This is NObama’s philosophy, and the timing cannot possibly be coincidental: the symbolism is clear, and in diplomacy symbolism counts for quite a bit. The Russians have a free hand to re-dominate the East, to ally with Iran, and to do whatever, because we have not moral imperative to stop them.

The Chinese must be delighted, as they circle “TAIWAN” on their maps.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100010237/barack-obama-surrenders-to-russia-on-missile-defence/

Surrender in Afghanistan and Iraq will be coming sooner rather than later: the Chinese will only be further emboldened in the Pacific.

Prepare for allies to start wavering and making their accomodations with the new barbarians bringing down civilization. I will be assembling a diary on that topic in a few days.

Petitions may have little impact on the decision process of the CinC, but what else can you do to help prevent him from being foolish?

http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/give_them_what_they_need/

As an old soldier who spent several years in Vietnam during that ‘late unpleasantness’, I subscribe to the doctrine which states: “If you are going to fight . . .
Fight.
Don’t **** around.”

Unfortunately, before our military will ever be permitted to take the fight to the enemy someone is going to have to precisely state:

1. What are our (political, diplomatic, military) goals in Afghanistan? To kill Taliban and deny the country to alQueda is simply NOT a credible national goal of any type (although I find nothing wrong with it).

2. For the love of god, for once since the end of WWII will somebody PLEASE define the term : “WIN” as it applies to the military effort in that particular rat hole.

Not only must a purpose and military mission be defined for Afghanistan, but also someone must articulate criteria to determine when our national security goals have been met.

Anybody want to take bets upon when or whether this (or any) commander-in-chief will rise to the occasion and offer some guidance on these topics.

My advice is not to take bets on it.

Since the end of WWII it has become ‘politically expedient’ for the American nomenclatura to send Americans off to foreign killing fields with a Hurrah, a pat on the back, a wink at each other – and no mission and no measurable goals other than to find, fix, close with and kill the enemy.

If that practice wasn’t dangerous and repugnant enough during the halcyon days when American leadership was at least knowledgeable, marginally capable and (somewhat) patriotic – and we had definable enemies – how dangerous can we suppose it is today with national leadership with none of those qualities?

We are in trouble as a nation also as a somewhat frayed culture. We have no national leadership. None in the White House and certainly nowhere to be seen in the Cabinet or among our expanding tribe of Czars.

Congress is controlled by leftist, nihilistic, America disdaining political ghouls interested only in the application of their considerable power not for the benefit of the nation – but to achieve their own narrow political goals, regardless of the costs to our purse, our culture, our national security and our standing among the nations of the world.

Our political parties appear to be reoriented from the country’s and citizen’s welfare to primarily that of the Party, itself, and its leadership.

So, what if we ‘win’ or ‘lose’ in Afghanistan? What will be our next (mis)step at home or abroad. That is the leadership’s attitude – in my opinion.

I am too quickly becoming convinced that our national leadership is getting even with this ‘rotten country’. Anybody here old enough to remember the anti-everything Weather Underground’s warning of the sixties: (I paraphrase). ‘You are too strong for us – at this moment. We will disappear today, and tomorrow we will reappear among you as your political leadership, teachers, police, parents, grandparents, etc., etc.,’

Well, Red State friends: They’re Here.

The chicken-hearted Republicans are afraid to stand up and say exactly what we have written here: but this is exactly what America needs to realize.

W. Bush’s tongue-tied leadership – and at times just downright silent leadership – never delivered this message forcefully enough. Part of the problem also was Rumsfeld’s idea on doing things as cheaply as possible: that led to disenchantment and the growth of the anti-war movement, and ultimately was a factor in electing NObama.

But of course we cannot expect leadership from NObama for a war. He has little to no interest in Afghanistan, as is obvious.

As always, ignore the rhetoric: what is he doing?

If we get hit again, he will simply apologize to the attackers for our years of racist imperialism and hand them a bouquet of flowers. He will tell America it is time to move on and not seek revenge against those with legitimate complaints against us.

The sheer absurdity of that statement is beyond description. The latest dismal concerns floating around are comparisons of Afghanistan to Viet Nam. You want a comparison? Allowing the enemy a sanctuary determines that the war cannot ever be won. That was one of the major lessons learned from Viet Nam. You don’t give an enemy sanctuary; you don’t give an enemy quarter.

And you sure as #### do not bleed the US soldier to death, drop by [political calculus] drop.

I mean really, does anyone think that Obama cares about American soldiers dying?

And who says the Left can’t learn from history.

And if Islamist control of Afghanistan and Pakistan is the cost of keeping the hard left on board with his ObamaCare “compromises”* to get it through, so be it.

Foreign policy is always subservient to domestic policy priorities and partisan political interests in this administration.

* I put quotes around “compromises” because Obama knows that he’ll get to Single Payer in the end once he gets the camel’s nose under the tent. So it’s no compromise he has in mind, just a road bump. He’s got the long view, which some of the hard left enthusiasts don’t have; they want it now, Obama is willing to set up the framework for Communism and wait a bit longer for the rest to fall in place.

To be fair: W. Bush fooled around too long with NATO nonsense in Afghanistan. I have read that radiation bombs, missiles with MOAB’s etc. are in our arsenal: in those cave areas they should have been used a long time ago. Seal the caves off and in two weeks anybody left alive will be dead.

But if W. Bush did not use them, for whatever reason, we know that NObama will not consider them either.

Others and I myself have written about the contradictions inherent in electing a crypto-pacifist president in an era when pacifism equates to a kick-me sign taped to the back of Uncle Sam, as you indicate above.

As I wrote this morning, storm clouds are gathering in various places, and Nobama’s little dove of peace will be hit by lightning.