Pussy Footin' Again. Now in Afghanistan

When George Wallace ran for President during the height of the Vietnam war, he described the handling of the war as "pussy footin' around." In using that term, he was criticizing the fact that America lacked the commitment to win the war in Vietnam; either in strategy or in will.

If we analyzed the dance that is going on between Barack Obama and his commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, we could easily say that Obama, too, was "pussy footin' around" by ignoring McChrystal's request for new troops (Click to See Full Story: "U.S. commander says Afghan war needs more troops").

Obama's campaign commitment to win the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan was just another campaign tactic that he used to beat McCain for the Presidency. But, like a lot of what he has said and says, it was hollow in intent. It was similar to his promise to immediately withdraw from Iraq. Now, it's looking like both those promises will be broken.

As in Vietnam, the casualties in Afghanistan are rising and the support in Congress is waning; mostly from the Democrats. Also, like Vietnam, we have a corrupt central government in Karzai and an outlying agricultural lifestyle that gets nothing in true support from a central government. The enemy, the Taliban, are more committed to win than the Afghans. For them, this is a religious war. This is similar to the communist beliefs of the North Vietnamese and their fervor to win and convert the South.

For almost a month now, Obama has told McChrystal to hold his report on troop requirements until he (Obama) was ready for it. So, for a month, our soldiers have been dying and McChrystal's request for more troops has been ignored as if Obama is playing some kind of "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" game.

(Maybe if Mr. Obama could give up prepping for and delivering just "one" of his more than 100+ speeches on health care, he could ask for and read the McChrystal report. )

I especially like this excerpt from the aforementioned news story on this situation:

"McChrystal, who commands more than 100,000 Western troops, two-thirds of them American, has drafted a separate request spelling out how many more he needs but has not sent it to the Pentagon, which says it is considering how he should submit it."

Just give me a break! The Pentagon is trying to consider "how" McChrystal "should submit it." What are we talking about: Double-spaced? Two-sided? The color of the paper? My God!

I believe this shows that the war in Afghanistan is doomed to be Obama's equivalent of Vietnam. There are too many excuses being used by both Obama and the Pentagon. Ultimately, we will leave that country as losers; just as in Vietnam. And, just as in Vietnam, all the lives that were lost will be for naught!

If we are "not" committed to winning; then, let's just leave and avoid any more deaths of our soldiers. Otherwise, wage the war as if we mean it. Obama put McChrystal in charge because he didn't like the last commander's advice. Now, Obama doesn't seem to like McChrystal's advice. Who does this guy want in charge? Cindy Sheehan?

The All Too Quiet Surge

Just like there's a psychological impact of "talking down" this economy, there's a psychological component to winning a war.

For a guy who can't seem to go to the bathroom without thinking he has to give a 20-minute speech beforehand, Obama quietly sent 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan with a simple written order. There was no speech. There was no press conference. No fanfare. Just a quiet, and hardly transparent, executive order (See Full Story).

The national media was just as quiet too. No front page hysteria as was the case whenever George Bush sent more troops into war. Not for Mr. Obama.

This is surprising to me because Obama campaigned on the fact that our focus should have been Afghanistan and not Iraq. He made it clear that he was going to raise the stakes in that country as soon as he got into office.

But, I think he is seeing, as I think I am seeing, that many of this country are tiring of the Afghanistan war. Everyday, Afghanistan is looking more like another Vietnam. Not just to the people of this country but to the military observers that are closely following it (See Full Story).

You have the equivalent of North Vietnam in the border areas of Pakistan. Those who live along that border, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, are more loyal to the Taliban than they are to their central governments in Kabul or in Islamabad. It is like the "Wild West" in that part of world with the local warlords having all the power.

Even so, I think that Obama would have best served the troops that are fighting over there by making a "show" out of sending 17,000 more troops to fight that fight. That's because there's a lot of psychology involved in winning any war. First, you need the home front to be engaged and believe that the war is winnable. Sending in more troops shows that we, as a country, are committed to winning. Secondly, an announced troop increase puts our enemy on psychological notice. Hyping that fact could give us a mental edge in that war.

I just think that Obama (or, his advisers) don't understand the psychological importance of being a leader. They absolutely don't seem to know how to use the "bully pulpit" the way it should be used. He talks down the economy when he should be cheerleading. He says nothing when he should be scaring our enemy into submission. But, this is consistent with a lot of his campaign talk. He wants to talk, without precondition, with our enemies; and, at the same time, he publicly denounces our friends, like Pakistan or Israel. He has constantly criticized the elected leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai; yet, he needs that person's support in winning the war. Personally, I think Obama has a lot to learn and I don't think he'll learn fast enough before we get ourselves into some serious trouble. And, that's just my opinion.