliban and not antagonize them in case the they come back into power after American forces pullout.

President Obama is either naive about the prospects of success in the next 18 months or, more likely, he is promising a fairly quick exit to maintain political support for the war effort.  He will almost certainly be faced with the choice of bringing troops home before the mission is accomplished or violating his pledge to start reducing America’s footprint in Afghanistan in 2011.

Species Name: Foiegrasicus Panzicus

Fuck the Ducks.  I hate everything this team stands for.  And it’s not just because I am a die hard Los Angeles Kings fan.  I hate the fact that Disney thought, “hey you know what would be absolutely fantastic?  Let’s take the rag tag, pee wee hockey team from our hit movie The Mighty Ducks and turn that into a professional hockey team in the NHL!  And you know what else?  We don’t even have to change the logo, we can totally keep the same logo the kids used in the movie because professional atheletes will love wearing this logo on their chest:”

This team is a joke.  Always has been and always will be.   I’m sorry, as much as you try to change your image, you will always be known as the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim in my eyes.  Pussies.  There will undoubtedly be some Ducks fans out there that will say I’m just bitter because the Ducks won a Stanley Cup before the Kings and to that I say, yeah I am, go fuck yourself.  That still doesn’t change the fact that your whole organization is the laughing stock of professional sports.  Even your announcers suck.  They are such fucking homers, they make me want to strangle a puppy.  If my mother called me and told me that Brian Hayward, the Ducks color commentator, was my long lost brother, I would be forced to carry out a murder/suicide, killing Hayward and then myself for the shame of being related to that fuckwad.

In a world where the Anaheim Ducks weren’t around to be the bane of my existence:

• One of my favorite childhood movies, The Mighty Ducks, wouldn’t elicit the Pavlovian response of me punching a baby in the face every time it’s on TV.
• Plenty of other, more deserving sports markets may have gotten a franchise over Anaheim.  Somehow I feel like hockey makes more sense in Seattle, Portland, Milwaukee, Hartford, I could go on…but Anaheim, really?
• The Kings would still have George Parros and his sweet mustache.

• Hockey fans wouldn’t have had to endure Chris Pronger’s consistently dirty playing in a Ducks jersey.  Prick.

Chris Pronger...the Johnny Lawrence of the NHL.

• The one sad thing is that we wouldn’t have been able to see Paul Kariya getting his clock cleaned:

• Everyone would’ve been spared this horrendous jersey…I hope whoever designed this was promptly fired:

• Children wouldn’t have been scarred for life by watching the Ducks mascot, Wild Wing (lame), go up in flames while trying to jump the “Wall of Fire” during the intermission of a game back in 1995:

I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to see the Ducks in the cellar of the Western Conference.  I’ve had to sit and watch this team of douchebags make the playoffs year after year while the Kings haven’t made the playoffs since 2001-2002.  Well I believe the tide is changing my friends, but nevertheless, I still believe that Al Qaeda should target the Honda Center for a terrorist attack, wiping out the entire Ducks organization and their fans.  Oh wait, Al Qaeda wouldn’t do that because not enough fans attend Duck games…because nobody in the OC gives two shits about hockey.

But one has to have dreams right?

On Tuesday afternoon, hours before his televised address at West Point, President Obama wisely acknowledged, “None of this is easy. I mean, we are choosing from a menu of options that are less than ideal.” For such a statement, I applaud the president for his candor and realism. He is right in asserting that Afghanistan can no longer be the forgotten war regulated to the back page of the American mind. Afghanistan is not the “good” war, it is really the great unknown—troubled by a corrupt and feeble central government, a lack of infrastructure, and persistent attacks from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Afghanistan has a bleaker future than even Iraq. That would have been difficult to say three years ago.

Over the course of the weeks he spent huddled with cabinet members and Pentagon officials sketching out his next move in Afghanistan, Obama certainly gave a thought to rejecting every military proposal placed on his desk. If only he could rid himself of a foreign entanglement not of his doing, he could surely devote his time to the social reforms on which he built his presidential campaign. Alas, Obama is now as much of a war president as Lyndon Johnson was in the waning years of his first term. Had the president decided to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, I would have respected his decision as a commander-in-chief making what he felt was the best decision for American troops. Admittedly, while I support Obama’s announced policy to increase troop levels in an effort to boost security and eventually hand control to the Afghans, his timetable for America’s exit is shortsighted and setup for failure.

The moment Obama decided to add more troops to the equation should have been the moment he placed all of his cards on the table. Go all in, or do not go at all. Expediting the deployment of 30,000 troops may help in the short term, but it is not a viable solution. Contrary to what some Congressional Republicans have argued in recent days, this is not about aiding the enemy by handing them our timetable for departure. There is no doubt that Obama recognized the divisions in his cabinet (Vice President Biden is wary about the “surge” strategy, whereas Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is more supportive of renewing the military effort) and the widening rift in his party over war policy (liberals oppose escalation and conservative Democrats worry about the rising price tag). More certain is the fact that the July 2011 date to begin some form of an orderly exit coincides well with a looming presidential election the following year. Politics, rest assured, is always part of the equation.

No one can argue with Obama surrogates that reject the prospects of extended nation building in Afghanistan. Depleted after a decade of war and a severe economic downturn, America’s finances will not defeat an entrenched insurgency if the Afghan government refuses to cooperate on issues such as educational development or reductions in the illegal drug trade. What is perplexing about the Obama war plan, however, is his awkward marriage of a substantial troop increase with his refusal to embrace the essential features of the army’s counterinsurgency tactics. Adding manpower to protect the civilian population is admirable, but what will happen when we depart in the coming years?

Unless we commit ourselves to ramping up the training of Afghan security forces, the current mission will go to waste. It is best that we learn that killing the enemy is only a temporary respite from the underlying problem—they have nothing to lose and possess eternal patience. Unfortunately, neither America, nor Obama, has the same luxury. If the president is sincere about leaving Afghanistan in stable condition, he will grant American troops the time they deserve to prove their mettle.

Why even bother dissecting Obama’s speech?

I’ve read a wide variety of blogs today that have been taking it apart, analyzing it line by line.  But there were no big surprises.  The Obama Administration continues to blur the differences between the Taliban, a nationalist movement in Afghanistan that just wants foreign troops out of the country, and al Qaeda, a worldwide terrorist organization that’s barely found in Afghanistan anymore.  The White House continues to talk about the importance of a stable Pakistan, not seeming to comprehend that its policy in the region and the ongoing bombing by the CIA in Pakistan is only contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan’s government.  Our President took three months to think about his decision, and he came to the conclusion that the answer was continued military occupation of Afghanistan.  And so 30,000 more troops are being sent to the meat grinder.  Nothing new.  He campaigned on it, we expected it (I might even venture to say that we’re to blame…we did vote for the guy, after all), and that’s that.  The only thing we can do now is yell and scream – and push our legislators not to fund the war.  But there’s no sense in reviewing tired arguments that are being reviewed everywhere else in the progressive blogosphere, because they’re obviously falling on deaf ears.

President Obama has made it abundantly clear that no amount of common sense, that no number of facts, that no level of reality is going to get in the way of “winning” in Afghanistan.  Assuming “winning” means a full-blown occupation of Afghanistan’s cities and countryside, it still remains to be explained how “winning” will actually meet our alleged goal, which is the destabilization and defeat of al Qaeda, which is not an organization located just in Afghanistan.  We’re pouring buckets upon buckets of blood and billions of dollars into this quagmire, and when it’s all said and done, we’re not going to be any closer to “victory” in the “War on Terror” than when we started.  President Obama explained in his speech the differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam;  perhaps he should have instead explained the differences between the Taliban and al Qaeda, or the differences between fighting terrorism and occupying a country during an ongoing civil war.  Maybe he should have been honest with the American people by letting them know that even if we successfully defeat the Taliban insurgency, the costs – not just in terms of dollars and lives, but also in terms of an invigorated enemy and the possibility of a hostile, nuclear Pakistan – will far outweigh any gain.

But he didn’t.  Instead, he announced to the American people that we’re about to embark on another mission that we can’t accomplish, another lesson in history that probably won’t be learned by future generations – and he dressed the announcement up in a suit stitched out of deception and fear (“it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan”).

Not to be completely discouraged, though.  Like Vietnam, this war, too, will come to an end.  But, as demonstrated by Vietnam, it’s not up to the government to end the war – it’s up to us to end the war.  Because, in the end, the White House is going to do what the White House is going to do when it comes to foreign policy.  The burden of ending this war really lies upon our shoulders.  If we fail to raise our voices until our elected officials can’t stand it anymore, then we haven’t done our job.

The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.

It is reprehensible that President Obama has taken this long to make a decision. Given that he has been in office over 10 months; the many months General McChrystal has been in Afghanistan the delay has left American Soldiers lives unnecessarily at risk. It seems clear that the president has spent months trying to come up with a politically acceptable strategy rather than really focusing on Victory as a solution.   Does he want to WIN?  If so why wouldn’t he trust  General McChrystal’s strategy  completely?  After all he did pick him.  This is not a basket ball game when we see who won when the clock runs out.
President Obama has chosen the non working solution that was selected for the end of World War One.  Choosing a time which all sides know the war is to end.  Thousand of lives were lost in those last days of WWI because of this blunder.  Does no one in the White House read any history?  Wars are WON when the enemy surrenders not when the clock strikes the appointed hour.

And one more little point President Obama, You asked to be President.  It isn’t like you were unaware this war was going on when you came to office all those months ago.  You can disagree with President Bush, but to keep on blaming him when you knew everything as a candidate is really getting old.  Now that you have “Taken Charge”  Lets go at this with everything we’ve got.  Americans will rally behind you if your are fighting an old fashioned WAR.   With an objective to win, which again is when the Taliban, al qaeda , and Osama Bin Laden all surrender.  Remember, (No war time President has lost an election).

I took a nap in front of a television, and dreamed I was being lectured to by this incredibly annoying, pontificating nerd.  When I woke up, Barack Obama was speaking.

In a nationally televised speech, Barack Obama assured the Taliban fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan that they will have an exit strategy out of a bitter conflict.

“Don’t worry, brave and noble Taliban fighters, your long fight will not be in vain.  We will be here today, but gone tomorrow.  I promise you as a Democrat and a liberal that in 18 months, the ultimate victory will be yours, and then you can invite those al-Qaeda friends of yours to come back.”

Don’t worry, Obama didn’t actually say that, at least not in so many words.  But that is nevertheless the clear outcome of his policy.

I feel sorry for our troops.  They have just been told that they are being committed not to a war that they will be allowed to fight and win, but an abandonment to a lost cause that will end with cutting and running.

From the AP:

As President Barack Obama outlined his plan to send 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan — while pledging to start bringing them home in 2011 — soldiers, Marines and their families interviewed by The Associated Press felt a tangle of fresh concerns and renewed hopes. Some took in the televised announcement as they played darts in a barroom near their base, while others watched from their living rooms.

“All I ask that man to do, if he is going to send them over there, is not send them over in vain,” said 57-year-old Bill Thomas of Jacksonville, N.C., who watched Obama’s televised speech in his living room, where photos of his three sons in uniform hang over the TV.

One of his sons, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Thomas, is a Marine based at neighboring Camp Lejeune. He’ll deploy next year to Afghanistan.

An ex-Marine himself, Thomas said he supports Obama’s surge strategy. But he shook his head when the president announced a 2011 transition date to begin pulling out troops.

“If I were the enemy, I would hang back until 2011,” Thomas said. “We have to make sure that we are going go stay until the job is done. It ain’t going to be as easy as he thinks it is.”

Some troops chose to ignore Obama’s promise of a timetable of victory for the Taliban:

The president also began outlining an endgame to the war, saying troops would begin pulling out of Afghanistan in July 2011 — though he did not say when a withdrawal could be completed.

Army 1st Lt. Emily Stahl, who is preparing to deploy from Fort Campbell next spring, said she’s not going to focus on the timetable.

“We have to get the job done,” Stahl, 24, said after watching the speech from her home outside the Army post, where she serves in the 101st Airborne Division. “If we do what we’re supposed to do, the end of the war will come when it comes.”

But whether they ignore it or not, the decision has already been made: another Democrat president has promised to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory by assuring the enemy of a future American retreat.

Of course, in addition to the decision to commit not to commit, Obama has blessed our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan with the spirit of indecisive dithering:

At the John Hoover Inn, a bar in Evans Mills, N.Y., near Fort Drum, a dozen soldiers watched the speech on a large-screen TV, drinking beer out of red cups. When Obama announced the troop increase, only one cheered, and the rest remained silent. They continued to play darts while the president was speaking.

“I’m just relieved to know where we’re going,” said Spc. Adam Candee, 29, of Chicago.

Theresa McCleod said she worries what Obama’s plans might mean for her husband, a soldier in the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. She said he’s already done a long combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving her to care for their three children.

“First he was supposed to be pulling everyone out, and now all the sudden he’s throwing everybody back into Afghanistan and it’s like nobody can really make up their minds,” McCleod said of Obama.

Don’t worry, Theresa.  You’re not the only one who’s confused about what the president is doing.  I mean, Barack Obama is the president, and he doesn’t have a clue what the president is doing.

The Obama administration says it was surprised at the corruption in Afghanistan.  Because, after all, who would ever have thunk that the world’s largest producer of opium and heroin would be corrupt?

In similar news that caught the Obama administration completely off guard, it was revealed that there is something called “sand” on the beach.

McChrystal wanted 80,000 troops, and said that he’d probably be able to make do with 40,000.  Obama not only gave McChrystal the lowball commitment, but then proceeded to actually lowball the lowball commitment.  As it is, General Stanley McChrystal will only receive 3/4 of the minimum number of troops he told his president he would absolutely need.

McChrystal has been sitting on his hands since he had the report ready in August.  You should be able to see why he’s been impatient:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

// <![CDATA[// <![CDATA[
var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write('') ;
// ]]>Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

So Obama spends basically four months dithering, only to announce that he will lowball the lowball troop commitment.  It’s going to take several months to get the troops to Afghanistan and get them ready to fight.

There won’t be a whole lot of time left in McChrystal’s “next 12 months” to avoid the “outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

But Obama – the president who thinks of everything – has resolved this otherwise unresolvable dilemma by ensuring that we ultimately abandon the country we’ve been fighting to rid of the Taliban to the very Taliban we’ve been fighting.