Representatives Price and Coffman have the top story at Human Events today, and it is an important one.
Right now, as commander-in-chief, President Obama must lead on Afghanistan, or we risk losing what he has described as the “central front” in our battle against al Qaeda.
This past March, the President laid out his mission for the war: “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” And he inserted his top commander to pull it off, General Stanley McChrystal.
At this moment, the situation in this fragile region is deteriorating. The insurgency is growing more effective and momentum is not on our side. Deaths of American soldiers are on the rise, and our troops lack the resources to turn the tide. General McChrystal, has recently reported that unless the President provides the full resources of a counter-insurgency strategy and does so quickly, we risk “mission failure” within 12 months. This is a view supported by General David Petraeus, now head of US Central Command.
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Men die, Obama lies
johnt Wednesday, October 7th at 3:45PM EST (link)Ah yes, the good war, the one we should have been fighting all along.
Or did Obama and the rest of the liberals [?] mean fighting and losing, slowly but deliberately.
Give him time, he has to think about it, and think about it, and, etc.
Where and how lies the Democrat urges to damage their country, to see it lose in war, to see the US Dollar scorned and repudiated in international markets, the people’s future burdened with national debt, but the list is long and in that destructive list can be located Oama’s & the left’s true ambitions.
“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville
Asking the wrong question
reason60 (Diary) Wednesday, October 7th at 4:13PM EST (link)The Generals Petraeus and MacChrystal were given a directive: To come up with a strategy to win the war. In this case, winning was defined as providing enough security so that the Afghan government can operate.
They were not asked whether or not this goal is realistic, or reasonable, or acheivable. There hasn’t really been such a debate publicly.
Based on what has happened in the past 8 years, I think it is unreasonable to think that a stable functioning Afghan government can be created anytime soon. There doesn’t seem to be the will or ability of the Afghan people or politicians or warlords to create any sort of government that would be much different than the Taliban itself.
Continuing to fight on, when in 8 years we have only been able to control 20% of the country seems like throwing good after bad.
The central tenet- that we must stabilize Afghanistan otherwise Al-Quaida will return and launch another attack seems fallacious; there are many lawless and unstable regions of the world, and AQ can launch another attack from any of them. Yet we simply can’t be the world’s policeman, community organizer, and social worker. This is Wilsonian liberalism on steroids.
Containment and readiness seems like a better strategy.
Recent Australian report describes Taliban in charge
katesmith (Diary) Wednesday, October 7th at 8:28PM EST (link)9/27/09, The Age/Australia: “The Taliban have declared war on a $114 million road being built with US funds. Paul McGeough and SBS Dateline cameraman David Brill travelled to Afghanistan’s south-east, where insurgents get their cut of the money through a protection racket.
EVERYONE, even the Taliban, gets a slice of the action when it comes to building roads in Afghanistan….It is effectively the Taliban who decide which local contractors will work on a project – either by setting a level of protection money that the contractor can afford to pay, or by using bullets and bombs to halt their participation entirely. The Taliban also keep an eye on local individuals who get work on the project – especially those doing the all-important security jobs.”…”Insurgents Play a Perilous Mountain Game”