Obama WH falsely downplaying risks of retreat in Afghanistan: Military, intel sources
posted at 11:00 am on October 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Sources within both the intelligence and military communities tell McClatchy that Barack Obama’s White House has not been honest about the risks of moving away from a robust strategy of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Obama and his advisers have begun publicly discussing the Taliban as a moderate alternative to al-Qaeda in terms of enemies, but the latest intelligence shows just the opposite. Taliban leadership and AQ have integrated even more tightly than ever since 9/11 and act in concert on strategy and tactics:
As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy.
Recent U.S. intelligence assessments have found that the Taliban and other Pakistan-based groups that are fighting U.S.-led forces have much closer ties to al Qaida now than they did before 9/11, would allow the terrorist network to re-establish bases in Afghanistan and would help Osama bin Laden export his radical brand of Islam to Afghanistan’s neighbors and beyond, the officials said.
McClatchy interviewed more than 15 senior and mid-level U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic officials, all of whom said they concurred with the assessments. All of them requested anonymity because the assessments are classified and the officials weren’t authorized to speak publicly.
Bob Kerrey openly wonders why the White House has begun to tread the ground of retreat, in an op-ed for today’s Wall Street Journal:
Yet despite these setbacks, our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
If the military and intel communities are telling Obama that the idea of a “moderate Taliban” is false — and Lara Logan emphatically agrees — then where did this idea arise in the first place? It comes not from Afghanistan, but from the left wing of the Democratic Party. They have increased pressure on Obama to get out of Afghanistan, and the Nobel Peace Prize was specifically intended to help in that effort. The Left wants a way out of the war, and the Obama administration has begun floating trial balloons to help sell this as something other than a retreat, if Obama goes along with it.
Kerrey doesn’t think Obama will do so, and to his credit, Obama has increased resources and offered stalwart political support for the war … until last month, when he finally got schooled on COIN resourcing. If Obama intends on making an honest decision on this, he needs to stop his advisers from making very dishonest arguments in public about it. The Taliban are not moderates, and they share the same ideological, political, and tactical goals as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Anyone saying anything differently is simply selling a false argument for a dishonorable retreat in the face of our enemies.
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: 1 2 Next »
He’s going to side with the European leftists.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM
He’s going to get his A$$ handed to him in these 2010 elections. He can’t lead now with a stacked Congress, how will he do if he ever had to be bipartisan?
Punditpawn on October 11, 2009 at 11:05 AM
As I recall this is the guy who called Bill Clintoon “an unusually good liar”. Wonder if he thinks the same of Dear Leader?
Del Dolemonte on October 11, 2009 at 11:05 AM
they’ve always been integrated
one need only look at the 055 brigade
blatantblue on October 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Racing to justify the No-Balls Peice Prize.
RobCon on October 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Could not have said it better.
And, what the defeatists fail to understand — or perhaps they do — is that if you retreat here, even partially via a Taliban half-truce, Pakistan is in deep, deep trouble.
The result could well mean AQ/Taliban fingers on the nuclear buttons.
TXUS on October 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM
BO is doing what he thinks is best for the world…to hell with these pesky Americans. Nobel Laureate don’t ya know.
d1carter on October 11, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Shouldn’t the lefts argument be “but the Taliban never attacked us”?
Rovin on October 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM
… we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible.”
With these lefties, the glass is always half empty. Whatever happened to “Yes we can”? They didn’t think we could win the First Gulf War, but we did. They didn’t think we could win Gulf 2, but we did. They still don’t think we landed on the Moon, but we did. America can do ANYTHING! Sit down, shut up and let our boys do what they do best!
Tony737 on October 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Nothing will guarantee our defeat faster than making the taliban out to be less an enemy than AQ. Pakistan knows it, why can’t Obama understand?
fourdeucer on October 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Enemies within.
Praying for our troops.
bridgetown on October 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
He was a gelding long before this latest “annointment” RC.
Rovin on October 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
The result could well mean AQ/Taliban fingers on the nuclear buttons. – TXUS
So true. You’d think the Choosen One would know this.
Tony737 on October 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I think the left truely does believe that radical Islam isnt a threat and that the GOP is the true terrorists.
Every part of their thought pattern is the same kind of stupidthink.
I swear I will never again vote for a Vichycrat again.
William Amos on October 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM
“Moderate Taliban” is an oxymoron. Obama, well, he’s no oxy.
Tony737 on October 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM
American soldiers are dying needlessly in Af/Pak while terrorists secure a solid foothold.
What else is there to know? What else would Osama Obama need to think about if he was a true patriot instead of a toadying little traitor bent on destroying the nation that gave — and I do mean gave, with no requirement that he earn — him everything?
If Congress wasn’t full to overflowing with Quislings, impeachment hearings would already be under way.
MrScribbler on October 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM
The ‘containment war’ worked out well for Johnson, didn’t it?
tarpon on October 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Wow, this is something new! the Obama machine is being less than honest. I never thought I’d see the day! /s
conservativecaveman on October 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
’nuff said.
Dusty on October 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Putin chuckles and checks a little box.
a capella on October 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Let`s imagine that news and knowledge about Afghanistan no longer exists – say the media stops reporting about it, the White House stops talking about it, any politicians that want to visit or talk about the war in Afghanistan are not allowed time in the main stream media.
Then other than bodies of returning dead soldiers (which no longer get media coverage) and costs to the Pentagon (which their bazillion $ budget can`t one hide a war some where between the accounting cracks) there is no war in Afghanistan any more. Poof! With a coordination between the media and the White House this war becomes a non-war to what war?
This is what the White House is scheming on doing – if the people in the US no longer hear about the war in Afghanistan does it even exist?
albill on October 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM
And when Afghanistan and Pakistan fail how will he blame it on Bush?
Pull our troops now, every last one of them, rather then let them be sitting ducks.
ctmom on October 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM
C’mon. Look at the bright side.
Sure, retreating on Afghanistan will dishonor all our fallen soldiers from there, screw our allies, and put our National Security at further risk.
But Obama will save the day by repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, so he’s got that going for him.
Which is nice.
there it is on October 11, 2009 at 11:22 AM
This guy is going to sell us into hell.
rplat on October 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Wondering just what Obama was thinking when he ran for prez.If he gave it any thought at all, he must have realized his complete un-preparedness for the job. Or..maybe, given that Sarkosy is probably right about O’s ego getting in the way of his judgment, he decided that he could quickly and easily learn on the job. If I were not so afraid of his decisions, I would almost feel sorry for him. He is in so far over his head that drowning is becoming a very real possibility.
jeanie on October 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Ironically, this “we can work with the moderates in the Taliban” line isn’t coming, it seems to me, from the State Department and Hillary. It appears to be coming from Biden and other elements in the White House (Axelrod? Emmanuel?).
My hunch (and that’s all it is): Obama will send the ~40,000.
SteveMG on October 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Imagine if our country was attacked while he was in Oslo.
artist on October 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM
How shortsighted can they be , they have to win this war , it’s not like the Talibans will go away if they win.
the_nile on October 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM
The plain fact of the matter is that Barack has been recently reminded that wars always sabotage domestic reform movements, and he cares far more about extinguishing freedom at home than advancing it overseas.
Sooner or later he must abandon all those whom we urged to stand up for their own liberation, because underneath all of the twists and turns of diplomacy and policy, he simply doesn’t believe that freedom is worth fighting for unless its his own.
Its really just that simple!
Lew on October 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Let us list the Nobel APPEASE prize accomplishments for Obama:
1. Honduras, sided with wanna-be dictator.
2. Iran, lets Iranian people rioting about false election
results, die in the streets and claims “we musn’t
meddle”
as he goes to eat ice cream.
3. Poland, newest partner in NATO, has our missle defense
system scrapped, enabling Russia.
4. Georgia, Russia invades, he ponders what to do, a month
later takes McCains EXACT suggestion as his own!!!
5. Israel, remember “we musn’t meddle”, claims they cannot
build settlements or add rooms for families as they
grow, yet Obama DEMANDS they settle with the
Palestinian’s while the Palestinian’s have no
restrictions placed on them.
6. Palestinian’s, a ficticious group of bedouin Arab’s
gathered from local countries, used as pawns to reduce
the size of Israel and attemted eventual elimination of
Israel(which will NEVER happen, God said so). Google
Jordan formerly Transjordan, the original country given
to the bedouin Arab’s for settlement.
7 North Korea, as Mrs. Winchester warned many times: KEEP
BUILDING (Winchester House)their nuclear weapons and
exporting to the Middle East terrorist states.
8. China, builds their economy and military to compare
closely with the US economy, will soon pass our status.
attempts to reduce the US dollar as the world currency.
8. Britian, slapped in the face many times by Obama (iPod,
wrong region DVD’s, not meeting with UK leaders) for
supporting our missions in Iraq.
and Afghanistan.
As for the US, the one thing he was doing right, he now is waffling on, winning in Afghanistan!!!
dthorny on October 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM
That deal has been made, we’re just waiting to clear escrow.
thomasaur on October 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM
That timing on the Kerrey piece is as interesting as its content.
Why now? What is he hearing? Has he talked with the President?
SteveMG on October 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM
jeanie on October 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Unprepared – yes.
Ego – Oh yeah.
This guy who has to know whatever decisions he makes will fly – by the polls – makes Clinton look like a piker.
I pray for our troops.
tru2tx on October 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Mr President, we have defeated the Taliban before, and we can defeat them again, especially if they keep insisting on fighting in their pajamas. The President has the best fighting force in the world – we can’t be beat.
Dr Evil on October 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
***
President Obama (PBUH) doesn’t see his job as President the same way normal Americans do. Foreign “entanglements” just distract him from his real job–changing the U.S.A. into the new UNITED SOCIALISTIC STATES OF AMERIKA.
***
The Messiah is right on track with his plans. Just ask Commies Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro–or the Nobel “peace” prize selection committee.
***
SARAH PALIN for POTUS and JOHN BOLTON for VP in 2012. An AMERICA FIRST ticket. Vote out Comrade Obama and his congressional ilk–ditto for the RINO’s.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on October 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I sort of agree with you. But the combination of his appeasement of his lefty supporters, the ego boost of the Nobel, and the pressure of the mis-guided around him might have him looking at any way out and any way to justify it.
jeanie on October 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
What??? Say it’s not so!!! I’m shocked, shocked!!!
/sarc
rmgraha on October 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Nothing.
Yes we can destroy America.
Yes we can make American a laughing stock.
Yes we can make sure American is powerless.
Yes we can make sure America has little influence.
Yes we can make the richest nation on earth the poorest.
It seams to be working pretty well for them so far.
RagTag on October 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Obama believes in nothing but Obama.
Whatever secures his rear end is the “strategy” he shall follow.
America will go under the bus if Barry can drive.
profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM
I’m crossing my fingers that the UN will offer him the SecGen position. I really think he would jump ship at the offer.
RagTag on October 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Putin chuckles and checks a little box. – A Cap
And says “I love it when a plan comes together.”
Tony737 on October 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM
the county and planet will burn because of this presidency.
rob verdi on October 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Obama accepted the unexpected Nobel Peace Prize without a moment of hesitation. The award nicely fit into his plan and gave some cover.
In reality the future in Afghanistan has already been written and it is history. Obama is now deciding how to fill in the words between the beginning and the end. The last chapter will be the blame-game.
Yoop on October 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Racing to justify the No-Balls Peice Prize.
RobCon on October 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I’ve become fond of the following title myself;
The
NobelNeville Peace Prize.Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 11:49 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize is Obama’s testicle lock box. Every foreign policy or military decision will now be calculated to show he is deserving of the award.
meci on October 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM
…the WARNINGS should be CLEAR…9/11 was a policy failure driven by a desire to placate and conveniently ignore the growing threat to this nation (which would require the fortitude to take action)….intelligence provided multiple venues to take action to eliminate what was the head of the snake…however, policy poges triumphed. Let us not make that mistake again…with consequences multiplied.
AQ and Tbands are real….and the Denver/NYC plot that almost went down two weeks ago should have been a wake up call…training, planning, and facilitation from AF/PK…and this is only the one we know about. How many more could be unknown to us.
PhreeMan on October 11, 2009 at 11:52 AM
“I swear I will never again vote for a Vichycrat again.”
William Amos on October 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Vichyrat? Nice!
I hope you don’t mind, but I ammost certainly stealing/adopting that one, sot-on!
Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I understand thoughtful deliberation. I also understand decisiveness. There is no good political decision to be made per the Afghan War. That said, there are some people begging to be sent to Allah, and we are dragging our feet. Just saying, time to get this party started. History waits on no man.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/11/note-to-the-commander-in-chief-make-a-decision-boots-on-the-ground-report/
Dr Evil on October 11, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Weird things going on in Moscow even a video of the phenom. Sign from above?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2677449/Mystery-halo-in-cloud-over-Moscow.html
Dr Evil on October 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM
From the the wanton destruction of the dollar, the underming of property & contract law, the subversion of free & fair elections and the betrayal of our allies whilst appeasing our collective enemies, can there be any real doubt? Barack Obama is the most dangerous threat to the republic we have ever faced. Bar none!
Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize should be called what it is, the Nobel Pacifist Prize. Of course, not real pacifism, just Western Pacifism, and, in particular, US Pacifism.
European elites are too dumb for their own good. All this soft-peddling around jihadists isn’t going to assuage them. Unless Europe gets its act together, it will be overrun by Muslim extremists within this century.
As for the elites, oh, they can just hop on a plane and shack up on the Upper West Side.
Soros and his lefty buddies will be dirt-napping long before they can ever bring European socialism to the US. Take that Nobel Pacifist Prize and stick it where the sun don’t shine–your brain!
EMD on October 11, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Although a retreat does have it’s risks, an escalation has it’s own risks. The Soviets failed and they had approximately 115,000 troops there. At the most we’d be hitting around 150,000 and we’re also playing in a bigger field. Also keep in mind that when Obama sent the first increase in troops, American losses escalated. If that trend were to continue, we’d be in trouble. A troop increase would also prompt more action from Iran, since they’re probably not too keen on 150,000 American troops sitting right next door.
Add to that the bad public sentiment about the war and you have quite a pickle. Hell, people want to bomb Iran more than they want a troop increase in Afghanistan.
The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM
The DNC has concluded they cannot get ACORN entrenched to conduct a voter registration campaign in Afghanistan, so let ‘em die.
Cybergeezer on October 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Rehabilitation of Osama Bin Laden in the works, too?
Here’s your speech, Barry:
“Osama was pressured by American arrogance, after being a loyal ally to President Reagan against the Soviets, into opposing a uninformed U.S. policy which placed American soldiers in the Holy Islamic land of Saudi Arabia, which was considered sufficent provocation to any faithful Muslim to respond militarily against the U.S.’s ill-advised deployment. Bin Laden did not personally plan 9/11, -that was Khalid Sheik Mohammad, who will serve 20 years to life in a New York minimum secruity facility as we work on his rehabilitation. Bin Laden is asked to come in, and face a trial of his peers in a court in Detroit, and I guarantee that he will not face the death penalty, -which I believe should be abolished as against American ideals. The Taliban, and al-Qaeda, will then see our good faith and cease hostilies, knowing that we have removed our forces from the Holy Islamic land of Saudi Arabia, and have nothing but respect for the prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him. Inshallah.”
profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Related, Dianne Feinstein was on This Week this morning, and stated in no uncertain terms that Obama should give McCrystal what he needs, and he should do it promptly. She even brought up the fate of Afghan women if the Taliban regain control. I rarely hear Dems stand up women’s rights in oppressive societies.
juliesa on October 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM
6. Palestinian’s, a ficticious group of bedouin Arab’s
gathered from local countries, used as pawns to reduce
the size of Israel and attemted eventual elimination of
Israel(which will NEVER happen, God said so). Google
Jordan formerly Transjordan, the original country given
to the bedouin Arab’s for settlement.
dthorny on October 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Too true, for anyone interested in the most comprehensive record of the Balfour Declaration, The Palestine Mandate and the re-creation of the state of Israel, I reccommend From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. An exuastive complitaion of documented historical truths regarding the the history of this conflict & greatest disinformation campaign ever.
Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I don’t think he is so dumb he is doing every single thing wrong by accident . He is trying to wreck this country .
borntoraisehogs on October 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM
The white flags have already be ordered.
GarandFan on October 11, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Although a retreat does have it’s risks, an escalation has it’s own risks. The Soviets failed and they had approximately 115,000 troops there. At the most we’d be hitting around 150,000 and we’re also playing in a bigger field. Also keep in mind that when Obama sent the first increase in troops, American losses escalated. If that trend were to continue, we’d be in trouble. A troop increase would also prompt more action from Iran, since they’re probably not too keen on 150,000 American troops sitting right next door.
Add to that the bad public sentiment about the war and you have quite a pickle. Hell, people want to bomb Iran more than they want a troop increase in Afghanistan.
The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I as much as it pains me to say it, this is incotravertably true. Robert Kaplan, a patriot and academic scholar of Geo-Political Sciences and Military Historian has put out a well reasoned treatise advising a de-escalation in theatre.
I myself of similiar academic backround, find myself torn on our best options available in Af-Pak.
The one thing that worries me is Obama deliberately wearing down our military capabilities in a “treading water” policy that degrades readiness, ruins morale and restricts our ability to confront fresh challenges. Something I whole heartedly desires if can get away with it.
Whatever his decision the only thing I am sure of, is that it will not be in our best interests, but in his.
Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Something I think he whole heartedly desires if he can get away with it.
Man that didn’t even qualify as a typo! What in the hell was that?
Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
How in God’s name can ANY woman in America support the president’s position that the Taliban is moderate? Forced clitorectomies at birth seems to me to be starting point for uniting conservative, liberal, God-fearing, and atheist women.
lionheart on October 11, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Well I’m still predicting a troop increase. Although many perceive the nobel as a pacifist award, it appears to be more of a political cover IMO. If you get the Nobel after increasing troop levels in Afghanistan then it would stand to reason that after you win it, the war effort itself is considered “peaceful.” Which in my mind is ridiculous but it is what it is. Also consider the $680 billion dollar defense budget. Time will tell.
I would much prefer a “retreat.” I feel that my tax dollars are being misused by all the bureaucracies, the military not excluded.
The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Wow, Al “Mr. Freeze” Gore causes dropping temperature every time he gives a talk on global warming (a real dog bites man story), but hell also froze over last night! Little Tommy Friedman is just full of surprises isn’t he?
Mr. Joe on October 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Worst president ever.
What is the country, or for that matter, the world, going to look like after three more years?
justltl on October 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
The idea that we can just walk away from Afghanistan is insane. It will not end there. It does not seem to matter how many times we see evidence of the fact that running away solves nothing…the paleos on the right and the defeatists on the left demand that we do just that. Run away. As if that would be the end of it.
Terrye on October 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM
If the terrorists are just a small segment that claims to be Islamic where in the world do all these fighters come from and how do they raise so much money as to be able to fight all over the world? Sounds like a BIG bunch to me.
Herb on October 11, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Sad but true.
I am praying for our troops too.
yoda on October 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Has any political leader engaged in two wars and saying just a few months ago that one of the wars they were engaged in was a “necessary war” ever before been given a Nobel Peace prize? Long way from Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King isn’t he?
Herb on October 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM
It doesn’t matter whether the Taliban and Al Qaeda are integrated or not. Taleban provided Al Qaeda sanctuary when they weren’t integrated, and the Taleban, if left to their own devices without intervention, may well subdue Pakistan as well, thus gaining access to nuclear technology.
Leaving the Taleban alone means leaving a dagger pointed at the hearts of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
unclesmrgol on October 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Calling the war in Afghanistan the “war of necessity” was the campaign slogan of necessity. It worked. Now that that the Prince of Peace is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Blvd. he can find a way to lose in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, too. Then there will be what I like to call “dingbat peace”. That’s when the USA is not at war with anybody.
Of course Obama will redouble his efforts to prove that he deserves the Nobel.
Really Right on October 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM
SCORE! The U.S. Military and the ANA just raided an A.Q. camp and killed DOZENS of jihadis! WOO HOOOO!
Tony737 on October 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM
cough cough O/T, but I have a new blog post up…
Much ado about nothing… heh heh heh can ya guess what it’s about?
doriangrey on October 11, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Worst president ever.
What is the country, or for that matter, the world, going to look like after three more years?
justltl on October 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
For too long we have allowed the Euros to piggyback on our defense umbrella, it allowed them to play “good cop” to our “bad cop” on the world stage.
Now it is dawning on them (their leadership anyways) the reality of the US not playing the global policeman, and the tenuousness of their own position. With the abandonment of Poland & Czechland in Europe, and Columbia & Honduras in the western hemishere, alll of our “allies” are coming to the realization that they are now on their own.
If America’s Obama sponsored retreat from the world stage is allowed to endure a second presidential term, the “international system” under which enabled the free flow of goods, capital, people and ideas world-wide will descend into chaos.
Quite frankly it appears a modern replay of just prior to the “Dark Ages”, the Greeks provided the fore-runner intellectually that gave birth to the Roman republic as the Brits developed the Magna Carta as the fore-runner to the Bill of Rights.
Are we entering cyclical repeat of the Dark Ages where upon we were treated to a modern version of Feudal mini-States? A time when all disputes are decided by force and where life was aptly described as “ugly, brutish & short”. If so, man who has been pampered by the marvels of modernity will fair much more poorly than the last upheaval caused by the end of Roman hedgemony.
If the “Black Plague” claimed nearly 60% of lives in Europe at the time, with todays interconnectivity and greater poulation density a a apndemic witout the benefit of the WHO, CDC, Etc would be clamitous. Not to mention man’s increased destructive capabilities far removed from that of broadswords.
The collapse of American Power and the Global Trade System that the collectivist left has so long niavely striven for, will result in an utter catastrophe, not the utopian pardise of their dreams.
If course is not soon reversed, we are in for a very bleak period, that may last centuries.
Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Leaving our troops without the resources they need to fight a war…. Someone needs to impeach this SOB.
Key West Reader on October 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Imagine the Chinese landing craft coming on the beaches all along the U.S. West Coast. O’bama is going to discuss our response for about two weeks and then vote present.
pckle on October 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I think it depends on your concept of the short comings of global trade. To have no global trade is about as stupid as having no trade at all. But there are certain aspects of global trade that are a bad idea. Importing a manufactured product that you could manufacture yourself in your country is a bad idea over time, as is importing resources you already have (unless it’s a question of quality more than quantity.) Also, exporting products at subsidized prices can lead to problems also, although it’s more the responsibility of the importing country to take care of that.
The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 1:23 PM
While Obama dithered about the appropriate response 30+ million armed Americans would hand the new Chinese landlords their collective a$$es.
Just a thought.
Yoop on October 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Provided Obummer doesn’t find a way to confiscate all of our guns first…
doriangrey on October 11, 2009 at 1:37 PM
In today’s other top story, a investigative team of MSM journalists is now reporting that the sun rose in the east this morning…
Bruno Strozek on October 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM
What do you call that when someone “has not been honest”?
BKeyser on October 11, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Hmmmm, Barracking???? (hint, see definition of Burking)
doriangrey on October 11, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Reading Gen. McChrystal’s Afghanistan assessment is easier than reading tea leaves, but judging by the murkiness of the debate about Afghanistan, few in the media or politics have read it. I say this having watched public discussion turn disagreement over troops levels into The Question of Consequence regarding overall strategy. Conservatives, listening to “the commander in the field,” play McChrystal as The Hawk who wants to crush America’s enemies into rubble (or, at least, more rubble than they are already in) as opposed to Obama The Wimp, whose hesitation and apparently dwindling support for a “surge” in Afghanistan threaten to turn McChrystal’s winning strategy into a politically correct and ineffective recipe for defeat.
But what really separates Obama and McChrystal? Judging by publicly available statements and writings, nothing much. Which is why — prediction time — McChrystal probably won’t quit when Obama gives him fewer forces than McChrystal is asking for.
Why? If you read McChrystal’s report, the general makes it very clear that his change in strategy, not his change in troop levels, is his top priority. But this change in strategy is almost always left out of debate — and certainly out of the conservative end of the debate, which focuses on giving the general the forces he wants to win. What McChrystal actually wants to win — the support of the Afghan people, which is the basis of his new strategy — is never mentioned.
This strategy change to “population protection” at the expense of “force protection” (or, better, this strategy change intensification because certainly key aspects of such a policy have long been in place) is in fact a politically correct and ineffective recipe for defeat, and, therefore, something right up the boss’s alley.
- Diana West
MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Contrary to the opinion of some here that Obama and McChrystal are at great odds, I see then as going in the same basic direction, crazy direction in my opinion, but just having a difference of opinion on how many troops that will take. Obama appointed McChrystal, for God sake, relieving his predecessor. McChrystal asked for, and got, about 25,000 additional troops and now wants another 40,000 more troops, and that seems to be the only significant difference between Obama and McChrystal.
MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I think it depends on your concept of the short comings of global trade. To have no global trade is about as stupid as having no trade at all. But there are certain aspects of global trade that are a bad idea. Importing a manufactured product that you could manufacture yourself in your country is a bad idea over time, as is importing resources you already have (unless it’s a question of quality more than quantity.) Also, exporting products at subsidized prices can lead to problems also, although it’s more the responsibility of the importing country to take care of that.
The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 1:23 PM
If trade routes are not secured then the transfer of both people and goods is constricted. With it declines both technological and cultural knowledge, this results in exponentially detrimental after effects the scope of which isw hard to conceive.
-If the free trade of goods and ideas is repressed, resulting in retarded mobility, the a cure found in one land is left unpracticed in another.
-If there were to be a repeat of the “Little Ice Age” a cold resistent South American tuber we now know as the potatoe could not be transferred to others in Europe suffering from famine.
-Without the freedom of travel new cultures remain dark and mysterious giving rise to distrust and misunderstanding. Often small inconsequential cultural oversites lend towards open hostility and outright war. Things that are far less likely with the familiarity that comes from the interaction resultant of trade.
The sytem we currently take so much for granted is far more fragile than most realize. The helplessness of the average western citizen today from that of but two generations ago cannot be overstated. In the first half of the last century every american male was expected to be able to repair an automobile. But now the part may have to come half way around the world to do so.
Today’s web-designer, radioligist or what have you is lucky if they can change a tire. Let alone build a fire, build their own shelter or provide their own food. If today’s techno-boob were to flee a metro ridden with a contagion, will probably be dead in even shorter order having fend for themself.
The heartiness of the human species is far diminshed from it’s 14th century predecessor, and in a “Dark Ages” redux will most likely fare far less well. Today’s video warriors may find less apetite for survival of the fittest when removed from the comfort of their couch.
Archimedes on October 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I would agree that Obama and McChrystal are generally on the same page.
The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 2:05 PM
There is this misconception of Afghanistan in particular (and Islam in general) that somehow we can bring Central Asia (and the rest of the Islamic world) kicking and screaming into the 21st Century through good will. This is simply not the case. There is no amount of money to spend, infrastructure to build, schools to provide, hospitals to heal, or good will that Americans can display toward the Afghan people that will produce a lasting effect. I was once told by an accomplished Afghan intelligence analyst that, “you can rent an Afghan, but you can’t buy him.”
This writer spent thirty years listening to and deciphering military acronyms and idiotic jargon. The catch phrase today is “COIN” – Counterinsurgency doctrine. Our political and military leadership act like this is some sort of secret knowledge – Gnostic esoteric knowledge – that is now coming to light. That is crap. There is nothing new here.
The current crop of Afghanistan’s “Warriors” is almost exclusive to the opposition. The true believers are fighters – cowards too, but fighters nonetheless. By contrast, the bulk of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are not fighters, nor are they “true believers”. They are simply cowards – frauds – corrupt to the core by any standard and an apostate to their own faith. They are slovenly, drug-addicted, dimwitted, and totally unreliable at any level. Like the Taliban, they are brutal to their own countrymen. They thrive on their petty powers and refuse to shoulder any burden or responsibility. Does this sound too harsh? Not for the Marines and Soldiers who have been killed by the treachery of ANA and ANP who have purposely led them into ambush.
According to the great military minds of our time, these ANA/ANP forces can be trained and formed to fight their own war. At what cost? How many American lives? How many taxpayer dollars? It would take decades if it were simply a matter of sophistication and military training. However, the obstacle is the way and philosophy of life in the Islamic world.
MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM
This Blog was started with a very narrow focus and that was elevating the conversation about the ROE as it is presently in Afghanistan and using it as a launching point for further conversations with our Legislators. I think it is obvious to everyone that the ROE is just an outgrowth of a larger more ominous problem and that is the current administration’s vision for future operations in Afghanistan. A single strategy COIN (counterinsurgency) doctrine is now in full play there and it only needs the blessing of the President to keep it that way. While some elements of COIN may need to be employed as this war progresses, it is short-sighted to believe it is the single way to win. We have a very small window of opportunity to speak to our congressional delegates and effect the change that is necessary to move away from COIN and back to the more critical ‘chase and kill’ strategy.
The enemy is insidious and single-minded in his mission and we must be equally intent in our resolve to meet them on a battlefield of our choosing. Theirs is to kill all apostates and unbelievers and ours needs to be in kind. Short of that and we will find ourselves on the wrong side of this fight when history is written.
MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM
For the most part, our two positions don’t appear to be mutually exclusive.
The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Obama is a Democrat, and ALL Democrats have been sniveling cowards since LBJ. (LBJ was a “hawk”but also an idiot)
It’s in a Democrat males nature to be a weasel, a wimp, and therefor the ignorant Democrat women can get their limp wristed male counterparts to go along with being a wimp.
Two things will then happen, first, they’ll tuck tail and run every time, and two, they’re scared of a woman with guts, so they hate Palin.
Jeff from WI on October 11, 2009 at 2:13 PM
They seem to agree on the stock they both want to buy but just differ on how much they should spend.
MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Re-read the translated travels of Marco Polo. And much later in history the retraced footsteps by an entourage of Nat’l Geo travelers.
Both journeyed through the Waziristan region of the Pashtun and both described the peoples there quite vividly. That AQ could have influenced them greatly is doubtful without the context of the muslim faith. The Taliban’s training by the US military during the Soviet invasion have prepped them for our return to some degree, but the generation of Taliban currently in play have a higher calling, ie, Allah, not nationalism.
Moderates? Doubtful as long as the Taliban liege-lord is OBL. The tribes of Warziristan pretty much wanted to be left alone all along. Until Allah and the Taliban showed up. That the Taliban & OBL are hiding out in a region of fierce warriors as protectors is a great strategic move. Moderation is not the way of Sharia Law, the Wazirs, the Taliban nor OBL. History proves it with just a tiny bit of homework.
Robert17 on October 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM
State is pushing back as well
‘;minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department’
ginaswo on October 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »