Obama Takes Away Our Strategic Advantage in Afghanistan

Last week, President Obama announced a new "strategic" agreement between the United States and Afghanistan covering the time frame from now until 2014 and 10 years beyond.  But, an overlooked part of that agreement may have actually taken away a "key" strategic advantage that we now enjoy and one which actually allowed us to kill Osama Bin Laden.  That advantage is the ability to launch "offensive" drones and air attacks from Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds that are located in neighboring Pakistan. 

Within the ten-page agreement, there is this specific clause: "The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries". Obviously, one of the "other countries" that is clearly implied in this statement is Pakistan. But, it also means that we can't launch any attack against another Afghan neighbor, Iran. And, that, to me, gives us a severe strategic disadvantage in the region.

Would Obama Have Even Gone To War In Afghanistan Over Bin Laden?

This week, the big political flap is over Barack Obama's campaign ad which implies that Mitt Romney would "not" have taken the shot to kill Osama Bin Laden if he had the chance.  But, I pose a different question.  Would Obama, if he were in George Bush's place, gone after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda by going to war with Afghanistan? Or, would the obvious anti-war Democrat and constitutional lawyer, consider the attack on the World Trade Center a civil problem?  A civil problem and a police problem because Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had no true "alliances" to any one country.  In my mind, I think the latter is true.  As a consequence, I think they would still be flourishing in Afghanistan today.  At best, Bin Laden, thanks to Obama's timidity, might only have wound up on the FBI's Most Wanted list with a bounty on his head.

But, for me to think that would be "pure and unwarranted" speculation.  Just as it is "pure and unwarranted" speculation to think that Mitt Romney would "not" have taken the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden.  I think this is why so many, including Democrats, are being critical of the President over the assumption made in that campaign commercial.  Further, I think people are turned off when they see a sitting President try to take singular credit for something that took more than 10 years to  accomplish with hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in giving Obama a chance to take that historic shot. That, to me, only diminishes this Presidency.

Bin Laden's Failed 9/11 Plot

On this day, ten years ago, 19 hijackers killed nearly 3000 Americans in what, I am quite sure, Osama Bin Laden thought to be his crowning victory for Al Qaeda. But, did the United States cower as a result of that attack? Did we crumble as an economy? No. We strengthened against Al Qaeda and for that reason Bin Laden's 911 attack was a tactical failure.

Osama Bin Laden's attack on America has resulted in more than one million Muslim deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; and, in Bin Laden's own death as the feeble-looking disheveled rat that he really was. Bin Laden did his faith and his people no favors on 9/11. Instead, he inflicted more damage to millions of Muslims; along with their homes, their businesses, and their homelands.

I would hope and pray that this very costly lesson will keep Al Qaeda, or anyone else, from ever again committing an act of mass terrorism on U.S. soil.

Why McChrystal Had To Go

From our country's earliest beginnings, the founding fathers knew the potential hazard of this or any country being taken over by a stratocracy -- a military dictatorship. To minimize that potential, they drafted, as part of our Constitution (Article 1 section 8), a specific structure that clearly positions the military under the direction of the Executive Branch of the Government and with their funding being controlled by Congress. Thus, their power is balanced between the two most prominent civilian legislative branches of government.

While it is important that we don't have a lap-dog military that can't express any concerns over the commands that they may receive from the Executive Branch, it is also important that they maintain a certain level of respect for the civilian leadership that they report to. That's because any erosion of that respect might actually create a situation whereby the military becomes autonomous to some degree; with the worst case resulting in some kind of coup.

The McChrystal situation presented a real conundrum because he is the primary architect of the military plan that is only half-way implemented in Afghanistan and prior to the draw down of troops starting next year. To lose him over his disrespectful comments may actually jeopardize the results of the war.

One option that was available to Obama was to elicit a public apology from McChrystal (assuming he's sorry). Then, bust him down by one or two stars from his four-star status and allow him to continue in his role as the Afghanistan commander. However, this ignores the fact that there might be a serious dissenting attitude in his command and below towards our civilian government.

I think the only real option for Obama was to have accepted McChrystal's resignation. He probably should have been stripped of some of his rank to show how serious an offense he had committed. For the protection of the precepts of our Constitution with regard to the military, Obama absolutely had no other option.

Our country has, probably, the best military in the world. No one man is irreplaceable. There are a lot of people in the ranks who could replace McChrystal and continue the plan in Afghanistan. Certainly, the replacement of McChrystal with Petraeus was a good choice but it might have just left Iraq exposed. In addition, Obama needs to strengthen his leadership skills so that this kind of disrespect doesn't fester once again. And, too, if we continue to see unrest in the military over the Administration's leadership, it is the people of this country who will need to reprimand Obama for his actions.

The Afghan War: Another One of Obama's 'Present' Votes

While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted "Present" 129 times. A "Present" vote is like voting "Maybe". It neither says that you are "For" or "Against" a piece of legislation. Supporters of Obama will point out that Obama voted 4000 times in his Illinois career and that voting "Present" 129 times is an insignificant number. However, all votes are not the same. Some are just procedural. The true fact is that Obama voted "Present" on some of the most difficult issues that were before the Illinois Senate; like his voting twice on partial birth abortion legislation.

Today, we have a request from the field commander for additional troops in Afghanistan. It has been more than a month since that request was actually made. However, Obama has still not made a decision. The literal pickle that Obama finds himself in is that the polls are showing a declining support for the war. His left-wing base is totally against any escalation of this or any other war. However, Obama is on record saying the Afghanistan War, unlike Iraq, is the "good war" and it was the war that he would fight to win.

So, as a result, we have the equivalent of another Obama "Present" vote for the war in Afghanistan. In this case, doing nothing is the same as voting "Present". It appears that the only time Obama is tough is when he's up against Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce. Otherwise, indecision will prevail. And, that's a sign of weak leader.

Afghanistan: The Biden Solution?

Increasingly, there are rumblings that Obama is considering implementing a Joe Biden plan for the war in Afghanistan; rather than take the advice of his appointed general overseeing that war. In essence, the Biden plan says we should conduct a protracted war in Afghanistan with limited troop support and concentrate on attacking Al Qaeda with remote-controlled drones by targeting their strongholds all along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. At the heart of this plan is the belief that we don't need to worry about the Taliban; as if, somehow, these just-radical-as-Al-Qaeda radicals pose no threat to America.

Apparently, people like Biden seem to forget that we wouldn't have even attacked Afghanistan if the ruling Taliban had simply turned over Bin Laden in the first place. But, they protected Bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda training camps and refused to give them up. This, then, resulted in the war that we have today. A war that has chased both the Taliban and Al Qaeda into the mountainous areas of Tora Bora. To back off now would just hand Afghanistan back over to the Taliban and, then, most likely, reestablish home sweet home for Al Qaeda.

If Biden had been such a spot-on military strategist in the past, I would say that we should consider his plan. However, he has been consistently out of step with both logic and reality. He was against the original Gulf War because he didn't think we could take Saddam's army. But, to the contrary, we defeated Saddam in just days.

Then, he was all "for" the second war with Iraq because he firmly believed that Saddam had those weapons of mass destruction. The left seems to forget that Biden was wrong, too, while they keep blaming Bush for the "lie" that Saddam had WMD's. Since then, Biden went on record saying that the surge wouldn't work. But, unfortunately for Biden's continuing reputation of being wrong, the surge did work and worked better than expected. Then there was his brilliant plan that the war in Iraq could be ended by just partitioning Iraq into three religious areas that were controlled by the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds. Of course, instrumental to this insane idea was the fact that Sunnis, Kurds and Shia who were living in someone else's territory would have to be uprooted from their homes and moved to be with those of their own kind. Thank God Biden didn't have any input on desegregation plans of the 1960's in this country. Otherwise, all the Blacks of America would have wound up being cloistered in some isolated city/states in America.

The left has a history of not trusting the military and in believing that the military is only interested in war and more war. Because of this, the left has always believed that it is the military's own self interest to always want more troops. But, in reality, Generals, like anyone else, don't really want to go to war unless they can win without sustaining massive losses of either men or material. Also, most Generals believe that a strong military is a deterrent to war and not a reason to go to war; at least if the military is part of a peaceful society like ours.

Personally, I wouldn't bet on anything that Biden says. He is literally a gaffe-a-minute machine. This fact, alone, should give one pause to consider anything he says. To listen to him on Afghanistan is to ignore that fact and to ignore how terribly wrong he has been in the past. Yet, this President and the left of his party seem to think that Biden is the be-all and end-all when it comes to military planning. God help us all!

The Taliban & Al Qaeda Now Know That a Win Is In Sight

Like it or not, the President's indecision on additional troops for Afghanistan has just signaled the last piece of information that the Taliban needed to tell them that they are winning.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda, even being trapped in the Mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, are well aware of what's going on in this country in terms of the general sentiment about the Afghan War. Thanks to the World Wide Web, I'm am quite sure the extended donkey-net has gotten word to the Taliban leaders that America's public opinion has shifted away from that war and that the Democrats -- now completely in charge -- have no interest in additional troops or increased expenses for military operations.

So, if you were the enemy, what would you think about this critical information? I'm quite sure you'd be heartened by it.

I think, when history is written, this last week will be documented as the turning point that resulted in our loss of that war. It reflects a point were our "heart" is no longer in winning. Because of this telegraphed attitude, you can expect the battles to get more fierce with the Taliban inflicting more damage and causing an increasing amount of American casualties. Within the next year, we will probably decide to leave Afghanistan; only to return some day when the Taliban and Al Qaeda have rebuilt their bases of operations in that country and have done us some additional harm.

I hope I'm wrong but I seriously don't think so. Somewhere, Bin Laden has to be smiling.

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.

Afghanistan is not Iraq

Whenever there is widespread poverty in a country, you can just bet that radical forms of government will gain control. This is also especially true in countries were any wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few ruling elite. We have seen that happen throughout the history of mankind. We have seen it in Russia and in China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and most recently in Venezuela and other South America countries. So, it was no wonder that Afghanistan, a country of hardly any wealth, fell to the Taliban following Russia's abandonment of that country. Most of the population in that country survive on less than $2 a day.

Obviously, our military was able to quickly evict the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2002. But, maintaining that status on the ground has been difficult. Today we are still struggling to keep the Taliban from returning and regaining control.

In the V.P. Debate, the subject of a troop surge in Afghanistan was broached by Joe Biden. Joe Biden tried to use the words of our general in Afghanistan, McKiernan, to say the surge, as used in Iraq, would not work in Afghanistan. But Biden neglected to completely quote McKiernan. McKiernan basically said that Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different entities. He went on to say: ” The country's mountainous terrain and rural population, its poverty and illiteracy, its 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war all make for unique challenges..." (See Full Story).

We can achieve both a military and political victories in Iraq that will allow us, at some point in time, to remove the bulk of our troops. This is simply due to the wealth and literacy that can be found in Iraq. However, Afghanistan is a totally different story. We will never leave until we can create a stable political environment and until we create an economic base that is something other than a "poppy" growing agricultural society. As long as Afghanistan remains so poor, our military power will simply be a permanent, never-able-to-leave, stop-gap measure. People have to believe that their government will help them in their day-to-day lives in order for that government to survive. Unless and until the Afghan government can prove itself by providing a better life to all its citizens, it is doomed to fail. That is something that pure military victory can never bring to any country.

The Emperor's New Clothes

This trip of Obama to the Middle East and Europe reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes; especially when talking about foriegn policy and military experience. The fact that Mr. Obama is being shown with Generals and foreign leaders (for the very first time), doesn't really make him "what" those pictures want you to think. Everybody around him and the news media knows damn well that he is naked as a jaybird when it comes to military and foreign policy. But, just like in that story about the Emperor, no one is willing to spill the beans on the reality of his nakedness.

Update: Since writing this, this morning, I ran across this opinion piece (Click to See "Obama Faking It" by Maggie Gallagher) which somewhat repeats what I have said in my comments above.

Shoot First...Then Ask?

Today, Mr. Obama is expected to deliver a speech on his plans for ending the War in Iraq and increasing our military support in Afghanistan (See Full Story). This speech is do to come "before" he actually visits these two countries and meets with our military commanders, foreign service and State Department personnel on the ground and local non-U.S. Government officials. So, you have to ask: Why even go? Why meet with the Generals if you have already made up your mind? But, I guess, a photo-op is a photo-op!

Personally, I like a leader who listens, understands, and then takes the appropriate action or actions. I would think that someone with little or no military or foreign policy experience would be even more cautious in getting all the advice he could before laying out his plans. But, I guess Mr. Obama has listened. Apparently, Code Pink and MoveOn.org are his new military and foreign policy advisers. After all, they're paying the bills for him to get into office. For a guy who claims he will "change" the way Washington does business and get the "special interest monkey" off Washington's back, he sure looks like he is carrying a "ton" of special interest in making decisions on his policies in the Middle East.

Of course, this is the "brilliant" military strategist who said back in 2007 that the "Surge" wouldn't work and who voted to leave Iraq (in total disarray) within 90 days. He, like a lot of Democrats, said we were losing. Now, with the Surge obviously working, who looks like the real loser on Iraq policy?