25 Jun

Obama promises US “bugging out” amidst increasing violence

                                       

On the heels of Obama’s version of a “Mission Accomplished speech” just three days ago, apparently some militants in Afghanistan are registering their thumbs up by executing twin suicide bombings in the following days. On Friday, ten people were killed, 24 wounded, by a bicycle bomb detonated in a busy bazaar in Khad Abad district of the northern province of Kunduz. 24 hours later, a car bombing at a hospital in Logar province, just south of Kabul, killed 60, wounded 120. The hospital attack has been called “unprecedented” in the history of the near-decade-long Afghan war by officials.

President Karzai, criticizing Obama’s politically expedient announcement of the US “bug out”, issued a statement stating that that militancy was on the rise in both his country and the Middle East region.

“Not only has Afghanistan not yet achieved peace and security but terrorism is expanding and threatening more than ever Afghanistan and the region,” he told the opening session.

But leaving a country in shambles, unprotected, while promising that the global Islamic jihad movement will be seeing the backs of US soldiers soon, is only half the story of the second time the US has abandoned Afghanistan. In their current status as a high security risk, there is no way the country could be considered an opportune gem by private investors, capable of exploiting Afghanistan’s natural resources, and launching that nation’s entry into the world economy as a player. Indeed, the generations of Afghanistans have all but lost their knowledge of farming for food, substituting it for the more lucrative crop of poppies and heroin. But in one fell swoop, Obama is not only chopping off any possible bright economic future, no longer dependent upon heroin but Afghanistan’s natural mineral resources, but stripping the country of 97% of it’s current GDP. Strip out the military and all associated economic trends associated, and the country is not only left devasted by war, but impoverished… and with little way to rebuild it’s own limited infrastructure.

As Mark Steyn points out in his always stellar commentary, “SpeechWorld vs RealWorld” the word “winning” – when it comes to wars, and not elections – is just not in Obama’s vocabulary.

Unlike [CBO's] Douglas Elmendorf, the Taliban do estimate speeches, and they correctly concluded from the president’s 2009 speech that all they need to do is run out the clock and all or most of the country will be theirs once more. Last week’s update confirmed their estimate. “Winning” is not in Obama’s vocabulary.

Oh, wait. That’s not true. In an earlier unestimated speech, he declared he was committed to “winning the future,” “winning the future” at some unspecified time in the future being a lot easier than winning the war.

In fairness, it’s been two-thirds of a century since America has unambiguously won a war, but throughout that period most presidents were at least notionally committed to the possibility of victory. Obama seems to regard the very concept as something boorish and vulgar that would cause him embarrassment if it came up at dinner parties. So place your bets on how long it will be before Mullah Omar’s back in town. And then ask yourself if America will have anything to show for its decade in Afghanistan that it wouldn’t have had if it had just quit two weeks after toppling the Taliban in the fall of 2001 and left the mullahs, warlords, poppy barons, and pederasts to have at each other without the distraction of extravagant NATO reconstruction projects littering their beautiful land of charmingly unspoilt rubble.

That’s not how the president put it, of course. But then the delightful appeal of an Obama speech is the ever wider gulf between Speechworld and Reality. So in this instance he framed our retreat from the Hindu Kush as an excellent opportunity to stop wasting money overseas and start wasting even more in Washington. Or in his words:

“America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.”

Gee, thanks. If America were a Kandahar wedding, that would be the cue to fire your rifle in the air and grab the cutest nine-year-old boy.

General David Petraeus, successor as NATO guru in Afghanistan, was on the horn within 24 hours after Obama’s “bug out” promises, stating it was a far more aggressive withdrawal than advised by commanders on the ground.

Ya think? Within 48 hours, militants are quite busy blowing up women and children, pointing out to the world that Afghanistan is no where near ready to assume their own security.

Of course, it was only another 24 hours after those remarks that Petraeus was making the rounds, saying he supported Obama’s decision. Must be extremely tough to be a gifted military officer, under the command of a blithering idiot.

Then again, Obama’s decision came as no surprise. When they asked for more “surge” troops, Obama cut that number down. Why would we be surprised if he took back that pittance of troops supplied in a faster manner than deemed wise when backing out of what is an inconvenient war during an election campaign? What we have learned about this POTUS in his three years is that if there’s a way to run a war half assed, Obama has demonstrated remarkable skill in doing so. Ignore the real military leaders, make the active theatre troops do more with less, and meantime take Hillary, Susan Rice and Samatha Power’s advice to start yet another war in Libya.

While many families rightly celebrate the anticipated return of their warriors to US soil, my mind goes back to those that are left behind… to again do more with less, and in a war where violence is escalating, and not winding down.

But the moment that the US confirmed the Bin Laden kill, Obama had his political “out” in announcing a “bugging out”. I guess it doesn’t really matter that we went into Afghanistan in a war against the Taliban, with the expressed desire of regime change, because they harbored Bin Laden and AQ elements. We can only wonder why Bin Laden’s death alters that original intent, as the only place that may be out from under the Taliban’s thumb is the central government’s urban clusters of towns. The outlying tribal areas are firmly entrenched in Taliban and militant control… and only getting more bold.

There is no doubt that Afghanistan presents an entirely different challenge for success than Iraq. The country lacks all of the elements that would bond tribes in a need for a central government which would provide infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and invite an economic environment enticing to foreign investors. But what is undeniable is that a politically expedient withdrawal is nothing short of failure. The country will enjoy no lasting benefits from being war ravaged for a decade, and it’s only a matter of time before it becomes the hotbed of unchecked militants it was before the US and coalition went in.

In the end, the only “mission” that Obama has accomplished is to put a pretty face on “bugging out” and failure for an election talking point, and a desperate attempt to appease his far left anti war base.

But then… there’s still Libya.

About MataHarley

Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
This entry was posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Military, NATO. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, June 25th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
| 523 views

69 Responses to Obama promises US “bugging out” amidst increasing violence

  1. Ivan says: 51

    @MataHarley:

    Yo… rocket scientist. Inconvenient to your hostile emotions come facts.

    Nice. I notice you frequently resort to personal attacks when you’re losing an argument.

    Hey Mata, “the last act of the desperate mind is the personal insult”.

    Game over.

    ReplyReply
  2. Skookum says: 52

    PV, you have a lively debate style that I have missed. Maybe that should read: F Y very much, Sir.

    ReplyReply
  3. Jusme says: 53

    Mata. Like I already said the radiator is hosed and not repairable! Good sourcing about the ISAF timeline. I may have to reassess when Bush screwed up. It may have been in 2001 and not 2003!

    ReplyReply
  4. another vet says: 55

    Actually the people I blame the most for Afghanistan and Iraq are all the armchair generals from the left. They seem to know a lot about war in general and the WOT in particular especially Afghanistan and Iraq, far more than those of us who walked the walk. It seems as though most or none of them were ever in the service though. You’d think they with all of their expertise they would have volunteered their services to their country. Given their vast knowledge and boots on the ground experience, these wars would have been over a long time ago with less American loss of life. Shame on them.

    ReplyReply
  5. Randy says: 56

    @Jusme: I was there when the Canadian government bought the yellow cake and we shipped it to them. I also saw the training sits myself. While I was in Kuwait in 2003, one of our COL who had been a LT in the Iraqi Army was translating the local TV station we were monitoring. There was a video of Saddam giving a check to a family whose son had blown himself up in a terrorist act. Jusme, I am not even going to provide you the references. They are available on the internet. You look them up. I know you won’t because you want to continue to wallow in your ignorance. That is evident from your asinine comments you make without back up.

    President bush didn’t vindicate himself when the WMDs and terrorist connections were finally identified because he did what needed to be done. He was not one to play before the cameras. He didn’t send soldiers to war lightly like your idol Obama.

    ReplyReply
  6. Randy says: 57

    @another vet: I would have made 4 stars if my assessments were always made on Monday morning! You could have been SGM of the Army!!

    ReplyReply
  7. another vet, usualy it apply to coward who are afraid to go to war, and hide their cowardice with attacking the BUSH WAR TIME.
    JUSME IS PROBABLY ONE OF THEM KNOW IT ALL KNOW NOTHING

    ReplyReply
  8. MataHarley says: 59

    @Ivan: Too bad you have to reduce yourself to quoting sell-out Mullen who is nothing more than a political hack for the Obama administration.

    Unless you rely on ADM “Gays in the military are good for moral” Mullen for your arguments.Ivan: Okay, you’er not an “armchair general”, but those who disagree with you are.

    Ivan, to the first idiot comment that we’ve come to expect from you, quoting an Obama devotee that also disagrees with the CiC decision should give a clue, to someone capable of detecting clues that is, a heads up that all is not well in Obama’s fantasy Camelot. Nor is Mullen’s opinion about gays in the military relevant to his assessment of the remaining troops safety – or the success of the mission. Apples and oranges. Can you focus?

    To the second, it’s not being an armchair general to take their advice to heart… unlike you who thinks you know more sitting in the lazy boy.

    @Jusme: We trained Bin laden and the Mujahideen in the fight against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan!

    More brillance from the rocket scientist… oh wait, poor whiny Ivan feels that’s an insult. Or was that “armchair general” that was such a heinous insult? What a pansy ass.

    First of all, justyou, the US did not “train” Bin Laden” in the Soviet/Afghan conflict. All US resources were direct to Hekmatyar, not Omar Mullah… head of the Taliban as created by Benezir Bhutto and her regime…. nor Bin Laden. He was a wannabe grunt in that conflict. The Taliban went to war against Hekmatyar post the Soviets’ exit.

    justhimself: Good sourcing about the ISAF timeline. I may have to reassess when Bush screwed up. It may have been in 2001 and not 2003!

    I see… so the US CiC is now the committee/leadership of NATO. Still fail to see that as you turn over any war to NATO, they figure out the fastest way to lose it, right? And you wonder why most of us never want NATO involved, as you lefties do. Some of us learn from NATOs history of failures. Others? Not so much.

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 60

    @Patvann: maybe it keeps the steam from pouring from your ears to no engage with the idiots that slither out from the rock on the left, or in Ivan’s case, from the right/left. But we always enjoy hearing from you!

    ReplyReply
  10. MataHarley says: 61

    @Jusme: I do love the fact that President Obama has prosecuted the war on terror better than any republican and that it makes conservatives scream to no end to find their one campaign strength other than gutter politics go up in smoke! ROFL!

    uh huh! Right! Like Obama stopping the underwear bomber, despite warning.

    Oh wait.. that was the citizens on the flight….

    OK… how about the Times Square bomber?

    … oops, that doesn’t work either.

    Then, of course, there’s the PC tiptoeing around that left the Ft. Hood shooter a loose cannon.

    How about that shootin’ em up at the recruiters locations in the Carolinas?

    Oh yeah… this POTUS is just marvelous at homeland security. He couldn’t catch a goldfish in a Japanese cha cup.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 62

    @Greg, just because the western media decides not to cover Afghanistan does not mean it’s a “forgotten war”. It just means that the war, being prosecuted by NATO more and more as the stages of responsibility increase, aren’t nearly as sexy as the hot headed debate over Iraq.

    You proved nothing save to substantiate the the media are comprised of bozos. Tell us something new.

    ReplyReply
  12. Patvann says: 63

    @Mata and Skooks…

    I have indeed missed you (and my Beez) as well.

    It’s can sometimes be advantageous to step away for a bit, then take a peek in after a time…
    It can be quite “emboldening” to witness the predictable, but startling-still, re-affirmation of what I think of the wretched NeoFabian dreck that pervades my country.
    They prove themselves to me at every emotional yet ignorant outburst, each time revealing their desperately hidden fears, and malevolent motives.

    ReplyReply
  13. Pingback: Afghanistan and Pakistan eye Obama’s cowardly retreat, and turn to Iran | Flopping Aces

  14. Patvann, you won’t beleive it maybe, but GOSH you beat me to the punch,
    I was going to send you a message to remind you of us here working our brain up,
    no pay, for free, because we love FA and our commenters,
    even if some take a vacation long enough so that we have to go after them,
    because we miss their gentel way of chasing the flyes and the snakes.
    all that to say that I need your support for my candidacy as PRESIDENT
    to be for 2012, I’ll just come at the end to steal it
    bye

    ReplyReply
  15. MataHarley says: 65

    Ms. Beezie… I’ll just come at the end to steal it

    ROTFLMAO!!!!

    ReplyReply
  16. MATA, yes, you would be a greater PRESIDENT THAN I ,
    BUT I’ll take the VICE PRESIDENCY then I can watch your back,
    and give you some advices sometimes, oops that would be your job not mine,
    but I don’t want to go around the WORLD, you would need to hire another from FA,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  17. MATA WE WOULD NEED SOME GOOD CUTTERS THAT ARE SOLID ENOUGH TO CUT A LOT
    OF LAYERS OF CHAINS FROM THE STATUE OF LIBERTY.
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  18. Patvann says: 68

    Miss Beez, you have my vote, and I’m sorry I was away for so long. :-)

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>