Afghanistan could be Obama's Mogadishu.
As President Obama dithers with the decision as to whether to increase
troop levels, recommended by General McChrystal, Afghanistan and
Pakistan are spiraling out of control. After five meetings with his war
council, Obama is still said to be weeks away from making a final
decision in regards to his war strategy. President Obama is beginning
to resemble President Clinton and his failed leadership during the
Mogadishu
ambush that saw 18 dead and 77 wounded American soldiers. At that time, it was becoming clear that the situation on the ground was deteriorating and Gen. Thomas Montgomery was requesting reinforcements, air support and armored vehicles which was denied by then Sec. of Defense Les Aspin. The resulting carnage saw the images of dead American soldiers being dragged through Somali streets.
President Obama needs to do more than make a decision of sending forty thousand additional troops, he must change the rules of engagement that are preventing our soldiers from obtaining victory on the ground. Some of these new rules require our troops to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers and obtain permission of homeowners to search for terrorists that may be hiding in their homes. Reading the Miranda Warning to terrorists on the battlefield will not make a us a safer country and does not help our troops.
Taliban attacks in Pakistan are increasing at an alarming rate and are coinciding with the threatened Pakistan offensive on the Waziristan region. This Pakistani offensive must take place to disrupt Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from cross border raids into Afghanistan against NATO troops. In a perfect world, this offensive would coincide with the additional American forces pushing towards the Pakistani border to eliminate the retreating Jihadists from the Waziristan region. This multi assault would do more to ensure victory for American and Pakistan forces than anything else. Would it end the war that is currently raging on both sides of the border. No it would not, but it would severely damage the offensive capabilities of the enemy and most likely kill or capture the brain trust of the terrorists.
As we wait for President Obama's grandiose new war plan, NATO troops are losing their lives at an increasing rate and the Taliban are in control of even more territory within Afghanistan. Unless Mr. Obama decides to let the Generals run the war and do what is necessary to win, he will increasingly begin to look like President Clinton and his failure in Somalia. That defeat and others overseen by the Clinton Administration is what emboldened Osama Bin Laden to launch his global jihad against a perceived weakened United States. I don't have much faith in Obama and his civilian war council, but I pray that they do the right thing and try to win this war. If he is unwilling or unable to allow our military to win this battle and give them the tools to accomplish their mission, I surmise that we should leave the field of battle. Another defeat for America and more terrorist attacks on a perceived weakened nation will surely come if Obama fails to lead.
ambush that saw 18 dead and 77 wounded American soldiers. At that time, it was becoming clear that the situation on the ground was deteriorating and Gen. Thomas Montgomery was requesting reinforcements, air support and armored vehicles which was denied by then Sec. of Defense Les Aspin. The resulting carnage saw the images of dead American soldiers being dragged through Somali streets.
President Obama needs to do more than make a decision of sending forty thousand additional troops, he must change the rules of engagement that are preventing our soldiers from obtaining victory on the ground. Some of these new rules require our troops to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers and obtain permission of homeowners to search for terrorists that may be hiding in their homes. Reading the Miranda Warning to terrorists on the battlefield will not make a us a safer country and does not help our troops.
Taliban attacks in Pakistan are increasing at an alarming rate and are coinciding with the threatened Pakistan offensive on the Waziristan region. This Pakistani offensive must take place to disrupt Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from cross border raids into Afghanistan against NATO troops. In a perfect world, this offensive would coincide with the additional American forces pushing towards the Pakistani border to eliminate the retreating Jihadists from the Waziristan region. This multi assault would do more to ensure victory for American and Pakistan forces than anything else. Would it end the war that is currently raging on both sides of the border. No it would not, but it would severely damage the offensive capabilities of the enemy and most likely kill or capture the brain trust of the terrorists.
As we wait for President Obama's grandiose new war plan, NATO troops are losing their lives at an increasing rate and the Taliban are in control of even more territory within Afghanistan. Unless Mr. Obama decides to let the Generals run the war and do what is necessary to win, he will increasingly begin to look like President Clinton and his failure in Somalia. That defeat and others overseen by the Clinton Administration is what emboldened Osama Bin Laden to launch his global jihad against a perceived weakened United States. I don't have much faith in Obama and his civilian war council, but I pray that they do the right thing and try to win this war. If he is unwilling or unable to allow our military to win this battle and give them the tools to accomplish their mission, I surmise that we should leave the field of battle. Another defeat for America and more terrorist attacks on a perceived weakened nation will surely come if Obama fails to lead.
Advertisement
So let me see if I get your argument. Bush dithered on Afghanistan for what 7 years. And basically said fuck it, it's the next guys problem. And because Obama is trying to get it right, if it is even possible for anybody to get Afghanistan right. You accuse him of dithering. Call me convinced . . . not.
October 20, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get over it, Bush is not President anymore. Obama said he would win this war and what is he doing? He is declaring war on Fox News while his Sec. of State and Generals in the field are pleading for more troops sooner rather than later. It is time for him to lead and stop campaigning and get on with listening to the Generals. Allow the military to win this thing or get our troops out before more are killed while he dithers.
October 20, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am over it. I was over it in November.
The point, taking some time to figure out what the best course of action amongst some pretty bad choices after 7 years of it being basically ignored and getting it very wrong is fine by me.
Reality, the default option for most generals in the field is give me more troops and more equipment and I can win this thing. Fine, let's define what winning is first. Let's define an exit strategy. Is it creating a nation out of dust? So far history isn't on our side on this goal. And even if it was possible start contemplating being in country for 30 years. Is it is just to get AQ? Start think about invading Pakistan, The Sudan and all their other hiding places around the globe.
"Obama said he would win this war and what is he doing?" My guess trying to figure out if that is even possible now that reality has set in. And personally I do not think it is, however fortunately it is not my call.
After 7 years of getting it so wrong I fail to understand why the impatience and the willingness of some to double down like an out of control gambler who believes by doing so he will win all that he has already lost back.
He has had McChrystals report "officially" in his hands since October 1st. So it's been a whopping 20 days. We are heading into the winter and fighting usually subsides. There is time.
And last but not least Afghanistan has been the grave yard of one country after another. In each case the invading army was larger and better equipped. I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to assume we will do any better. The again we are famous for hubris.
About the only thing we ay agree on is get our troops out. Having lived through Vietnam the similarities are just becoming to real. So maybe it is time just to ask is this really worth it. Whatever this is. We have certainly lost sight of the original mission get Osama.
October 20, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just one simple question.
After spending all our resources in Iraq...
Where the BLOODY HELL are we suppose to get 40,000 troops? Even if Obama speeds up his Iraq withdrawl plan, it takes months to prepare our troops for this war and months to deploy them.
Pakistain is already waging a full all or nothing offensive. Wait and assess the situation and stop acting like McCain.
October 20, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, the only "defeat for America" I see is when idiots like you open your mouths. What an embarrassment.
THIS, is your idea of what America is all about? This blog somehow shows the independence of thought, the clear-eyed practicality, the standing above partisan interests that America is supposed to be about?
When you talk this way about the troops, military strategy and America's national interests, it's even worse. There's no attempt to be objective, no balance of patience vs urgency, not even a minimal attempt to propose a strategy that'll do the best thing for all concerned, over the long-run.
You just want to blame Democrats. That's it, that's all. You're a pretty pants political bag-licker, and you want to cover your low intent by shouting about TEH TROOPS 'N DA FLAG. The thing is though, the way you bleat about valuing the lives of troops while proposing something so narrow, and so callow, well... buck up, son, you got shit on your shirt.
No serious military establishment would want a guy like you. No brains, and no guts. A blowhard.
And so, nobody here is gonna spend 5 minutes listening to someone so obviously not up to the task, the troops, or America's best interests.
Take a hike, Failure Boy.
October 20, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to add to the foregoing, the new rules of engagement that trouble Casey - less pursuit of militants and more concern to protect civilians and avoid civilian casualties - didn't originate with Obama but with McChrystal and Petraeus, who both realized the counterproductive nature of the earlier Bush era policies that had outraged so much of a civilian population who would have welcomed protection from the Taliban.
My recommendation to Casey, therefore, is that if you disagree with the new rules, you should write to Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, explaining why they are wrong. When they respond, please share what they say with us.
October 20, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink