Afghanistan and Obama
The current Obama review of U.S. policy going forward in Afghanistan is a scenario sure to give any thinking observer a case of nerves. Our Commander in Chief is making decision about our conduct of a war with significant primary input concerning it’s conduct coming from politicians.
General McChrystal whom the Commander in Chief put in charge of the war in Afghanistan, has recommended increasing the troop level by 40,000. Obama has responded by stating that he would not significantly reduce the troop level on station in Afghanistan.
I’m trying to figure out how a commitment not to reduce troops addresses the military assessment that there should be an increase of about 65% in troop level.
The New York Times reported: “A joint appearance afterward on the White House driveway by the two top Democratic Congressional leaders demonstrated Mr. Obama’s political challenge. “The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we’ll support it basically,” said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader.
But Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, smiled and raised her eyebrows in apparent disagreement. “Whether we agreed with it or voted for it remains to be seen when we see what the president puts forth,” she said. “
Here’s the answer for Obama’s equivocation on the Afghan decision making process. Our “Nancy” with a smile and a tilt of her eyebrows indicates that military decisions need to meet her approval. Once again Nancy is making it clear that she knows best and she will be a factor in determining our military future in Afghanistan.
I asked my brother in law what he thought about all this. He was one of those Marines who were in Viet Nam before most of us even knew where it was. I can’t quote him exactly without more deletes than words being printed. He in essence said that “he was against any war with a —-ant country that was politically motivated with strategy determined by politicians who didn’t know which end of the rifle to point at the enemy. He said: “I fought one of those stupid wars and I don’t want any young Americans to fight another war with politicians creating the strategy that should be determined by the warriors.”
I knew that my brother in law would be a clear thinker on this subject. When he returned to the States he talked me out of re-enlisting in the Corps in 1964 with the same argument he uses today. “If a war is worth fighting give the warriors what they need to kill the enemy, otherwise don’t go to war”. I think that this Administration and Nancy are totally incapable of understanding the dedication, risk and hardships that our troops are willing to endure for the protection of America.
What I heard in 1964 is true today and needs repeating.
If this is a war worth pursuing, either give the troops what they need to kill the enemy and win, or get out. Now!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Semper Fi back at you Heath. As a correction to the Post- My B-in law reminded me that it was “65″ when we ran into each other at Cherry Point, both in transit to new duty. He didn’t want me doing any flying over there shortly after we gave him his first nephew. I took his advice and ended my service in early “66″.
When I visit DC many of the names on “The Wall” bring a recollection of those events every time–with very clear opinions concerning the actions of politicians.
What, exactly, IS “the effort”? What’s the mission in Afghanistan? What’s the goal? How do we measure it? How will we know when it’s “done”?
When a “Mission Accomplished” banner suddenly materializes on an aircraft carrier?
diogenis, Note that I said:
“If a war is worth fighting give the warriors what they need to kill the enemy, otherwise don’t go to war”.
Your questions are fairly stated and are a simpler way of expressing some of my concerns.
Politicians puzzling over troop levels when young men are being killed is not an activity that they should be working on. The goal should be clearly defined and the troops will tell you when that goal is met. Banners won’t.
In a firefight the immediate goal is met when the enemy is dead or surrenders and the shooting stops. Spending any lives on specious political designs is something we seem to do all too often on both sides of the aisle.
Buck, WOW! Great piece. Tell your Brother in lay, “Semper Fi” for me.
A couple quick thoughts:
1. Many of same people who support Obama were the same people who criticized Bush for not listening to the Generals in command when they asked for more troops. The surge proved effective in Iraq, but it was too late for the political cycle. Why are these people not calling out Obama who is not listening to the Generals in command?
2. Many of the politicians like Pelosi and Ried were the same people who wanted us to withraw in Vietnam. They were unwilling to back the effort then and are unwilling to back the effort now.
I have a sticker on my motorcycle helmet that reads, “Vietnam - Good Soldiers, Gutless Politicians”. I see that same thing happening here. What’s worse, is that it is exactly what the gutless politicians want.
Heath