Oof: 57% now oppose war in Afghanistan
posted at 4:10 pm on September 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
Two weeks ago, 51 percent said the war wasn’t worth fighting. Now this. I’m not worried yet — the left won’t upset our savior by pounding the table and Obama won’t lightly betray his core campaign promise on foreign policy — but if ObamaCare ends up watered down and Afghanistan still looks bad next year, he’ll need to throw them a bone. And with the polling already this bad, he’ll have all the political cover he needs.
Like Politico says, if and when he does pull out, except it to be framed as a cost-cutting measure. Because he’s all about trimming those deficits, you see.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, with 42 percent supporting the military mission. The percentage of those in opposition to the war is up 11 points since April, and is the highest ever in CNN polling since the launch of the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001…
“Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war. Seven in 10 Republicans support what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Democrats mildly opposed the war in April while independents and Republicans favored it. But opposition has grown 18 points among Democrats and 10 points among independents.”
The poll suggests that nearly six in 10 think the U.S. can win the conflict in Afghanistan, but only 35 percent questioned in the survey say that American is currently winning the war.
An 18-point drop in just four months, before Obama and McChrystal have had a chance to try a new strategy. A cynic might conclude from that that the left’s support for “the good war” was soft all along and finally collapsed at the very first moment when it would no longer hurt them politically. No wonder the Pentagon’s getting nervous about The One’s commitment:
“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.”…
Pentagon officials said that White House officials have told them they fear that McChrystal’s expected request for more troops won’t be his last.
The additional troops are “only a down payment on what would be required to turn things around, and everyone knows that,” said another senior military official, who said that’s true in part because estimates of what the Afghan forces can do and when they’ll be fully capable of handling security threats are being downgraded.
Withdrawing would be the foreign policy analog to Obama’s interrogation policy: It’ll please the Hopenchange brigades and be tolerated by the cautious middle so long as there’s no trouble, but if the country’s hit again by some outfit based in Afghanistan, the public will turn on him viciously. From a political standpoint, he’s better off hanging in there until 2012, secure in the knowledge that the GOP won’t fault him for it and that lefty opposition will, in all likelihood, be manageable. And from a foreign policy standpoint, the last thing he’d want to do is give the Pakistani Taliban a safe place where they can regroup and eventually re-threaten Islamabad. He’s not going anywhere, in other words. For now. Exit quotation: “There are few things more toxic for effective civil-military relations in wartime than the military believing that their political commanders are not serious about seeing the conflict through to a successful conclusion.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Tell him ‘Well done’ from me.
Vashta.Nerada on September 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
The half a brain part is the tripping point for the President when it comes to foreign affairs, isn’t it though?
Pulling out before its settled is the the worst outcome of the situation but with Obama’s administration not even being remotely interested in actually winning the battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it sadly becomes a stalemate. If they would just look at the war as a chess board and instead of using it as a Democrat vs Republican tool, we would be in better shape over there.
In this time of war, Obama is obviously the WORST choice in commander in chief
Doctor Zhivago on September 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
+1 Txmomof3
Thank you hawkdriver. I came here after you deployed but I always look forward to your comments and perspective. It helps ‘personalize’ the war, for lack of a better word.
Monica on September 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
+1,000
..but, to me, Obama will always just be a big, messy stain on the sheets.
VoyskaPVO on September 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Re: cost-cutting measures
Nice try.
Can Obama use that excuse when we are hit next?
Sir Napsalot on September 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Millions died while we were there. Millions died after we left. Might as well not take sides, save American lives and money, and not pick winners. That’s what every great empire tries and fails to do and if you think it’s because of Democrats, you’re wrong.
The Calibur on September 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I cannot believe what I am reading here, in the comments or Allah’s nonchalant manner in his post.
If you cannot understand as a nation what you are doing in Afghanistan after 9/11, you don’t stand a shot in hell at winning against Jihadists anywhere, this is frightening!?
I’m in shock. You may as well start buying burkas for all the lovely American women.. This is not a daily polling policy issue, this is not a joke! Take it from me, these people are trying to kill you, they will stop at nothing.
saus on September 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
+1
Hiya Ciska on September 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Who’s shocked at this perception? Anyone? Let’s see a show of hands.
Jaibones on September 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM
It is democrats. They’re traitors and morons. The only reason there is a question about Afghanistan is because The Precdent and the Washington junta of dems is actively sabotaging the war effort, just as they are trying to kill our spy orgs.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Simple. We are helping to build an Afghan nation so that al-Qaeda and it’s revivalist Islamic allies do not have a base to train and recruit terrorists who will attack Americans and our allies.
With that being the political goal, our military has been charged with the task of developing a strategy to complete that goal. General McChrystal understands that in order to defeat an insurgency, he needs to win over the population. To win over the population he needs to provide protection and services. You do both, and you win over the population. If you win over the population, than the weak, corrupt, pathetic Afghan government has a chance to stand on it’s own feet. Then our boys can come home.
Shock the Monkey on September 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Obama’s campaign rhetoric regarding Afghanistan meant no more than words, just words. If the people want the war, the Obama administration wouldn’t care much to pull out, at least not right away, given good reason to stay: obliterate terrorists there rather than here. But Obama refuses to address Islamic jihadi terrorists for what they are. There’s no commitment from Obama nor his administration to BE in Afghanistan in order to take down the Taliban and/or al Qaeda. Hell, that takes real commitment and brilliantly coordinated effort. And there’s no way that Obama can match GWBush’s success, even if Obama tried. So Obama will do the sour grape routine, and ultimately cut and run.
Obama’s already PROVEN he has no sensibility towards our troops, having unleashed an Afghan terrorist, returned home to do more harm to Obama’s troops.
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
This doesn’t even come close to describing our position. We have a traitor in the White House is working to sabotage our war efforts. He should be standing trial on charges of treason.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
lol Yeah never mind ever single super power in history failing to conquer the region. American exceptionalism indeed.
The Calibur on September 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
To hell with the political implications. We are there. We need get our resources behind the men and women in uniform and get the job done.
Do the job. Do the job right. Welcome our men and women home.
pugwriter on September 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
A question for our brass: If the Taliban is responsible for disproportionately more casualties than the United States — and purposely so where ours are inadvertent — shouldn’t, by our brass’ own reckoning, all those Afghan hearts and minds already belong to us? Could there be something else – such as the Islamic religion – causing Afghans to reject our infidel “hearts and minds” pathetically pressed on them, along with grotesque sums of money, like hopeless valentines?
These are questions the brass can’t answer, can’t even think about, because the answers would upend America’s entire Afghan strategy. We are in a war on civilian casualties in Afghanistan to win Afghan hearts and minds. Period. And woe to statistics, let alone basic and intractable religious differences, that undermine this illusory strategy.
But there is something else Americans should become aware of regarding the military’s obsession with further decreasing casualties as a means to victory. Our troops, the brass says, are the ones who are ultimately going to have to find what Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, our new commander in Afghanistan, earnestly calls the “balance.”
I watched McChrystal discuss his mission to further decrease civilian casualties in an online BBC video this week. “It’s a balance for the young soldier on the ground who is in combat,” he explained. “One of the assets that he has that might save his life might be air power or indirect fire from artillery or mortars and we don’t want to take away that protection for him.”
No, we don’t, General. So why are we even talking about it? The lightly hinted implication — that our troops may be called on to think twice about saving their own lives — is chilling. He went on:
“What we want to do is build into our systems, and more importantly, build into the minds of all of our soldiers that everything that they do is important in this fight, and we’re here to protect the Afghan people. And we’re here to protect them from everything that can hurt them, both enemy activity but also inadvertent activity by Afghan forces or ours. So we’re trying to build into the culture of our force tremendous sensitivity that everything they may do must be balanced against the possibility of hurting anyone.”
Tremendous sensitivity is right. “The Afghan people are the reason we’re here,” McChrystal explained, weirdly disconnecting the American war machine from national interests. And to gain their “support,” it seems the United States will do anything, even build potentially fatal hesitation into “the culture of our force,” instilling possibly dangerous second thoughts into split-second decision-making. This way, these best and brightest of ours tell us, we will placate the trumped-up boogey-man of “civilian casualties,” which is the sure-fire way, they promise, to win Afghan “hearts and minds.”
“Victory in this conflict is about winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and engendering their trust,” Brig. Gen. Steven Kwast, commander of 5,000 airmen at Bagram Field, told the Air Force Times last week. “When the Afghan people trust us and believe us … we will win this overnight.”
Just don’t anyone hold his breath.
- Diana West
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Uh huh.
Fletch54 on September 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Damn skippy I get the goal. Some men just need killin’. Now I know that won’t sit well in your gizzard but there it is…
Some men just need killin’.
Limerick on September 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Ann and people like you. This is not some rhetorical debate. My little unit is in the mix almost every single day here. We kill people and people try to kill us. We have been very lucky that we’ve only lost one pilot this whole year so far. But the team memebers that we carry into and out of battle have suffered tremendous losses. Now you freaking tell us tha you want to abandon what we’ve suffered, what we’ve lost, what would happen to our Afghani Allies because yo’re too f*cking stupid to figure out how to get another job and secure another health care policy.
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM
What is the job?
AnninCA on September 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM
While we “were there” most of those killed were North Vietnamese, in other words the enemy. Estimates are that just over 1 million North Vietnamese military died, and possibly 2 million NV civilians.
After the Democrats lost the war (and they did), millions more died in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Obama, like Bush, will not demand that Islam reform, so there is nothing to be gained from fighting on the ground in Afghanistan with a massive contingent of troops, since all we do is prop up a failed Mohammedan hellhole running its government upon the corrupt and misogynistic and terroristic dogmas of Sharia Law.
Better to use Special Forces teams to strike jihadists where needed and then bomb the rest of the troublemakers, when any arise, from afar.
Bush failed to insist on the establishment of a secular state, based on our Constitution and Bill of Rights, so the entire enterprise was foredoomed to be one more feckless effort to charm a scorpion into not stinging you as you helped it across the river of its current miseries.
Obama doesn’t want to challenge his Islamic cousins to scrub the santified bloodlust out of the “holy” Koran, so he will dither us into a cul de sac in Afghanistan, wasting U.S. blood and treasure to keep his world image polished.
Folly In / Folly Out.
profitsbeard on September 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
That really puts it into perspective.
Thanks for your service.
Vashta.Nerada on September 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
First of all, the Soviets had beat the living hell out of them, until we got in the way.
Secondly, we are not looking to conquer the region, just kill the jihadis. Of course, dems like to prosecute any American soldier who kills anyone, which is what makes the situation difficult.
You must be excited about the investigations into the CIA. Do they send a thrill up your leg? Maybe you’ll want to complain about how the CIA is ineffective next year and call to stop their funding? That’s sounds like something you’d propose, and then try to warn people that it isn’t dems that work against our spies. Sure.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Do you think it is worth it?
I simply am saying, ‘I don’t get it.’
I can’t even figure out military goals, nevermind political goals.
AnninCA on September 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Seriously, I don’t get why we’re there, on such a massive scale. I think the election sort of says it all. This is a compltely dysfunctional area.
OK, so what’s our goal?
AnninCA on September 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I’ll say it again. You just can’t bring 21st century democratic process to a region deep into a 7th century mindset.
Nuke it from orbit.
It’s the only way to be sure.
madne0 on September 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Ann,
What do you mean “to hell with the political implications”?
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM
I don’t know how far you go back AP but this was Dem policy during Nixon’s Presidency. Eventually they screwed the hooch and turned the Republic of South Vietnam over to the communists without even a whimper. Traitors all of them.
chemman on September 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM
You’re making is sound like North Vietnamese deaths are ok. I’ll assume I’m misinterpreting due to our text based conversation.
The Calibur on September 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Afghanistan is now Obama’s war
By Clive Crook, Financial Times, August 30 2009
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Body blow, after body blow…how much punishment can one man take?
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Ann, you are speaking to a man who puts his life on the line every day to protect people like you. You should be thankful for his service instead of begrudging the money spent in a war to protect your sorry a@#. Back off.
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I already told you.
Vashta.Nerada on September 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I salute your service Hawk. Keep you chin up we are behind you 100%.
chemman on September 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Man, KaiserGirl is dumber than I thought.
redrock on September 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Hubris.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Then stay away from the threads that discuss the war until you know and understand what the hell you’re talking about. Geez, you want to pull out and divert the money to your own selfish desire for free health care but you don’t even understand what our objectives are?
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM
NV deaths were ok, they were the enemy, you might recall. Unless your perspective is that of Jane Fonda.
Vashta.Nerada on September 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM
People are just tired of it and Democrats still think that Bush was behind 9/11 and there are no real terrorists..so what is the big deal they say..
That is the problem with tolerating all the Truthers in their midst, it never occurred to the Obama people that the loons might turn on them.
I doubt if more 25% of the Democrats would support going to war to day if the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor..again.
Add to that the economy is in trouble and we are spending too much money on too many things. I am sure a lot of people are thinking it is not worth the expenditure in lives and resources at this point.
They will say that right up until the next attack.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Sorry, MB4 but with all due respect, this isn’t Viet Nam. We were attacked from people based in this country and this war can still be won.
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Alexander the Great did. If you wouldn’t call the Macedonians a superpower in antiquity (during Alexander’s time of course), well then I’d call you an idiot.
Shock the Monkey on September 1, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Well said. +100
chemman on September 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Ann:
Our goal? Well for starters to avoid a repeat of 9/11. Back when the Soviets fell and everyone decided to say to hell with Afghanistan and leave it to the locals and the crazies to tear the country apart..that was exactly the attitude..what is the point?
Now we should know better.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
And never admit that by pulling out of Afghanistan, they facilitated it.
Vashta.Nerada on September 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
During the campaign, Obama claimed that Bush and McCain took their eyes off the ball, Afghanistan, the war that needed to be won. The real country that harbored Al-Qaeda and gave Osama Bin Laden a hole to call home.
If he abandons Afghanistan, it is squarely on his shoulders. When Iraq and Afghanistan were handed to him, they were far from ideal, but they were not disintegrating. He is responsible for this loss if he surrenders.
El_Terrible on September 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
As long as Obama and his peeps keep saying the “war on terror is over” , then why should the troops keep fighting. If they want to continue the “war on terror”, like Bush did, then I’m on-board.
tdavisjr on September 1, 2009 at 5:13 PM
The story is about British losses to secure Election Day safety in a sector of Afghanistan where thousands were eligible to vote and 150 showed up.
Regardless of how many showed up, there is something wrong here — something that the headline-writers could have emphasized with one more word. The headline should read:
Four British soldiers die for sake of 150 Afghan votes.”
It makes you wonder: Why are British (and, of course, American) soldiers dying for the sake of Afghan votes? If Afghans want to vote so much (and that is debateable), why aren’t Afghan forces fighting for their own people? More important question: Why do we care so much about whether Afghan people vote for candidates committed to negotiating with the Taliban that we order our own soldiers to die fighting the Taliban?
The answer is madness. The Times reports:
The figures were released as the British Ambassador to Kabul admitted that troops could be engaged in combat in Afghanistan for five more years.
Madness with no end.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Sounds alot like Vietnam circa 1969-73.
Fletch54 on September 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
hawkdriver:
I don’t think Ann much cares about our Afghan allies.
Take care out there.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Michael Yon reports from Afghanistan
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Will these be Obama’s goals, as he has not delineated any goals or benchmarks.
ICBM on September 1, 2009 at 5:15 PM
I think we should remind them that 7 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost us less than the Stimulus Package, less than ObamaCare, probably less than Amnesty, and less than Cap and Trade.
El_Terrible on September 1, 2009 at 5:15 PM
No, those are American goals, so they may differ greatly from Barry’s.
Vashta.Nerada on September 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Vashta:
Oh no, they will say it was all Bush’s fault because he started a war and killed innocent men, women and children. They will talk about blowback and chickens coming home to roost. At no point with those people admit that maybe they were wrong.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Absolutely correct.
ICBM on September 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Hawkdriver
Watch your 6 and get youself home safely soon. You’re in our thoughts and prayers, buddy.
Afghanistan is winnable. Unfortunately, we have a loser for a CIC.
kingsjester on September 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Even with aerial photos of the training camps in Afghanistan? You may be right about liberal claims, but I think the average American will see right through it.
Vashta.Nerada on September 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
There are way more AlQ in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Probably more in Sudan and Great Britain than in Afghanistan. Maybe even more in the U.S.? I saw some report some months ago that said that AlQ has a presence in about 50 different counties.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
“I cannot operate in the war without your support. If support does not substantially increase, I will be forced to abandon war reporting in September. There has seldom been much interest in the Afghanistan war. True interest has been starkly reflected in the support for this mission. Each journey into Afghanistan, since 2006, has bled out resources from my operations. Reporting from Afghanistan is not sustainable at this rate.” –Michael Yon
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM
You dismiss the rest of the successful election attendance that we helped to facilitate over one anecdotal Helmand River Valley story.
Again, sorry but this isn’t Viet Nam.
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Whatever mistakes the previous administration made in Iraq they had the good sense to fight Al Quaeda on a more favorable battlefield. There is no way this bunch will be able to win this thing. They don’t have the will to win in the first place.
evensteven on September 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM
This is my take…If Bush or McCain was CINC, I say carry on…but you guys are too valuable of a commodity to used by a political opportunist.
I don’t trust that Obama will heed the right advice, choose the right direction, be the leader that is needed to carry this through.
I value your lives, more the I value anyone else’s in the world. If I knew we would succeed, if I knew you could accomplish the task of freeing that country, then I would support the war.
But Obama is the wrong leader at the wrong time…you and your brothers and sisters I have confidence in, but your leader is weak. When the tough decision needs to be made, like the Bay of Pigs, he will run and hide, and you will be left dead on a field of broken promises.
It is better to retreat and fight another day, then to die in vain…Obama doesn’t want to pay for freedom, he doesn’t have the guts to earn it…you will die for his political ambitions, and nothing else.
That is unbearable to me…painful for you to leave what you are dedicated, but ever so painful if we lose you, the war, and any hope of ever winning again.
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Wait and see.
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Not without political will and support from the CINC, son. No American soldier’s death is worth the vacillation and pander maneuvering of an administration that views you and your fellow soldiers in such a cynical way. If you won’t be given the full resources and political commitment to bring victory, then you should never be placed in harms way to begin with. I have total faith in you, your fellow troops and your commanders on the ground. I have no faith in Obama supporting any of you to victory.
Fletch54 on September 1, 2009 at 5:24 PM
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Come on! Was that necessary?
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Give the whole Lockerbie bomber getting released time to get off the front pages of the middle east.
Obambi will leave Afghanistan, will sputter some “exit with Honor” nonsense, and the barbazrians in the middle east will have their victory to plaster all over the place.
“See! We defeated the Great Satan, blah, blah, blah…”
catmman on September 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM
You go too far, again with your “you”, for shame.
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM
MB4:
Not to pick a fight or anything, but hawkdriver seems to know what he is talking about here.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Th major difference between South Vietnam and Afghanistan is that in South Vietnam we weren’t suppoting a goverment with the abomination on humanity and especially women known as Shiriah law enshrined in their constitution.
DIRT doesn’t matter. You don’t defeat a trans-national terrorist organization by occupying medieval villages.
Yesterday, President Obama presented his “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was neither new, nor a strategy. Behind all the rhetoric, he just said, I’m sending more troops and more money.
Barack Obama? I heard Lyndon Johnson. The only LBJ touch that BHO lacked was the word “escalation.”
The rhetoric was masterly. The content was drivel. He said, “The situation is increasingly perilous.” Which situation? Why? For whom? Certainly, it’s becoming more perilous for our troops as we escalate in support of the wrong policy.
Or how about Obama’s ringing claim that the Taliban have “nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and oppression?” Many Afghans — at least among the Pashtun plurality — don’t agree.
The tribals deep in those valleys and the Pashtuns in Pakistan feel a lot closer to the Taliban’s values than to ours. They might not mind a new road, but they’ll skip the bikinis and Budweiser, thanks. The Talibs are home-boys. We’re the foreign element. Why is that so hard to grasp?
All of this circles back to the core of the problem — and it’s not Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s not worth a mullah’s hemorrhoid. Putting the bulk of our effort into Afghanistan amounts to attacking a crisis in California by rescuing Nevada. It’s Pakistan that lies (and lies and lies) at the heart of this problem.
To his credit, Obama noted Pakistan’s importance. Then he got all the solutions wrong.
Start with his inane — but touchingly American — statement that “the people of Pakistan want the same things we want.” Oh, really?
How many readers think Sharia law would be a good idea? How about beating the crap out of women just for yuks? Or stoning them to death because they smiled at the wrong time? And let’s ban alcohol, bare arms, dating and jobs for women. And grow those beards, fellas!
And how about asking ourselves the fundamental question: “Why is India a success story and Pakistan a complete failure?” Any chance that backward Islam might have something to do with it? We can’t bribe people to succeed.
Our president identified al Qaeda as Pakistan’s No. 1 enemy. That’s wishful thinking. Pakistan’s leading enemy has always been corruption. No. 2 is its home-grown Islamist insurgency. Al Qaeda’s way down the list.
Our pathetically naive president articulated one sound goal — defeating al Qaeda — then told us how he wasn’t going to do it. Like LBJ, all he can think of is more troops and more aid. Can’t we ask ourselves why the Taliban’s thriving? After the military beatings we’ve given them? How many of our troops must die for an empty policy?
Hey, hey, ho, ho, BHO, why don’t your supporters go?
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I agree, I found the post offensive and uncalled for.
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM
El Terrible:
I agree, but a lot of these people are completely oblivious to what things actually costs. In fact Obama has very nearly outspent Bush already, in less than a year.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM
hawkdriver, we all have the greatest confidence in you and our troops!
Vietnam was not lost militarily. CONGRESS sabotaged that war effort, accompanying the MSM Cronkite mantra.
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:35 PM
right2bright:
If we pull out and the situation goes to hell over there, it is guys like hawkdriver who will have to go back and deal with then, it might be more dangerous and more costly to do that.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:36 PM
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM
She pontificates curses best redirected to her own soap box.
God bless our troops.
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM
All I did was correctly report the number of deaths. Never said anything else.
Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM
MB4:
One of the reasons there are a lot of terrorists in Pakistan is that they were driven there from Afghanistan. And as far as that is concerned, what difference does that make? It is easier for us to go after them in Pakistan from Afghanistan.
How do we know that if we just say adios and pullout or maybe just send in some drones that the Pakistanis will not just drive them back into Afghanistan and say to hell with it and leave it at that.
Then we are right back where we started from.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM
When the Iraqis voted in a national referendum on their constitution I was there flying Blackhawks. I was assigned to fly a two ship mission over Kirkuk and Erbil and carry combat camera crews to videotape any violence that might occur. As we flew over the cities expecting, if you were to believe the media, all forms of AIF attacks and disruptions. There was none. There were only crowds of Iraqis pointing at our helicopters as we flew over. Once we were pretty sure that nothing was going to happen, we flew progressively lower to see what they were pointing at us for. As it turned out they weren’t pointing a finger at us, they were showing us that they were stained purple to show that they had voted; voted on a Constitution to govern themselves after decades of dictator rule.
Ann, you ask what it’s for. MB4, you insinuate that it’s Viet Nam and that what we’re doing is doomed to fail. I wouldn’t have missed being part of that for all the health care in the world. And I will fight here for as long as it takes to either turn this part of the world around or show these sorry bastards that we’ll stay here forever if that what it takes to keep them from reforming and attacking my homeland again.
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM
FIFY
Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
August 17, 2009
Who Is Winning in Afghanistan?
By Oliver North
Racing through the Phoenix airport, I immediately captured the Wall Street Journal headline: “Taliban Now Winning.” I grabbed the newspaper and headed for my flight.
By the time I arrived in Washington, I had a half-dozen e-mails from my Fox News colleagues asking for my assessment. There was also a “be prepared” message from my boss alerting me to pack my kit for another trip to the Hindu Kush. Since I haven’t been there in a year, it seemed like a good time to get smart about what’s happening behind the headlines.
Here is some of what I learned from those now on the ground, including our Fox News correspondent Greg Palkot and cameraman Mal James, some of the troops who have recently returned and others getting ready to go:
First, there is no doubt that allied casualties in Afghanistan have spiked from a year ago. Last month, 76 coalition troops were killed in action — including 45 Americans. The toll for August is likely to be even higher.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior U.S. and NATO commander in Kabul, predicted higher casualty rates as the number of U.S. and allied troops “in country” climbed and “Op-Tempo” increased. There are 30,000 more American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines on the ground today than there were when I was there last year. For the first time since Operation Enduring Freedom began in 2001, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) numbers more than 100,000 troops, including 62,000 Americans.
Second, U.S. and coalition forces are pushing into Taliban strongholds — particularly in Helmand and Kandahar provinces — where there has been little or no Afghan government or ISAF presence for years. On July 2, U.S. Marines and Afghan soldiers launched Operation Khanjar — Sword Thrust — into southern Helmand — while a parallel column spearheaded into neighboring Kandahar Province. Faced with the prospect of losing control over heroin production areas that finance their insurgency, the Taliban decided to stand and fight instead of melting away.
Third, next week’s Presidential and Provincial Council elections have precipitated a last-ditch attempt by the Taliban to disrupt the balloting. Seventeen million of Afghanistan’s 33 million people have registered to vote on Aug. 20. Countrywide, there are more than 3,000 candidates vying for 420 seats on the provincial legislatures. Among the contenders: 300 women — a fact that has driven the misogynist Taliban leadership over the brink.
Efforts to secure polling places have met with fierce resistance in the southern, largely Pashtun, part of the country. When the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade launched Operation Eastern Resolve II in the Helmand River Valley last week, they confronted well-armed, dug-in Taliban fighters who used improvised bombs, mortars, rockets, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic weapons and snipers to prevent Afghan authorities from setting up election sites.
Unfortunately, things are unlikely to calm down much after this week’s balloting. Afghanistan’s constitution requires the victor to win by more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a run-off against a second-place challenger. Though incumbent President Hamid Karzai leads the field of 38 presidential candidates, his Pashtun-Tajik coalition may not garner enough votes to avoid another contest in October.
A drawn-out election process isn’t the only thing that will keep “op-tempo” high. “Our strategy for the remainder of ‘the fighting season’ is based on the need to wrest the opium production region from Taliban control, and do so with a minimum of ‘friendly’ casualties,” a U.S. officer told me last week.
It’s a mission that makes sense. The Taliban insurgency depends on financing provided by opium — Afghanistan’s No. 1 export commodity. Most of the “ratlines” for precursor chemicals and delivery of processed heroin and morphine flow across the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since Islamabad has finally decided to crackdown on the Taliban in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and its northwestern provinces, there is a greater chance for success now than at any time since 2001.
That doesn’t mean it will be easy to accomplish this mission. One U.S. commander told me, “Our greatest operational challenge is logistics” to support the offensives. That hasn’t changed in the 11 months since I was last there. As I reported then, “Afghanistan, with only one paved highway, too few air bases and insufficient air assets, is the most difficult country to move men and materiel that I have ever seen.” Apparently it still is.
Finally, there is the difficult task of winning the “hearts and minds” of the tribal people who live in the shadow of the Hindu Kush. Achieving that goal requires more than allied courage, tenacity and perseverance — it necessitates recruiting, training and equipping another 100,000 Afghani police and soldiers who will become responsible for the fate of their own country. When that happens, we will know we have won. If it doesn’t, the headline will read, “Taliban Win.”
fourdeucer on September 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Sorry but what part don’t you like, where I don’t trust Obama, or that I have explicit trust in our troops.
Where I think that Obama doesn’t have what it takes to see a war through?
Likened him to JFK and the Bay of Pigs?
That I think that Obama would use the war only for political gain?
or this….That is unbearable to me
right2bright on September 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Let’s remember the Obama Doctrine from the earlier this year.
So, if Obama doesn’t believe in the word “victory” it stands to reason that he doesn’t believe in the word, “defeat” either. So in his mind, there is no victory nor defeat but merely a situation to be managed. Now, you and I might call Obama’s management tantamount to defeat, but that’s because you lack his subtility and amazing powers of insight.
If you are confused about that, just spend some time contemplating Bambi’s nicely creased pants and reading the words of his #1 fan, Brooksie.
PackerBronco on September 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I’m for wiping out the enemy on FOREIGN soil whether it be Afghanistan or Iran, whatever, as long as THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND are allowed to fight the war TO WIN AS THEY SEE FIT.
Read that as: keep the suck faced politicians out of it. If you can’t let the smart guys on the ground win the war without being prosecuted as war criminals or traitors as the liberal scum would have it. If we can’t do that much I don’t support getting mired down in some pissant country the ruskies couldn’t even get a handle on when it’s in their own back yard.
I vote we exit and shoot the crap from the air when we see it, and use special forces to f*ck em up on a hit and run basis. You can’t fight a guerrilla war while sitting in an organized camp, did we learn nothing from Viet Nam?
Spiritk9 on September 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM
MB4:
I realize that you think that all Muslims are the enemy or at least their culture is hopeless, etc. However, that is not the point.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Thanks for your service amd stay safe!
Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954
The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater. The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.
- The US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
- George Santayana
MB4 on September 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Ironically, we American citizens are getting more positive results from our efforts to help the good people of Iraq and Afghanistan than we’ll ever see from STIMULUS etc. that entirely goes into the blackhole of Obama special interests’ private accounts, never to improve the country, only to sabotage our Constitutional Government and our liberty.
maverick muse on September 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Spirit:
If there is no one on the groud doing intel, how will you know where to go to get the bad guys?
It would seem to me that both air and ground would be the best course.
I am sure those crazy killers over there are just waiting for the US to give up and go away. They know that we will either get bored or disgusted or just plain sick of it..and then back they will come.
Terrye on September 1, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Well said, I am proud of you.
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I apologize to you. You are not an idiot. You are simply an absolutely elitist b*tch.
Healthcare is not a right under the Constitution. Military protection is. In fact, defense is one of the very few things that is provided by the Constitution.
You don’t have the right to take money from me to cover an illegal immigrant. YOU cover them to your hearts content but keep your damn hands off my wallet.
ladyingray on September 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM
The history I won’t forget and hope doesn’t repeat, is a US war lost due to public opinion mainly formed and guided by the liberal main stream media.
BTW MB4, how does it feel to be on the other side of history now? How does it feel to be part of the traitorous nay-saying cword? You must have hated it when you came home. How can you be so much like them now?
hawkdriver on September 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM
The part I didn’t like is the part where you were responding to a man who is over there now protecting us and you are saying he is doomed to fail. If you are too insensitive to see where you are wrong, I honestly don’t know what to say to you.
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Assuming our intel guys aren’t all imprisoned by the current fascist in office, we’d use them to pick out the targets.
One positive about evacuating and using special forces to hit and run (with air support as needed) is that the enemy would come out of the hills and expose themselves in order to regain power. They’d think they won, until they found their arms and legs missing suddenly.
The revolutionary war was won using guerrilla tactics. We were denied victory in Vietnam because of it as well. It’s like fighting an ant colony with a stick. We need to adopt the same tactics, only use our superior military intelligence, technology, and firepower in doing the same thing.
Hit and run. They’d end up spending more time and money trying to recover than we’d spend wasting their asses. That’s a win.
Spiritk9 on September 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Time to pack the bags and get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Our troops are being killed by what amounts to friendly fire: An incompetent and indifferent anti-American Administration backed by a political party that is, at its core and in full operation, dedicated to American failure. I wouldn’t be surprised if those 70% of Dems who want us out of Afghanistan feel that way to have troops available to keep town hall meetings ‘peaceful’. But that’s no matter.
How many troops now wonder if, years from now, they’re ‘investigated’ by the DoJ for actions they took fighting this war? Obama himself said the war on terror is over, right? So what are our guys fighting for?
Look, too, at the MSM. We pop a terrorist and the media focus on collateral damage. We nail a guy at some funeral he’s attending and the MSM screams that dozens of mourners were killed, tho the ‘mourners’ might have been al Quaeda memebers and/or supporters. Without media and real government backing, our troops are dying for nothing, being killed by the very ones who sent them to war in the first place and so should also be telling the truth.
I will back no war, no matter the provocation, long as Dems control the White House and more than a third of Congress. Look what we got in Bosnia and Sudan: dead Americans and nothing more. The same will be result in Iraq and Afghanistan long as Obama is in the WH and Dems control Congress.
Liam on September 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Hawkdriver, I would like to get your contact information from Cindy to send you and your guys some things. Is there anything you need?
TXMomof3 on September 1, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Well put, hawkdriver. Stay safe. We are fully behind you, and we all know that The Precedent is out to sabotage everything the US needs to do. It is a bad situation we have, but we all knew this was coming on Nov 4th.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »