Harrolds.Blogspot.com
Obama's New Afghan Strategy -- Surrender!
Kristinn, at FreeRepublic.com, says Obama is considering an almost complete surrender in Afghanistan, if the report this weekend by the BBC's Katty Kay is accurate.
Speaking as a panelist on the Chris Matthews Show, a weekend public affairs broadcast, Kay reported on the internal debate at the White House -- "There are real questions being asked, I think, about whether even with a big injection of troops this is a real country, a real war that you can win."And there's a new phrase which is floating around the White House which is 'minimum security'. That we're not actually aiming for a country which is stable that we are in control of, but we are aiming for a minimum amount of security and perhaps even a negotiated settlement with the Taliban."
This would tie in with reports that Obama has concluded the U.S. cannot beat the Taliban and that he has requested two new studies. The first study is to determine which provinces may be ceded to the Taliban. The second, is to determine troop levels other than those requested by Gen. McChrystal over two months ago.Kay's remarks start at the 19:10 minute in the backward clock on the video. She describes the three different views on the situation in Afghanistan that have been presented to Obama: the military needs a large injection of troops to execute the McChrystal's strategy; even with more troops, Afghanistan will never be winnable; and "'we have no choice but to win this war' and that is what Obama said back in March."
Obama has delayed making his decision. It will not be announced until the end of November. That's three months into the twelve month window left to win the war.
Troop casualties in Afghanistan have skyrocketed in the past three months, with over 1000 being wounded. 58 service members have been killed in the last month, making it the deadliest month of the eight-year long war.On Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs bragged that Obama has spent almost twenty hours in meetings on Afghanistan since August.
Commander In Least
Noah Steele Kline says that as a Marine, Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, and Honorably Discharged Sergeant, he knows a thing or two about mission accomplishment versus troop welfare. As a matter of fact, any Marine can tell you the clearly stated objective of the Marine Corps is mission accomplishment. Troop welfare comes secondary.
Commanders and military leaders learned long ago that success on any battlefront depends chiefly upon mission accomplishment. Troop welfare, while important, does not trump mission accomplishment. For the enlisted Marine on the ground, this is sometimes a hard pill to swallow, but we understand. And actually, this is one of the reasons why the Marine Corps is one of the finest and most effective fighting forces in the world.
Our current Commander in Chief (who never served in the military) has not demonstrated that he comprehends the concept of mission accomplishment before troop welfare. Disappointingly, Obama has not demonstrated that he comprehends the concept of mission accomplishment at all. We have no clear mission in Afghanistan. We have no concise finalization strategy for Iraq. Obama has yet to establish just what we are supposed to be doing in either of these theaters.
Furthermore, Obama seems to be thwarting any forward momentum with regard to mission accomplishment by manifesting an attitude that troop welfare is paramount. He has also hastily portrayed an apologetic attitude for American strength. This destructive attitude breeds not only optimism in our enemies, but despair in those in uniform who are genuinely proud to serve the country they love.
Not only that, Obama is arguing with the very commander he appointed to do what needs to be done. Consequently, his indecisiveness, or "dithering" as Cheney put it, is costing American lives and wasting precious time needed to gain momentum toward mission accomplishment -- for whatever the mission may be.
For someone who neither served in the military nor had any executive leadership, Obama has yet to do anything to assuage the collective apprehensions from those of us who feel he is too green for the job of Commander in Chief. The presidency is not the place for on-the-job training, especially in a time of war. Although Obama has probably learned a lot in his first nine months in office, he has not asserted to Americans or our enemies that the new administration has any idea how to handle a war, let alone two.
Continue reading here . . .
Noah Steele Kline says that as a Marine, Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, and Honorably Discharged Sergeant, he knows a thing or two about mission accomplishment versus troop welfare. As a matter of fact, any Marine can tell you the clearly stated objective of the Marine Corps is mission accomplishment. Troop welfare comes secondary.
Commanders and military leaders learned long ago that success on any battlefront depends chiefly upon mission accomplishment. Troop welfare, while important, does not trump mission accomplishment. For the enlisted Marine on the ground, this is sometimes a hard pill to swallow, but we understand. And actually, this is one of the reasons why the Marine Corps is one of the finest and most effective fighting forces in the world.
Our current Commander in Chief (who never served in the military) has not demonstrated that he comprehends the concept of mission accomplishment before troop welfare. Disappointingly, Obama has not demonstrated that he comprehends the concept of mission accomplishment at all. We have no clear mission in Afghanistan. We have no concise finalization strategy for Iraq. Obama has yet to establish just what we are supposed to be doing in either of these theaters.
Furthermore, Obama seems to be thwarting any forward momentum with regard to mission accomplishment by manifesting an attitude that troop welfare is paramount. He has also hastily portrayed an apologetic attitude for American strength. This destructive attitude breeds not only optimism in our enemies, but despair in those in uniform who are genuinely proud to serve the country they love.
Not only that, Obama is arguing with the very commander he appointed to do what needs to be done. Consequently, his indecisiveness, or "dithering" as Cheney put it, is costing American lives and wasting precious time needed to gain momentum toward mission accomplishment -- for whatever the mission may be.
For someone who neither served in the military nor had any executive leadership, Obama has yet to do anything to assuage the collective apprehensions from those of us who feel he is too green for the job of Commander in Chief. The presidency is not the place for on-the-job training, especially in a time of war. Although Obama has probably learned a lot in his first nine months in office, he has not asserted to Americans or our enemies that the new administration has any idea how to handle a war, let alone two.
Continue reading here . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please, avoid posting advertisements. Content comments are welcomed, including anonymous. Posts with profanity will not be published.