Is This Obama's War?

Posted by johnhouk on Sep 12, 2009
 During President Obama’s campaign for the Office he was elected, his Global War on Terror (GWOT) theme was the Iraq war theatre was the wrong war and that Afghanistan war theatre is the right war. After all the Islamic terrorists that attacked American soil on September 11, 2001 was organized from al Qaeda Afghanistan under the protection of Taliban Afghanistan.

I have been reading that the so-called Obama’s War in Afghanistan is being screwed up by a strategy of politically correct care and protection of Afghan/Pakistani civilians living among and probably supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda Islamic terrorists. This is a typical policy of defeat that instills bad morale among otherwise gung-ho American troops.

This is touched in detail by Gary H. Johnson, Jr. in a series of AfPak Reader thoughts posted at SlantRight HERE.

I encourage you to read a Judge Bob post dealing with some of this defeatist thinking the Obama Administration is pursuing.

JRH 9/11/09
***************************
Is This Obama's War?

By JudgeBob
September 11, 2009
JudgeRight

Today marks the first 9/11 anniversarry with a new POTUS holding the reigns of the American military. In case anyone has forgotten, we are still involved in the wars that event kicked off. How has the new POTUS handled the job of defender of the free world? That is what is coming to light in this week. Ben pointed this out to me, and I thank him. Presidential policies matter in world events and during a hot war, they matter to each and every volunteer in our armed services because their careers, reputations, and especially their lives may be called on the line at any moment.

So, let us examine the president's performance in the war effort. August 31, 09 the McClatchy reported that the Pentagon is Worried About Obama's Commitment to Afghanistan.

[The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama's administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.]

Violence has been escalating in Afganistan and three different polls indicate support for the war in Afghanistan is declining in the American public. Obama and staff are said to have thought there would be more support for the Afghan war effort though they criticized the Iraq war effort as wrong. (??) Dopes! The left don't support any military action or use unless its peaceful. Without decisive action, of course the people don't want to be involved in putting troops into engagement with their hands manacled. War is not a place or time for half measures. The POTUS position is one of leadership, not polling the public for followship.

[However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.]

The troop level assessment indicates bureaucracy is hampering military effectiveness. It isn't specifically stated, but the indication is that this bureaucracy is rolling down from the administration, a fear running through the brass that an 'incident' may be used to prosecute military staff and nobody wants to fall on their proverbial sword to cover the president's political ass since his administration is demonstrating their own willingness to be the political steam roller that threatens them, so brass will not take the necessary risks to win this war.

[The assessment also calls for more U.S. government civilians to be sent to Afghanistan and for the streamlining of the military's command structure, saying that too much bureaucracy is making it difficult for commanders to make decisions on the ground.]

Tuesday September 8, 09. McClatchy again, this time reporting about the cost to troops in blood due to the indecisive commanders in the field afraid to risk an incident. "We're Pinned Down!" 4 US Troops Die in Afghan Ambush

[U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.]

Back to the Pentagon is worried piece; at the same time that the violence is escalating and the troops are suffering greater losses, due to bureaucratic failure to risk an incident, the commanders are feeling added pressure to make progress. Bureaucracies suck. They suck exponentially when a commander in chief adds fear in his officers by his indecisive waffling for fear of criticism from the world and its left leaning press.

[ Meanwhile, U.S. military commanders in Kabul feel the political clock ticking, saying they think they have no more than 18 months to show some kind of progress, even as most agree that they don't have enough troops.]

Taliban's Growth in Afghanistan's North Threatens to Expand War Friday August 28, 09 McClatchy

This kind of crap is what encourages our enemies to hang on, if they just hold out, America will defeat itself. Eight years in and now we're seeing a growth in the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. President, be the leader you have to be. If you could see past your ego, you might recognize that George Bush was a far superior intellect if for no other reason than his commitment to finish what he started. Oh but wait, this isn't YOUR war, is it? Today, at least four military men would say, "No, it isn't."
_______________________
 Leave a COMMENT.

powered by [ stevencopley.com ]