BARACK OBAMA'S UNINFORMED PLAN FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
He has made one trip to Iraq. He has never been to Afghanistan. His military policy decisions are based on a long standing anti-war agenda and advice from everyone EXCEPT active commanders in the field like General David Patraeus.
Yet Barack Obama has now seen fit to make a major policy statement concerning Iraq, Afghanistan and the on going was against terrorism. Appeasing the liberal left calling for a complete pull out from Iraq within 16 months of his perceived election as President regardless of the situation or the adverse effect it would have on the region. Then stating that the, "war," in Afghanistan is one ,"we have to win," as if we are losing and it has been a neglected field of battle.
His comments on Afghanistan are also designed to appease those in the middle who though war weary still understand that we are at war and we are at war for the purpose of victory. My first question abouts Obama's, "policy," is similar to that of GOP nominee John McCain's response to Obama's plan.
How can anyone make any type of plan for Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere that US forces are engaged without first understanding the situation from first hand experience by visiting the field of battle, and second without informed information from those who are in command and as such have detailed intelligence from the perspective of active military situations ?
His contention that ,"we have to win," in Afghanistan is insinuating that we are losing and that Afghanistan has been neglected because of Iraq, which is an absolute falsehood. Afghanistan has been a theatre that was, "won," long ago. As with any battle theatre there is always a considerable amount of clean up so to speak and Afghanistan is no exception.
The resurgence of activity in Afghanistan is coming from a defeated foe, the Taliban, who understand that what is left of their fighting force has its days numbered and just like an animal who is cornered just before the kill comes out fighting as a last effort for survival.
Yes in order to end this last ditch effort by the defeated Taliban and their Al Qaeda partners it may take an increase in troop strength to bring a final and complete conclusion to the Afghanistan theatre. But to insinuate that we may be losing and that Afghanistan is escalating greatly as Obama is portraying in his policy statement is absurd and uninformed at best.
His contention that we can just, "pull out," of Iraq in 16 months without having massive ramifications especially in light of the tremendous success that has taken place in the last year is a naive and dangerous policy that begs for defeat in the midst of surrender in a theatre that has brought victory and success.
This policy by Obama also follows the continuing Democrat idea that Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate wars and not two theatres of the same war. To portray Iraq and Afghanistan as separate wars would be like saying the European theatre and the Pacific theatre of battle in WWII were actually WWII and WWIII since they both occurred in different geographical areas.
Both theatres of battle, Iraq and Afghanistan have succeeded in destroying terrorist capabilities which has not only made The United States safer but also the rest of the world as terrorist activities worldwide have been almost non-existent except in the two theatres of battle where we have troops defeating this Islamic enemy.
Many on the left will also try and argue that since Iraq's Prime Minister has mentioned a timetable of withdrawal that Obama's idea is more in line with the current situation. But in looking at the negotiation process with the Maliki government the contention about US troop involvement in Iraq is a disagreement over the US idea of five years and the Maliki governments idea of two or three years NOT 16 months as Obama suggests.
Also both the US and Maliki positions are based on security situations in Iraq and NOT just a blanket pull out decision like that of Barack Obama. Maliki is also trying to appease Shiite hardliners like Muqtada Sadr who have long called for the end of all US presence in Iraq regardless of the military or security situation.
In his Iraq/Afghanistan plan Barack Obama is once again showing his complete naive approach to foreign and especially military affairs as well as his massive inexperience with dealing with real situations as opposed to making blanket statements in order to try and get votes and satisfy liberals who back his candidacy.
Ken Taylor
Yet Barack Obama has now seen fit to make a major policy statement concerning Iraq, Afghanistan and the on going was against terrorism. Appeasing the liberal left calling for a complete pull out from Iraq within 16 months of his perceived election as President regardless of the situation or the adverse effect it would have on the region. Then stating that the, "war," in Afghanistan is one ,"we have to win," as if we are losing and it has been a neglected field of battle.
His comments on Afghanistan are also designed to appease those in the middle who though war weary still understand that we are at war and we are at war for the purpose of victory. My first question abouts Obama's, "policy," is similar to that of GOP nominee John McCain's response to Obama's plan.
How can anyone make any type of plan for Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere that US forces are engaged without first understanding the situation from first hand experience by visiting the field of battle, and second without informed information from those who are in command and as such have detailed intelligence from the perspective of active military situations ?
His contention that ,"we have to win," in Afghanistan is insinuating that we are losing and that Afghanistan has been neglected because of Iraq, which is an absolute falsehood. Afghanistan has been a theatre that was, "won," long ago. As with any battle theatre there is always a considerable amount of clean up so to speak and Afghanistan is no exception.
The resurgence of activity in Afghanistan is coming from a defeated foe, the Taliban, who understand that what is left of their fighting force has its days numbered and just like an animal who is cornered just before the kill comes out fighting as a last effort for survival.
Yes in order to end this last ditch effort by the defeated Taliban and their Al Qaeda partners it may take an increase in troop strength to bring a final and complete conclusion to the Afghanistan theatre. But to insinuate that we may be losing and that Afghanistan is escalating greatly as Obama is portraying in his policy statement is absurd and uninformed at best.
His contention that we can just, "pull out," of Iraq in 16 months without having massive ramifications especially in light of the tremendous success that has taken place in the last year is a naive and dangerous policy that begs for defeat in the midst of surrender in a theatre that has brought victory and success.
This policy by Obama also follows the continuing Democrat idea that Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate wars and not two theatres of the same war. To portray Iraq and Afghanistan as separate wars would be like saying the European theatre and the Pacific theatre of battle in WWII were actually WWII and WWIII since they both occurred in different geographical areas.
Both theatres of battle, Iraq and Afghanistan have succeeded in destroying terrorist capabilities which has not only made The United States safer but also the rest of the world as terrorist activities worldwide have been almost non-existent except in the two theatres of battle where we have troops defeating this Islamic enemy.
Many on the left will also try and argue that since Iraq's Prime Minister has mentioned a timetable of withdrawal that Obama's idea is more in line with the current situation. But in looking at the negotiation process with the Maliki government the contention about US troop involvement in Iraq is a disagreement over the US idea of five years and the Maliki governments idea of two or three years NOT 16 months as Obama suggests.
Also both the US and Maliki positions are based on security situations in Iraq and NOT just a blanket pull out decision like that of Barack Obama. Maliki is also trying to appease Shiite hardliners like Muqtada Sadr who have long called for the end of all US presence in Iraq regardless of the military or security situation.
In his Iraq/Afghanistan plan Barack Obama is once again showing his complete naive approach to foreign and especially military affairs as well as his massive inexperience with dealing with real situations as opposed to making blanket statements in order to try and get votes and satisfy liberals who back his candidacy.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:24 AM
12 Comments:
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is calling for a dramatic reduction in forces in Iraq and a redeployment to Afghanistan. I suspect that Defense Secretary Gates believes exactly the same thing - because he hasn't disputed the position of the Chairman. This is EXACTLY what Obama has been calling for for more than a year.
The Iraqis are literally kicking us out of the country. They don't want us there because Iran doesn't want us there. There won't be a long-term agreement for us to keep our forces there.
Here is the bottom line, we will be largely out of Iraq no matter who the President is by the end of 2010 - because Iraqis want us out. It doesn't matter what U.S. desires are.
On the other major front, we have to re-establish ourselves in Afghanistan because the job was never completed. Poor decision-making and leadership by Bush is what has caused this.
the call for a reduction in forces in Iraq today is not the same as a call for reduction in forces one year ago! That is comparing apples to oranges. That would be like a woman be pregnant and the doctor saying the baby should be born nine months after conception and the other person saying the baby should be born today. When the doctor delivers the baby after nine months from conception and is heathy for the person who called for it to be born months earlier saying - see the doctor agrees with me the baby should be born - I called for it to be born months ago!
You're right, had we left a year ago, we would have adequate forces in Afghanistan and have it under control. We also would have saved about $120 billion and about 500 American soldiers lives, and thousands more maimed.
Now, we have to go back to Afghanistan in a more dangerous environment which will result in greater numbers of American casualties because the enemy has regrouped.
Plus, on top of all of that, we wouldn't look like idiots who have overstayed their welcome and are now being kicked out of Iraq.
Too bad we didn't go with Obama's plan earlier.
Folks can fool themselves into believing that McCain will help them survive the next four years just because of his skin color. Because that is all upon which you are banking. They don't understand why Obama made his speech before he went to Iraq. That's because Obama is not going to change what he said even after he goes there. If he is our president, we will be leaving Iraq. Goodbye.
McCain wanted to invade Iraq. He also wanted to stay in Vietnam when he had a chance to come home and lead a convoy to rescue the men he left there. His father was a man high up in the military so it could have been arranged. McCain knew exactly where the men were, how many guards were there and when most of them would be sleeping. So McCain doesn't know as much about how to win wars as he believes.
I'm certain McCain knows a heck of a lot more about how to win wars than Obama!
I agree with your sentiments, Ken, and so I don't need to reiterate them here in the comment thread. I also loved the video. I've seen it before but watched it again anyway. :)
Good grief. What war has McCain won? He doesn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni. He doesn't know which group is Al Qaeda.
Here is the bottom line - we are leaving Iraq. They don't want us there and are forcing us out.
The British routinely lost entire
armies in attempting to subdue the
tribes of Afghanistan. The soviet
approach used air power and over
100,000 troops for nine long years.
Afghans hate foreigners. Period.
McCain and Obama are both weak on understanding that mountain culture, an understanding that is
essential for any counterinsurgency. We could better waste our taxes here at home....
Are you serious BB? Remember it was bin Laden supported by the Taliban - IN AFGHANISTAN - that attacked us.
Now you just want to walk away and give up on destroying our real enemy and bringing bin Laden to justice.
We know Bush isn't going to do it, but now you want our next president to essentially just forget about 9/11?
Our job in Iraq was finished long ago. The job in Afghanistan has been "on hold" all these years. Conservatives here think the job's done. Okay, if the regrouping of Taliban doesn't bother you. Guess it doesn't.
Obama doesn't need to learn how to WIN wars, until he's involved in waging one. Then he WOULD consult people like Petraeus. The difference is that McCain wants to "win" a non-war, and Obama wants to end the charade - and the war profiteering back home.
Our job in Afghanistan is NOT to help the government stay secure, or to provide military that serves their interests. We have one focused goal in Afghanistan: To get the Taliban, al Qaeda, bin Laden, Zawahiri, and as many of their people as we can. Period.
We might have taken on the burden of helping Afghanistan in other ways, but that's too late now. Because of BUSH.
Why, you ask? Guess warmongers don't do their homework. Look up the Constitution of Afghanistan, the one BUSH helped them write, and which BUSH approved of. It states that no law can be written which offends or violates Islam. Bingo! Instant Islamic State. Thanks to BUSH. How does it sit with you that your tax dollars are going to support the new Taliban over there?
From that point onward, it was hopeless for us to try to help Afghanistan build a democracy that they didn't have.
Thanks a pantload, BUSH.
Now they have religious courts in Afghanistan. They can put a death penalty on anyone perceived to have "offended Islam," or committed blasphemy, by TALIBAN-TYPE STANDARDS. It is THIS that BUSH still calls a "democracy." Democracy??? Well, I suppose BUSH would want to have his own religious courts...
The Taliban still rules Afghanistan, a Taliban-redux, with new faces. It's the old Taliban who want to regain their power there, that's all. All of that, thanks to BUSH. And McCain thinks it's all just dandy. Maybe he's good at looking at military situations "on the ground," but where it comes to doing his OWN homework, McCain is as intellectually bankrupt as BUSH. And it's the homework which is more important, by far.
We owe the Afghani government exactly NOTHING. But they'd better let us hunt down the terrorists on their land, since it was THEIR country which was used to launch 9/11.
In Iraq, we'd have done far better to reinstate their old monarchy than to try to "give them" democracy. Any high school student could easily know what that would have meant in Iraq. But not BUSH.
Somebody forgot to tell both BUSH and McCain that the Iraq war was over a couple of years ago. We "won" it, for what good that did: i.e., nothing but make worse problems. He opened a Pandora's Box with the invasion, and no "surge" is ever going to put back the evil which Saddam (albeit with savage methods) had held down. More have died since the invasion than Saddam ever killed. So which, truly, was the worse?
We've said "never again" to genocide (though followthrough has much to be desired). So we should also say "never again" to anyone with a sixth-grade mentality and a theocratic dream for America - prohibiting such people from running for any office in the land; even city clerk of a small town.
Iraq is going to turn into a Shiite Islamic State sooner or later. With "majority rules" and a Shiite majority, it's inevitable, whether we stick around or not. There will be genocide, of course, but we can't stop that by staying there. In due time, they'll stop waiting and start it anyway.
Iraq was lost from the moment BUSH decided to invade. It will never be a democracy. The people themselves only "want it" for themselves. Ask if they want it for the "other sect" and you'll get an answer that explains why we've overstayed there, rather eloquently. Provided, of course, they answer honestly; it's required by their faith to lie to us infidels.
Do you think those Sunnis who have joined us in Iraq give one rat's behind about US? They're using us, for now, but the hate is exactly what it ever was, and if they decide it's a good time to kill our people, they won't bat an eye before doing it. Geez, man, we're INFIDELS. That's reason enough to kill anyone, to them.
If Obama can't have a solid opinion without going there, talking to Petraeus, and seeing how things are "on the ground" (I'm wholeheartedly sick of that phrase already), then I guess you and I aren't entitled to opinions, either.
I don't recall Obama saying he felt guided by Maliki's desires about our pulling out, or obligated to consult him about a matter that is entirely our own. What Iraq wants isn't necessarily what America should DO. We've done our job there. Saddam is gone. They now have a "democracy" all their own, to abuse at will. If they want to use what we've given them to slaughter one another, that's THEIR concern, not ours. I don't want OUR people in harm's way, in the middle of THEIR bloodlust.
All Petraeus can tell Obama or McCain is how well his mission is going, entirely from a military point of view, and from the point of view of his ORDERS. He is not someone who needs to be consulted on policy. Sure, the surge has resulted in less violence. Nobody has to go to Iraq to talk to him to know that much. But that isn't "success" or "winning" anything; it's just using military might to intimidate a violence-prone population. Nor is the military situation there the basis for policy. Consulting Petraeus is only of value in determining present military status and future tactics. We don't need to even be there to go after Al Qaeda In Iraq any more. When we leave, the Shiites' genocide will deal with them rather efficiently, I'd think. Sure, it'll be heinous, but we can't stop it, no matter what we do.
Mc Cain, like BUSH, keeps talking about "success" and, of course, about "losing" and "surrendering" (surrendering...what?). It isn't losing to leave when the job's done. Nor is success defined except to say that Iraq should have a stable government capable of insuring security for all its people. If that's the measure of success, we'd be in Iraq forever. It can never be stable with the two Islamic sects and the Kurds as mortal enemies. The only "peace" it can ever give its people is the Hitler-ish kind we're giving them now with the surge: heavily armed troops ready to shoot anyone who tries to be violent. I suppose to a warmonger, that's real "peace." It isn't to lots of other people, all over the world, including MOST Americans.
We ARE losing in Afghanistan. We HAVE neglected that war. How has that failed to register on the right? These authors think Afghanistan was "won" long ago. It seems they, like BUSH, have forgotten bin Laden. I guess that isn't their REAL reason for military involvement there. So, ah, what IS? Letting them gouge us for money under the pretext of being a democracy? Or is it possibly to allow BUSH to feel like a man? Our job in Afghanistan is NOT done, by a long shot, and that is so, no matter WHAT the Karzai government says. We didn't invade Afghanistan just to liberate the people; we did it to get at the 9/11 terrorists. We blew our one good chance, and haven't lifted a finger in that direction since.
What we need now is NOT a president who knows how to win wars; we need one who knows how to prevent and/or end them. A subject which probably gives McCain hives. Besides, McCain doesn't begin to know how to win a war; he got caught in Nam, remember? He sold out to his captors, never helped his still-imprisoned "buddies," and has voted against virtually EVERY bill intended to benefit vets. Nice guy, our "war hero" McCain.
Anyone who thinks reconciliation of any kind in Iraq is possible has never tried to read the Quran and Hadith, or learned jack about Islamic history. It's a 1400-year-old bloodfeud, and only total annihilation of the other sect is acceptable to either side. And BUSH thinks the "surge" is going to handle that? He thinks we are able to "win hearts and minds" who hate us for the simple capital crime of being infidels? They're elated when we go after the other sect after they were attacked, but when their OWN terrorists are gone after, they hum a different tune, and it's the other side spitting nickels. Dohhh.
McCain is a military man who thinks the military is the be-all and end-all to all international problems. That's the very LAST thing we need. Maybe if he cracked a book occasionally...
We're heavily in Iraq, while Afghanistan gets worse for lack of the military we need to go after the terrorists on both sides of Afghanistan's borders. It's the oil, of course. And people like Halliburton, too.
The entire GOP, politicians and constituents, subscribe to the value that "some people are 'more equal' than others." Maybe it wasn't always that way, but it sure is today. Personal agendas, heavy self-interest (such as guns or getting richer, or taking over the country), religious lunacy, and, of course, most of Americas bigots and haters, are the leading voices in that party. You could probably count the genuine conservatives who do NOT fall into one of those categories, on one hand. All right, maybe two.
Quite frankly, I'd rather say "screw the oil" and go after the terrorists. Yeah, that's coming from a liberal. Sure, it would cost us. Probably as much as the depression did. We WOULD, however, recover from it. But what has pursuing oil, at any cost, already cost us? In lives? In treasure? In neglect of other urgent priorities, other more serious threats to our security? The oil priority has actually COST us catching terrorists. BUSH'S whole intention with the War on Terror was to get an excuse to lay his hands on Mideast Oil. And, of course, to get re-elected.
And we DO know, don't we, that except for the first plane to hit the WTC, the rest of 9/11 was entirely homegrown? The evidence is there, for all to see, and its indisputable. Not to mention that the "official" report claimed things happened that day that violate the most basic, unshakable laws of physics, like the Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Momentum. Little stuff like that.
Not all military violence is unjustified, even to a dove like me. Genocide being one of the valid reasons for war. A reason we've NEVER cited, even once, as a reason for any war. Probably never will, either, at least not with neocon warhawks in charge.
And did ANYBODY even think that, rather than stopping the growing of poppies, the GOVERNMENT should mandate that it ALL be sold to legitimate pharmaceutical companies of the world? It's the opium capital of the world, so let their harvests bring down the cost of pain relievers and anesthetics, and insure there's always an ample supply - which there never is, especially in places like Afghanistan itself, where medical supplies are minimal. Make it a capital crime to sell any poppies to any terrorist group, or to anyone OTHER than the legitimate drug companies. They could compete over the supply, and the farmers would gain a proper return for their efforts. The only losers, then, would be Taliban and their ilk. Now, a program like that would merit our full support. I'd bet Karzai's people have indeed thought of it, and want no part of it. Because the Karzai regime IS Taliban - the new one.
But to expect something that simple, that reasonable, from an Islamic State which is enjoying googobs of OUR money, and the respect due to a genuine democracy? Ahem.
What's unfortunate is that these things I mentioned are well reasoned and appropriate; the reason the conservatives will refuse to accept them is because they DON'T WANT TO. I'd sure hate to feel that locked into attitudes that are so indefensible. I'd have trouble getting out of bed in the mornings.
Fortunately, America can now boast of a number of former Republicans, who, themselves, want to be able to feel good enough about themselves to smile when they wake up.
It didn't take long into this post to see how preposterous it would be. Obama isn't "appeasing the liberal left" by wanting to leave Iraq. He is acknowledging the will (finally, someone is) of the American people, the Iraqi people, and of the world. There is no war in Iraq. There is an occupation. It has to end.
AHEM.....
The Mission in Iraq and Afghanistan will be finished when the Troops, THE TROOPS and GENERALS on the ground say it's finished. And not 1 moment before!
Even Obama Cant stop this.
Dont dillude yourselves.
No Marie. It is already over and it is coming to an end in Iraq. The Iraqi government wants us out. When Obama takes office, he will work with the generals to roll out a redeployment plan that will remove most of our troops.
Because of Bush's incompetence, we are now going to be in Afghanistan for some time. The Taliban and al Qaeda have reconstituted themselves in Afghanistan.
The Joint Chiefs and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon are already planning for the redeployment out of Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home