On what looks to be tear-filled stationary.

Dear Barack, I almost got off my fat arse and campaigned for you. But I did make a website post, or two. That said.

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. 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. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.

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

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!”

The thing is when you try to please everyone, you please no one. Everybody knows that. BTW, when did Obama promise to bring all the troops home from Afghanistan? I don’t recall anything of the kind.

What was the point of that?

So what’s left? War by whim. We will apparently fight until we get tired of it, and whether we win or pull out by a certain date are secondary considerations at best, at least according to this report. Jules Crittenden sees this as Obama attempting to eat his cake and have it, too:

Sounds like he wants it both ways. To be able to assure everyone we’re getting out while assuring everyone we’re not going anywhere. If that’s the case, this promises to be a tour de force of Obamian rhetorical gymnastics, possibly topping even that wretched speech where he was hailed as the second coming of Martin Luther King Jr. for lame excuses for his bigot of a pastor.

Meanwhile, I was just listening to NPR kvetching about how he sells this to an American public that is increasingly blah blah blah.

Here’s how you do it. You tell them you are in it to win. That it isn’t over till it’s over. That we have a volunteer military that knows what it is doing, is highly experienced, and highly motivated, which is why we’re willing to give them what they need for the job. And by the way, remind them that in time of war, the best, most useful and noblest thing any American can do is join them. The next best thing is unreservedly supporting what they are doing.

And the third-best thing to do would be to get the hell out if you’re not going to commit to victory. This war requires a serious commitment, much more so than Iraq did. It will take a generation or longer to stabilize Afghanistan and provide it an infrastructure to tamp down extremism and modernize a population more connected to the 14th century than the 21st. There is a serious question as to whether any American President could guarantee that kind of commitment, let alone one that has taken almost four months to decide whether or not to properly resource a strategy he himself demanded for over two years and officially imposed eight months ago.

For one thing, no one is even seriously talking about the US and NATO just pulling out, for another if we did that it would only be a matter of time before there was a repeat of 911 and we would be right back over there. The truth is the terrorists think we will bug out, that we do not have the stomach for a long fight, they are counting on us abandoning the mission and our allies. They know what a great propaganda tool it would be for them..and that would be a crime considering the lives that have already been lost.

Even your boy NIxon saw the writing on that wall, BS’d about victory long enough to get re-elected, and then cut and ran. A smart move, just four years too late.

Bleeds Blue on November 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Better read your real history books again…it has been proven beyond a doubt that South Viet Nam, right up to the surrender, was peaceful, there were few (if any) Viet Cong, they were North.
The press, and weak politicians gave every indication that they were going to pull out of the war…good strategy you think.
And shame on you for not honoring the millions killed by Pol Pot, and our liberal sympathizers here in the U.S.
I noticed you gave no links or quotes to back up your assertions…
Here are a few facts to straighten you out.
Oh, and just to set the record straight…Saigon, the capitol fell to the Viet Cong two years after we left Viet Nam…congress cut all the funding to Viet Nam, and that began the collapse.
China and Russia never wavered in their support, despite getting their butts kicked up and down the whole country.

Remember: Fascism, what you support, has killed over 100 million people in the past 70 years.

If we make a serious commitment, we will win. Afganistan is a pushover compared to the fiercest foreign foe we ever fought – Imperial Japan. If 0bama is unwilling to make such a commitment (he isn’t) we should leave today rather than have one more drop of American blood spilled so 0bama can claim he is fighting the purveyours of man-made disasters.

Lou Budvis on November 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Since the days of the Indian Wars to Mogadishu, once Civilian Authority decides on containment and over-the-horizon combat, it will be healthier for the careers of ranking officers to allow Americans to die in the trenches than tolerate effective warfighting. Capable and aggressive action would demonstrate that the war could be carried to the enemy effectively, given the resources; this would strip Congress of the excuse for denying those resources. Therefore Congress and the Administration would punish any American commander who offers more than stagnation.

There is no country al Qaeda will not attack Americans. There is no line of withdrawal where you can rest assured we can contain this problem and our losses. Offering to quit the fight means a USS Cole or a Khobar Towers every month, if Al Qaeda feels like it.

When US Ambassador to Iraq Christopher R. Hill, went to the Iraqi parliament on Nov.22 to lobby for a compromise in an impasse over a new election law, some members of the assembly demanded that he should not allowed to enter the building, commented a UAE paper.
“So much for the once-dominant American influence in Baghdad. It also reflects the reality that Washington is nowhere near the “strategic” objectives of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

There have always been objections to US envoys in Iraq. Was Hill actually ejected or barred from the building? The presence of democratically-elected representatives making such decisions was a strategic objective.

The paper observed that recent developments have shown that the US is no longer able to control the course of events in Iraq. That translates into a collapse of whatever the US built so far in Iraq and the country reverting to chaos whenever the US military completes its promised withdrawal.

The US has not “controlled” events in Iraq since the Interim Council shut itself down a year early to hand over to a Constitutional government. That does not equate to “chaos”.

It isn’t suprising that a dictatorship like the UAE puts out propaganda equating democracy with “chaos”. It is suprising that any American should repeat it as true.

The paper observed that recent developments have shown that the US is no longer able to control the course of events in Iraq. That translates into a collapse of whatever the US built so far in Iraq and the country reverting to chaos whenever the US military completes its promised withdrawal.

This war requires a serious commitment, much more so than Iraq did. It will take a generation or longer to stabilize Afghanistan and provide it an infrastructure to tamp down extremism and modernize a population more connected to the 14th century than the 21st.

Circa 2049:

Just about ten twenty thirty forty years ago I set out on Obama’s Afghanistan road,
Seekin’ my fame and glory, lookin’ to turn the POS mullah’s hemorrhoid into a pot of gold.
Well, things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan yet again.

Flew in yet again on a big plane, I hope I’ll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was yet again just passin’ through, must now be yet another 5 10 15 20 tours or more.
Running out of time and patience ["Not to complain but whatever the hell happened to my youth?!"], looks like they took still more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan yet again.

The Hope and Change man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Kabul, yet another one year stand, looks like the plans fell through yet again
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan yet again.

Mmmm…
If I only had a woman ["Hey Jack, do you remember what a woman is?"], for evry Obama tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while cheered on by CINO’s Obama and his many successors sat back home oblivious to Islam and power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan yet again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan yet again.

- CCR Soldier Boy

And the third-best thing to do would be to get the hell out if you’re not going to commit to victory.

Define “Victory”

This war requires a serious commitment, much more so than Iraq did. It will take a generation or longer to stabilize Afghanistan and provide it an infrastructure to tamp down extremism [more accurately known as Islam, that which must not be spoken anymore in Afghanistan than at Fort Hood] and modernize a population more connected to the 14th century than the 21st.

The American people will not put up with such madness for that long.

It will take a generation or longer to stabilize Afghanistan and provide it an infrastructure to tamp down extremism and modernize a population more connected to the 14th century than the 21st.

No, it wouldn’t take long at all once a serious commitment to destroy they enemy we put into implementation. Again, Bozo isn’t up to this, for many many reasons.

No, I think it emphasizes Democrat FAILURE. Look around pal, Obama and The Democrats are pushing us to third world nation status all the while happily nationalizing our industries for the good of Big Brother.

I’ll take Republican failures over this socialist twat ANY DAY.

Skywise on November 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Yeah, keep running incomptence up the flagpole, and whining when I don’t salute.

If you’re gonna fail like the Democrats you’re no better than the Democrats.

We can’t just bomb them back into the stone age (which would, admittedly, take less bombing there than some other places).

Yes, we Can!

A series of operational benchmarks might be in order here, matching American strategic decisions with conditions on the ground — the normal case for war management, it should be noted. But in this case, Obama and the White House don’t seem particularly interested in that kind of strategic planning.

Again, Morrissey doesn’t appear to actually read the article he links to:

At West Point, Mr. Obama was expected to describe commitments from Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, and specific benchmarks his government must meet: to crack down on corruption, deploy well-trained Afghan troops and police officers, and focus on development in one of the world’s poorest nations.

I mean, it’s not that hard to do a page search for “benchmarks” before you claim that Obama isn’t interested in them, right?

But Morrissey sure likes to talk about VICTORY! Without ever defining it. I mean, he lists a few nice-sounding things, but doesn’t say how they could be realistically achieved, then admits that it’s probably not realistic.

But who cares about realism when you’ve got a chance to talk about VICTORY?

Get the troops out now.

Spathi on November 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM

But you “support” them, right?

Each one of these would be considered a war crime today and the offending soldiers would most likely go to prison or worse, but these terrible acts are what you must do to win a war.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have declared total war on us, and in return we investigate our soldiers for giving one of them a fat lip. They promise to kill your family in front of you and we promise we might stick around for a few more years…maybe. They assure everyone that the Americans are weak and will pull out soon, and we have a leader who claims that we need an exit ramp.

txaggie on November 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Well said. We could defeat the Taliban, but it would take the will to invade western Pakistan and pursue the enemy with impunity. And that was actually part of the Bush doctrine – we would pursue the terrorists wherever they hid. But Colin Powell’s State Dept. nipped that in the bud, I’ll wager.

And that excuses Republican failure? I don’t know that liar would achieve anything in the national interest. I’m proud I did not vote for him. I get that all you Republicans want is to win elections, some of us care about GOVERNMENT.

Chris_Balsz on November 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM

No, I think it emphasizes Democrat FAILURE. Look around pal, Obama and The Democrats are pushing us to third world nation status all the while happily nationalizing our industries for the good of Big Brother.

I’ll take Republican failures over this socialist twat ANY DAY.

Only Obama has the nerve to stand at West Point and lie, lie, lie.

mobydutch on November 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM

You mean BOW?

He should be there on his knees thanking them for their service.

either walking in high heels or locking and loading a weapon and taking it off safe.

ted c on November 30, 2009 at 11:37 AM

HAHAHAHA….that was funny, thanks, i needed that laugh,the later is correct.

“Cadets, Attention! Mark time, March!”

–The President