We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength.
[sheen] “Winning!”[/sheen]
Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda’s leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known.
– President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan withdrawal
Does anyone else really regard this drawdown as happening from a position of strength? I can’t help but think America’s enemies are paying attention, knowing full well that America was ever divided and never fully committed with the kind of resolve needed to not fall victim to the “graveyard of empires” curse that has befallen world powers that preceded our presence there.
Majority Americans favor withdrawal from Afghanistan according to the polls. They are fatigued by a decade of war (is 10 yrs really a long time in the grand historical scheme of things?); they are concerned with the economy, perceiving nation-building in Afghanistan as a futile waste of American blood and treasure.
Does anyone really believe that bin Laden was “the only leader al Qaeda had ever known?”
Is the war over because we wish it to be? Does the global jihadists understand it’s over, now that bin Laden is pushing up the daisies seaweed? Or will they continue to plan and attack? To propagandize our retreat and lack of resolve as a sign of America’s stigma as a paper tiger who has no stomach and fortitude for long wars?
Our mistake after the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan was in leaving a power vacuum there. The Taliban filled the country with their madrassas and puritannical strain of Islamic ideology. And they gave safe-haven to bin Laden’s al Qaeda.
Afghanistan has been costly; but what is the cost of leaving a job half-done? Of leaving prematurely? Of showing weakness rather than national resolve and fortitude? The enemy thinks in terms of generations. They have patience. The enemy has grit and determination.
Aside from our military, America appears to have neither.
President Obama’s drawdown announced tonight is more than six times the reduction recommended by our military leaders and endorsed by Secretary Gates. The military leadership advocated withdrawing only 3,000-5,000 staff and support troops before 2013, so that front line fighting forces would be able to consolidate gains in the south and take the fight to the last of the Taliban strongholds in the east.
Drawing down troop levels before the objectives are met will increase strain on the forces fighting in Afghanistan. It will increase the risk they run by stretching them thinner across the demands, and it will likely increase the time it takes them to achieve the objectives, putting the president’s 2014 conclusion of the war in doubt. It will put diplomats and development experts operating in Afghanistan at greater risk, too. And it will reignite concern by governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan that we are more concerned about the exit than the strategy.
It was the president’s political advisors that advocated withdrawals of 15,000-30,000 troops — and the president decided on the highest number of their high numbers. They see high levels of public dissatisfaction with the duration of the war and have suddenly realized the war is expensive (although the costs have not increased over projections from 18 months ago, when the president approved this policy). Given how little this president has invested in shaping public attitudes about the war, what is remarkable is that more Americans aren’t opposed. He has been leading from behind again.
~~~ The crucial question President Obama did not answer in his speech is why he is sending soldiers and Marines to fight in Afghanistan if he is unwilling to commit the resources to consolidate the gains they risked their lives to achieve. This is worse than strategic incoherence. It is morally wrong.
WaPo Editorial:
PRESIDENT OBAMA failed to offer a convincing military or strategic rationale for the troop withdrawals from Afghanistan that he announced Wednesday night. In several ways, they are at odds with the strategy adopted by NATO, which aims to turn over the war to the Afghan army by the end of 2014.
~~~ By withdrawing 5,000 U.S. troops this summer and another 5,000 by the end of the year, Mr. Obama will make those tasks harder. By setting September 2012 as a deadline for withdrawing all of the 33,000 reinforcements he ordered in late 2009, the president risks undermining not only the war on the ground but also the effort to draw elements of the Taliban into a political settlement; the militants may prefer to wait out a retreating enemy. It also may be harder to gain cooperation from Pakistan, whose willingness to break with the Taliban is linked to its perception of U.S. determination to remain engaged in the region.
~~~ Perhaps the best justification for Mr. Obama’s decision is U.S. domestic opinion. As senior administration officials have pointed out, Americans have grown weary of the war; polls show that a majority support a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, and that view is increasingly reflected in Congress and even among Republican presidential candidates. Many in Congress cite the cost of the war — though the few billion dollars saved through a faster withdrawal will have little impact on a deficit measured in trillions.
~~~ The president’s supporters point out that at the end of 2012, there will still be twice as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan — 68,000 — as when Mr. Obama took office. We hope those prove sufficient. But Mr. Obama’s withdrawal decision, with no clear basis in strategy, increases the risk of failure.
This was a speech not about winning, but withdrawal.
~~~ There is no military reason for these troop reductions. As the president himself pointed out, “We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country,” and “in Libya . . . we do not have a single soldier on the ground.” This means there is no “stress on the force” that makes these troop reductions an urgent necessity. They are being made for domestic political reasons, plain and simple. Even the timing the president laid out is suspect. Why, for example, will the final surge forces be brought home in September 2012 — just in time for the presidential election? To get those forces home in September requires beginning their rotations home many months before – in the middle of the spring and summer fighting season, when our commanders on the ground need them most.
But even the political rationale for these troop withdrawals does not make much sense. Consider: Today, the United States has about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. When the president’s drawdown is completed next year, we will have about 70,000 troops in Afghanistan. Will the advocates of retreat on the left be any less opposed to the Afghan war with 70,000 troops in country than they were with 100,000? Of course not.
Drawing down these forces will have little political impact here at home – but it could have a devastating military impact on the ground in Afghanistan. It will make it harder to hold the territory we have taken at great cost from the Taliban. It will embolden our enemies by sending the signal that we care more about leaving than winning. It will dispirit the Afghan people and make them less likely to risk their lives helping us against the Taliban — because they see that we are leaving and the Taliban is staying. It will undermine our coalition, giving a green light for our NATO allies to pull their forces out prematurely as well. In short, it will endanger the success of the mission.
The press is reporting that the top military leaders have “endorsed” President Obama’s Afghan troop withdrawal decision. With all due respect to the fine reporters, that is not the news. Under our Constitution, military leaders have no choice but to endorse the president’s decision after giving him their best advice. They could resign, of course, but to have the entire senior military leadership resign over a president’s decision contrary to their advice would be a disaster, and not least for the troops on the ground.
Make no mistake, however. The entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chance that the mission will not succeed. It bears repeating that the deadline imposed by the president has nothing to do with military or strategic calculation. It has everything to do with an electoral calculation. President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.
“Drawdown from a position of strength” sounds eerily like the “return on success” phrase that George W. Bush used in Iraq — and the similarities did not end there. “We take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding,” Obama told the nation. “We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.”
To be sure, the president was characteristically muted in his celebration, warning of “huge challenges” ahead. His staff was rather less restrained; speaking under the cloak of anonymity, his aides held a teleconference Wednesday afternoon with audible chest thumping. “We haven’t seen a terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan for the past seven or eight years,” one boasted, finding “no indication that there is any effort within Afghanistan to use Afghanistan as a launching pad to carry out attacks. . . . The threat has come from Pakistan over the past half-dozen years or so, and longer.”
So if there hasn’t been a terrorist threat coming from Afghanistan for seven or eight years, why did Obama send tens of thousands of additional troops into a conflict that has claimed more than 1,500 American lives? And why is he leaving most of them there?
Eugene Robinson conclusion:
I doubt the speech will please either hawks or doves. From his frankly uninspiring, let’s-all-eat-our-peas delivery, I have to doubt whether the president even pleased himself.
*UPDATE II*
Late Wednesday afternoon, I headed over to the White House to attend a background session about President Obama’s Afghanistan speech. But when I watched the speech a few hours later, I wondered if I had somehow had wandered into the wrong briefing room.
I was promised by senior administration officials that the speech would provide at least some strategic rationale for withdrawing 10,000 U.S. troops by the end of 2011 and 23,000 more troops by September 2012. They argued that the concept of a distinct fighting season is not entirely right, and so withdrawing forces next summer would not affect military operations significantly. They argued that the timing of the withdrawal was determined primarily by U.S. rotational requirements, that the mission will remain unchanged, and that General John Allen (who could replace General Petraeus as early as next month) will be have complete flexibility to determine how and where the remaining 68,000 troops will be used. And they emphasized that the U.S. government is committed to establishing an enduring strategic partnership with Afghanistan after 2014 that would likely include a U.S. military presence in addition to civilian assistance.
I was not convinced by many of these arguments. Strategic objectives should drive withdrawal timetables and not rotational requirements. These officials underestimate the risks that this timetable poses for military operations, and should openly acknowledge that the mission will inevitably change away from counterinsurgency towards counterterrorism. Still, at least these are arguments that can be debated.
The speech I heard Wednesday night, however, was a political speech that addressed none of these issues.
~~~
The last half of his speech mentioned Libya, the Arab Spring, clean energy, and “nation building here at home” – the clearest possible signal that Afghanistan is no longer a policy priority.This may be an appealing message for the majority of Americans who believe that U.S. troops should be withdrawn as quickly as possible. But it does not explain why 68,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan after next September or why the United States would benefit from a long-term strategic partnership. Instead, it builds unrealistic expectations that the war in Afghanistan is on a stable path towards success – and those expectations will be soon be shattered by the casualties that will inevitably occur as military operations continue.
This was not, in Obama’s straw-man description, a desire “to make Afghanistan a perfect place.” It was a realistic attempt to rescue a positive but flawed outcome from a difficult war.
Obama’s meandering leadership in the Afghan war is difficult even to summarize. In 2009, against considerable pressure, he made an effective counterinsurgency campaign possible by announcing a surge of 30,000 troops. He immediately complicated that strategy by setting a July 2011 deadline for the beginning of withdrawal — signaling that American resolve was temporary and that it might be possible for enemies to outwait the onslaught. But Obama minimized the confusion by making his drawdown schedule conditional on circumstances in Afghanistan.
The surge he ordered came to full strength only last August. American forces quickly gained control of key areas in the Taliban heartland — causing the enemy to fight for territory it once securely held. Now, with less than a year in full effect, Obama is “fully recovering the surge” by next summer, apparently without conditions. “Recovering” is an inspired euphemism, avoiding the need for “withdrawing.” He is using the success of a military strategy to justify letting up on a reeling enemy.
This may or may not be fatal to the military’s counterinsurgency strategy, but it certainly undermines it. Can there be any doubt that by 8:16 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday our enemies in Afghanistan were relieved, our allies disheartened and the undecided encouraged to play both sides of the conflict?
~~~ A president provides for the common defense and promotes the general welfare, instead of positing a dangerous choice between the two.
Is it indeed time to (cut our loses and feign pride in impermanent gains) leave? What do the FA readers think?
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
In ’09 my inclination was to stay small bootprint and keep it a Spec Ops thing. But if the generals were to convince me ‘surge’ was the thing to do, I would have given them all the troops they asked for. Barry did neither. We got “half-a$$ Surge.” Which, against all odds has started to succeed. And now, Barry calls it off. WTF?!?
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
@LibertyAtStake:
And announced an expiration date at the time to the Taliban, to boot….
It should be self-evident that this is a display of weakness and lack of resolve. That is how the world will see it, and that is how it is. The fact that Karzai is seeing fit to push us around is conclusive evidence that our indecisive, failing leadership in Washington has cost us control over ther war itself. Given that, we may just as well fold our tents and go home at that.
Afghanististan is not Iraq, and a settled civic establishment, barely possible there, was never going to happen. But there were achievable goals regarding Pakistan, the next real cesspool of terror to come, which were never articulated or pursued. Obama has squandered American credibility in Afghanistan without so much as a face-saving gesture, and in the process fried our relationship with Pakistan and possibly with india as well.
Long past time to go home. You cannot build a nation by force if the inhabitants aren’t interested in your political system. I challenge anyone here – what is the purpose for which we should stay ? Until they renounce Islam, which will be never in our lifetimes, they do not want anything we have to offer except our payments, infrastructure building etc. If they haven’t made any strides in 10 years, another 10 isn’t going to do any more.
We need to draw all our troops home and protect our own borders. A nation in as much debt as we are, with massive unemployment, has no business telling others how to live. Clearly, we don’t have the right answer either.
“Osama bin Laden, the only leader al Qaeda has ever known”
It is unbelievable what comes out of Obama’s mouth. Really, does he not have advisors who are allowed on the golf course?
ObL was originally the bag man for AQ. He provided them with funding and arms. But after 9-11, when his money supply was shut down (no thanks to Jay Rockefeller -D), terrorist experts say that ObL’s position changed, to “spiritual” leader and the real brains behind the actions of AQ was Ayman Al Zawahiri, a highly eductated physician.
To pull our troops out using Obama’s time line will remove troops during the most active battle season (May-Dec) due to the weather in Afghanistan. So all the Taliban has to do is sit it out until our troops are so reduced that there is no possible way we can defeat them or control them.
Pull our troops out; all of them. Every last damn man. Then conduct a scorched earth program and let Afghanistan know we mean business. Mess with us, and we will turn your sand into a bottle and call Budweiser. No nation building, no sensitivity courses for our troops, no JAG officers watching every move. Go full blown Patton.
We have a kleptocracy government with Karzai, who seems unhinged with everything, except accessing American dollars.
In our own government we have a leader who is willing to forsake all the sacrifices of our military for a slight bump that might get him reelected. This is truly a tragedy of epic proportions.
The Afghan politicians have made the US presence their main source of industry other than heroin production. We have painted ourselves into a corner with our Rules of Engagement and bizarre ACLU/Liberal methodology strategy for winning a war. Without a self-sufficient economy, the Afghan people can only rely on poppy production or being perpetual welfare wards of America. We are already supporting millions of illegal Mexican aliens and an ever increasing amount of legal immigrants on welfare; how many more can we afford to take on?
In Indo China we supported a corrupt government and lost the support of the citizenry to an opposition that appeared to be concerned with the plight of the peasant. Only Totalitarian governments can win without the support of the citizenry.
I would like to add my two cents to this issue because I think it’s not just important, but it should become “The Doctrine” of any Republican that wins the next election. (And I REALLY THINK a republican will win).
I speak from a bit of experience. I earned and received a Congressional Officers Commission from West Point, served 8-years in the US Army (1st Lieutenant, 75th Regiment, 3rd Battalion, Fort Benning Ga) and transferred to a “civilian” branch of a US Government Agency in 1985.
I FIRMLY believe that IN SOME INSTANCES, “boots on the ground” are necessary.
But times have changed with technology.
I think we need a totally new strategy, and we need to send a different message to those would attack us, or our interests (Like shipping lanes, Strategic Allies, sources of needed raw materials, you get the point).
“FUCK WITH US, and you will cease to exist as a Nation.”
Scorched Earth. Loss of country. Loss of habitat. All or nothing. You make the call.
We should be very civil and business-like about it. Just tell the locals to get out, the loss of your assets begins in a week.
THEN DO IT.
Trust me, you’d only have to do it once. Sometimes, to teach a Donkey something new, first you need to smack it in the head with a 2X4.
Now you’ve got it’s attention.
But this putting boots on the ground in every corner of the world is getting way too expensive, both in terms of money and lives lost. And the reward doesn’t ever seem to justify the loss.
For 444 days our people were held hostage in Iran under Carter. They were released WHILE REAGAN WAS BEING SWORN IN. Know why? He told Iran that if he became President and they were still held captive, he would “Turn Iran into a parking lot.”
How do I know this? Because he addressed my Marine Expeditionary Unit and said so. (USS Saipan CVL 48).
Then, when Cuba invaded Grenada, he sent my MEU there to liberate the Island Nation (Took 3 days, 1983) Our orders from the CIC (Reagan) were to shoot AND KILL anyone holding a weapon, that the locals were told to disarm, stand down and lie down if they see us.
Then, when the Towel Heads blew up our Marine Barracks in Lebanon, he sent us there to hunt them down and exterminate them. (Here’s where those Boots On The Ground do their real work, no baby-sitting, just unchained Dogs of War doing what they’re trained to do, then they go back into their kennels).
Anyway, that’s my opinion. I’m sure you have yours. I would like to hear those opinions, AND WHY.
But…enjoy this video while you think about it:
It’s probably one of the best you’ve ever seen, so CRANK UP THE VOLUME!
Doesn’t this coincide with next year’s election?
@Nostradamus:
Not disagreeing with the all out concept of fighting war but please explain how you spent 8 years in the Army (including four at West Point?) but finished out as a First Lieutenant. I’m guessing you had prior enlisted time in the USMC to cover the MEU – Grenada thing but I’ve never heard the term “Congressional Officers Commission” before. But hey, I’m just a Benning OCS guy, so who knows?.
“If you plan to take Vienna – Take Vienna!” (Napoleon Bonaparte’) Military opts are comlex enough without the grey flannel suit and tie brigade butting in. Afghanistan is a land mass 40% larger than Montana with topography mixing valleys, crags, and mountains that is ten time zones east of WashDish and ten centuries behind Detroit. The mission there has never been clearly defined and with Commando O’BasketCase never will be. The actual costs in killed, maimed, injured along with the material wastes of strategic treasure needs to be echoed throughout the coming election season. Learn from your political enemy how to “Guilt Trip”, they were effective during Iraq as they were successful preceeded by the 1960’s Abbie Hoffman anti-Vietnam War hysteria. Throw the same slime in their faces. Give them nightmares taking away their sleep. O’BoyToy cannot stay in the White House more than two or three days because, to him, the house is haunted by ghosts and ghosts always tell the truth. (Shakespeare)
Nostradamus, thanks for the film. I am a Parris Island Marine and knew several officers who served in more than one service, but can you give us some background. I am curious or maybe just nosey. Oh, by the way, I agree completely with your Chesty Puller, Patton, McArthur, Bull Halsey strategy. But I was just a kid who didn’t take advantage of the many opportunities offered to me. Now that I am at the head of the stretch run, I realize the most fun I ever had in this life was in the Corps. So please enlighten a guy who missed out on lot of stuff to chase horses around the world.
What tiny little coverage we get of Afghanistan shows our troops fighting on equal footing with AQ and the Taliban.
Why should this be?
Why can’t our superior firepower and technology be put to such good use that we never hardly ever have to engage one-on-one as I see so often.
Our ROE’s are outrageous, if the enemy is firing at us and then puts down his gun, we cannot return fire????
WTF!
If you are going to fight, fight to win.
Obama has our troops fighting with one hand behind their backs.
Maybe there is a silver lining to our withdrawal.
Maybe we will present fewer targets on the ground in Afghanistan.
Maybe we will fight via drones more often, so as to have fewer casualties.
But if we leave and look weak as a result, they will simply target Americans where they can find us.
Here.
Hopefully there is a way of leaving while still appearing strong.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – Santayana
Afghanistan has been at war for much of it’s history. Prior to the US going there, two world powers attempted to conquer it. Neither prevailed. No, we didn’t attempt a conquering of the land, merely a “regime change” coupled with an attempted political makeover. How this ends, we will know soon, but it doesn’t look good.
I don’t care about the differences in the three cases, the British, Russia, and now us. It just seems like anyone who attempts to force their will upon the Afghan people become snakebitten.
One Marines View
Should we stay or should we go? – Clash/Afghanistan
June 21, 2011
Don’t Call Us Occupiers When We’re Dying for Your Country, U.S. Ambassador tells Karzai.
For Karzai to call us that means he has a different view on why we are there. Has he thought out what will happen when we leave? Its amazing how many countries demand for the US to leave but when shit hits the fan or a natural disaster hits, they aren’t talking so loud
“America, come to my aid now and dump a shit-ton of cash into my country then get out once you have unassed my world” -Major Pain- @ One Marines View
How about you say please? Then we will leave when we are damn ready to leave, how about that? Especially after we have sacrificed our warriors and dumped a bunch of cash into your problem. The President is advertising a massive withdrawal in the near future with the military favoring a gradual reduction in troops over time but other advisers advocating a significant decrease in the coming months. Do I want my kids fighting this same OEF war? No, I want to finish it on my watch. But finish it means doing it right so the next generation doesn’t have to fight it. Pulling the legs out from under our warriors to please the few will spell disaster for the warriors over there.
Continue reading “ Should we stay or should we go? -Clash/Afghanistan” follow link to
One Marines View:
http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_marines_view/2011/06/should-we-stay-or-should-we-go-clashafghanistan.html
barack couldn’t care less about anything except his agenda. His numbers are down and he thinks he will win the election bringing home the troops. Do you really think he has thought this out? of course not. He won’t even listen to his own lawyers or the generals on the ground (not that they k now everything – but).
Whether or not we should have been over there will be debated for a long time. However, we are there and we are where we are in time. Nothing can change that. However some type of plan should have been thought out besides, oh wow gee I need to get my poll numbers up.
Once the 30,000+ troops come home that will cause another logistics challenge. Those on active duty will be placed – hmm where? with the current drawdown of military and civilian personnel, there are precious few slots to put them in. The reserves? Those that have a job to go back home to, well they are lucky. Those that don’t will be added to the 22%+ (real) unemployment. Of course being in an unemployment line is better than being shot at, sleeping in the sand and being away from your family. I am not making light of the situation, I am a big picture person and like to take the little details and put them all together. There is always cause and effect.
barack has neutered the United States and those that wish us harm are just waiting. He doesn’t care about the U.S. nor her people. He only cares about himself, his agenda and his muslim faith.
When you join The Long Grey Line you are commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant.
I spent my first year at The Beast Barracks, my second year at Camp Buckner. (Cadet Field Training).
3rd and 4th year embedded with several units. Then I volunteered for the 75th Regiment and passed.
It’s a typical route, and just one of many programs available.
I was promoted once, after Urgent Fury.
I left the service after being IOD.
Offered a post with a civilian government agency and have been employed that way ever since.
As for a commission, there are actually several ways to receive one.
(West Point was just an entry point, as it is for many cadets.)
ROTC is one. Officer Candidate Schools are another, and there are both State and Federal based OCS’s.
In my case, I was attached to a detail operating in the field overseas during my last 6 months or so (International Affairs Training), so I was not really attending any such “brick and mortar” institution.
My commission (and several other officers) were administered (presented) by Congressman Doug Barnard while he was on a tour of our facility. (1980 Panama).
Skookum:
I spent most of my time working within a squad of 8,10 or 12 soldiers, depending on the particular needs of the mission. Squad members came from every branch of the military. Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Air Force, sometimes Special Ops, often Marines.
I was Army but the lines get blurred and are meaningless.
Reagan was firmly against fighting any war with a massive invasion. If you read his Biography you’ll see what his opinion on that matter was. I heard him say it in person. (Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland).
I really believe Reagan would have handled Iraq and Afghanistan the same way GHW Bush handled Desert Storm, minus the cessation of attack on “The Highway of Death.” (GHW Bush was, after all, Reagan’s Veep and he “inherited” much of “The Reagan Doctrine” as a result)
I mean REALLY, Skooks, once you go all in, you shouldn’t pull back until the enemy is destroyed.
After being I.O.D. I had no choice but to leave active duty, and I sure missed it very much, but I’ve been treated well by the military community so I can’t complain. I DO get to see many of “The New Breed” and I’m very impressed with how well things have evolved in training, technology and the end product.
I’m sorry but I can’t tell you in what capacity I’m employed now, except to say that I’m on vacation until July 5th.
It’s nothing dramatic (actually it’s rather tedious and boring at times) but it involves Intelligence. Rules are rules.
Now, with Obama’s “Doctrine” (Reelection) I see nothing short of monumental disaster coming in all three areas of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reagan, on the other hand, said exactly what he meant and followed it up with action (Ask Fidel Castro, Gorbachev), with little apparent regard for political ramifications regarding reelection. Ask Oliver North (Iran Contra).
Reagan wanted to fund the Contra’s and he despised the Sandinista’s.
He almost got away with it.
Reagan failed to get rid of Noriega but what happened to Noriega shortly after GHW Bush became President? See what I mean? See the pattern? The “Doctrine?”
(And do I have to remind you about that Cruise Missile that flew into Gadaffi’s back window? That was a relatively new tool back then. Reagan said “Let’s give it a whirl”)
I think we need to go back to that way of dealing with despots, only even more forcefully, if we’re ever really going be secure here in America.
Peace through Strength works. It always has.
@disenchanted:
The Navy will be announcing shortly that they have too many personnel and will need to cull the ranks. The Army will follow suit soon.
The reason is the lousy economy. There are no jobs so those enlisted are opting to re-enlist.
Many will be denied the opportunity.
This was Obama’s love letter to the Taliban.
“Dear Tollybahn, this is when we are leaving. Please be patient, I am giving you the country back.”
I have long been a proponent of the Nostradamous approach above. Or, at least, a modified, “whack a mole” approach; pull out, leave informants, hit priority targets with over the horizon technology like drones when they get comfortable enough to expose themselves. . . and never, ever stop.
Meanwhile, thinning our line just as the enemy becomes emboldened kept me up all night, as my son just took up his post close to the Pak border. Der Kline Furher doesn’t give a rat’s ass how many of the rear guard perish so long as his gesture get’s him another free ride. Dispecable doesn’t begin to descirbe this POS who poses over the coffins of the fallen and a few weeks later tells those still living what “great photo opps they are”.
“Grab ’em by the balls…their Hearts and Minds will follow.” – Probably attributable to some whizz-bang hero, but well-understood by every grunt who ever took a dump between infantry shoes.
@Wordsmith:
Yes, and the troops achieved a measure of success nevertheless … then the Agitator-In-Chief repeats the idiotic mistake of announcing a timeline to the enemy last night! What’s the frequency, Barry? Are you trying to engineer military defeat, Barry?
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
9 ROTA means 9th company in Russian and the movie, on YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15IrsERboHs&feature=related is their cut on All Quiet On The Western Front and Red Badge Of Courage. The dialogue is Russian so I watched it in mute listening to my classic music station but the drama of young men sent away on dead end missions cannot be denied.
@Nostradamus:
You are absolutely correct. The Army is culling almost 8500 officers. That is a lot. A lot of the younger enlisted are blacks and if they cannot get into the Army or other service, they will join the almost 44% unemployment (unbelievable but true) for their age group. What I see are the men and women accepted because there was a shortage and were over weight or had other issues will no longer be able to re enlist and or enlist. All those officers that look like they are going to give birth anytime (and I am not talking about women) will probably be seeing themselves riffed .
I also think about all the men and women who have died fighting in Afghanistan. Will their deaths have been invain?
Kori Schake:
Let me ask y’all this: what was our goal in Afghanistan? The killing of ObL. And what is our goal there now? Is it nation building? Giving the Afghanis computers and cell phones? Most of the nation lives in the 7th century. These are people who view the rape of a woman punishment for her [presumed] crimes. Do you think you are going to change that anytime soon?
These are mostly tribals who are completely iliterate to the modern world. These are not Iraqis. At least the Iraqis were familiar with the 20th century.
Now, you may say that our goal is to defeat the Taliban. This is not like defeating Nazi Germany. It is more like defeating gangbangers in seven different cities, each one is separate from the other with its own system of hiarchy. There is no central Talibal, at least not as we understand it.
So I want to know the goal and what can be acheived by leaving our troops to die over there. Hey, don’t get me wrong; we were right to go into Afghanistan after 9-11 and dismantle the Taliban. But if you think we are going to elimiate terrorism by more American deaths there, you are wrong. You would have to kill every Muslim in every nation in the world to do that.
Pull our troops out. End the nation building. Hell, as soon as we build a school there, the enemy blows it up so we can rebuilt it again. Stop the cycle. End the billions of $$ that we are dumping into Afghanistan. If the Afghanis want western styled government and western styled freedom, they are the only ones that can bring that about.
I heard a Marine on a talk show today and the host asked him about his two tours in Afghanistan and what surprised him the most. The Marine said that he asked one of the tribal elders what the elder thought about the Jews. The elder ask the Marine “What’s a Jew”. So again, what is our goal there? To stop the advance of radical Islam, to protect the Afghanis from themselves, to nationn build in a nation where most can’t even read a Qu’ran? What? Explain it to me.
Afghans, trace their heritage back to Alexander, are great horsemen; they play polo with the head of a goat.
Nostradamus: Thank You, your adventures leave me feeling nostalgic. It’s a shame they don’t want old farts like me; it’s true I can no longer run 20 miles with rifle, pack, and ammo, but I am a lot smatter and still a damn good shot. You can bet if my country asks us old guys to go to an armory and draw our war gear, I will be one of the first to arrive.
Word: “Obama’s Withdrawal Speech”, sort of sounds like a goodbye because of a neurosis; we should be so lucky! FOMHL (Fall Off My Horse Laughing)