The Weak Point of Obama’s Afghan Plan
Tags: Afghan Campaign, US Military.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Steyn picks it out in bold colors:
“Our goal in war,” wrote Basil Liddell Hart, the great strategist of armored warfare, “can only be attained by the subjugation of the opposing will.” In other words, the object of war is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks but the enemy’s will. That goes treble if, like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, he hasn’t got any tanks in the first place. So what do you think Obama’s speech did for the enemy’s will? He basically told ’em: We can only stick another 19 months, so all you gotta do is hang in there for 20. And in an astonishingly vulgar line even by the standards of this White House’s crass speechwriters he justified his announcement of an exit date by saying it was “because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.” Or, as Frank Sinatra once observed, “It’s very nice to go trav’ling/But it’s so much nicer . . . to come home”:
“It’s very nice to just wander the camel route to Iraq . . . but it’s so much nicer, yes it’s oh so nice to wander back.”
It is to be hoped that a combination of circumstances will force Obama’s hand and not allow him to precipitously withdraw on his time line if victory isn’t yet secured. If we have a string of successes showing that we’re winning – thus building up public support for continued effort – coupled with a public wariness of a cut-and-run, Obama might not have the political power to scuttle Afghanistan right before the 2012 campaign opens. Ultimately, it will be up to the solders to pull Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire. I have confidence in them.
Much less confidence in Obama – and a great deal of worry that his left wing base, especially if not fed the socialist meat of socialized medicine – might start to insist upon an early withdrawal with the threat of backing a third party if not given the desired defeat of the United States in war. Ultimately, it comes down to this: can the military win the war before the liberals force us to lose it?
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
71 Responses to “The Weak Point of Obama’s Afghan Plan”
Caucus of Corruption
Keef
He’s another retarded chimpanzee. Give him a banana and he’ll go away.
Chef (00) might accuse you of being racist.
oo= chef =
http://www.amazon.com/Chef-Aid-South-Television-Compilation/dp/B00000DMJ4
Boredom and trying to get material for a new cartoon. Not much luck so far.
Now, now — I can envision an ohioorrin character being quite popular; kind of like a pet rock.
spook
sort of a cross between Chef, and pee wee herman on his bike.
LOL
he could be a REMF-1369 (no)action hero!
Spook: Possibly, but with guys like Mad King Chuckie and Obama around, Ohio’s gonna have to step up his game.
LOL—I think we’ve already seen orrin’s A game, such as it is……
too many letters……….
tmfo,
Nice blog. “I won what?” LOL!!
tmfo
funny stuff ROTFLMAO
I try to a cartoon every Sunday and Wednesday, so by all means, bookmark and come visit!
Chef (00) might accuse you of being racist
My first though when I started typing “chimpanzee.” However, since I’ve never met Chef or CO, I have no idea of their race. Nor do I care–in my world, the real world, the use of any monkey-related term is not racist in nature. That crap is all part of the PC ruination of our society–that touchy-feely crap…
tmfo, I bookmarked your blog and will check it out this weekend.
Funny cartoons–look for a letter soon from the IRS…lol!!!
I was accused of racism on a different blog for not supporting Obama. I replied “Oh no…it’s his WHITE half I dislike.”
Welcome aboard, Keef! And please do leave a comment from time to time…it’s a new blog, and here lately it feels like I’m mostly just talking to myself.
At least I have started responding to my own posts…yet.
That’s a complicated question. Some nations, including Germany, Italy, and France, are only allowed to take part in operations in the north and west of the country, and Turkey is not allowed to take part in combat operations anywhere. This does not mean, however, that these troops are not fighting, only that they are not participating in offensives against Taliban territory. They are performing an important function guarding what we already control. Additionally, increasing these troops frees up US and UK troops for deployment elsewhere.
1,500; they are included because they were originally to have been withdrawn after the elections. They are essentially going from one surge directly to another surge.
Serbia has not pledged to send any troops.
Actually, he asked for 30-40,000; I only recall hearing the 60,000 number once, and it was probably a straw man for the Left. In any case, in his report, he said, “Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or ‘doubling down’ on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely.”
I already addressed that in my previous post.
I suggest you read McChrystal’s report.
By doubling the number of troops.
It would be hoped that you would care more about averting a third world war than making a personal critique.
That’s just what they say in propaganda. The actual reason they’re fighting us is that we’re preventing them from taking over the Middle East, as outlined in what I call Jihad for Dhimmis. Note that while the title page is in Arabic, the text has been translated into English.
That’s disturbing. Just what sort of extracurricular activities is this kid involved with?
I’m not a student any more, genius. Additionally, while my professors did impart strong views regarding Iranian politics (the Shah sucked and the mullahs are even worse), they did not usually mention their views on American politics. Of the two years I attended Berkeley, I can only think of two such statements — one in which a professor used Bush as a humorous example of a Persian word, and one in which a professor remarked that while he was glad Obama won, he was very disappointed that he utilized pleonastic periphrasis in his acceptance speech, or something like that. Above and beyond that, if you think that my pro-war position on Afghanistan is popular at the University of California, Berkeley, then you are badly in need of an emergency dose of Haldol.
If you continue to erode support for our presence in Afghanistan, there is a very real possibility that Congress will force a withdrawal. If that happens, Afghanistan will fall to the Taliban, al-Qaeda will use it as a base to coordinate the legions of new followers that would join because of our surrender, and it would use those followers to launch powerful insurgencies in other Muslim nations. They may even be able to topple Pakistan in a coup, which would give them nuclear weapons. They would then either use those weapons against us, Israel, India, or — and this is the ultimate nightmare scenario — Mecca following a major flare up in Israeli-Palestinian tension. This last one would result in all of the Arab nations invading Israel as apocalyptic al-Qaedaism spread through them like cancer at ground zero. No matter what happened next, it would be cataclysmic.
I leave it up to you to decide whether or not that is improper or unpatriotic.
My mistake; it is indeed doubling. Thank you for catching that.
With your own allegedly pro-war stance.
Read Jihad for Dhimmis, linked to above. What do you think would happen if that plan were successfully implemented?
Don’t get me wrong, feel free to rip into him on everything except for this. Claim that he’s death paneling your carbon till the federally owned cows come home. Just don’t cut and run.
You live in San Francisco? Who knew?
…she says as I urge right-wingers to adopt a right-wing policy.
That’s a complicated question. Not really. Some of these countries are not going to fight. Which means that a chunk of the NATO portion of the “surge” is going to be pencil pushers.
1,500; they are included because they were originally to have been withdrawn after the elections. They are essentially going from one surge directly to another surge In other words, 1500 members of this “surge” aren’t actually “surge.” They’re effectively counting people twice.
Actually, he asked for 30-40,000; I only recall hearing the 60,000 number once, and it was probably a straw man for the Left. In any case, in his report, he said, “Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or ‘doubling down’ on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely.” It boils down to what the definition of success is here. If the idea is to WIN, the you certainly would want to overwhelm your opponents with numbers and firepower. You certainly do NOT tell your opponents that you will not fire on them if there are civilians nearby. All that does is ensure that these thugs will ALWAYS attack when there are civilians present.
Last I heard, McChrystal wanted 60k. Assuming I am in error, Obama is still passing off the BAREST minimum asked for. Half-assed measures are no way to win a war and keep our casualties to a minimum.
It would be hoped that you would care more about averting a third world war than making a personal critique. Now you’re just being asinine. Letting the Taliban take the nukes in Pakistan is supposed to prevent WW3? Letting Iran become nuclear capable is supposed to prevent WW3?
The actual reason they’re fighting us is that we’re preventing them from taking over the Middle East, In case you hadn’t noticed, the Middle East is being run by some very like-minded people. And no, the terrorsits don’t just want control of the Middle East. They want the world. As per their barbaric false prophet, everything in the world belongs to them, and anyone who is not Islam must either convert, accept Dhimmitude, or die.
That’s disturbing. Just what sort of extracurricular activities is this kid involved with? He isn’t. That’s kind of my point. Obama has no more experience with the military than my nine year old. And it shows.
Rah rah for the guy all you want, but every day shows just how “above his pay grade” this job is. We didn’t have too many allies to begin with; less than a year in office, he’s managed to insult Britain and France, he’s abandoned Poland and the Czech Republic, and he’s openly hostile towards Israel, while sucking up and pussyfooting with our enemies. He projects weakness, and our enemies are laughing at him. He’s driven our economy straight into the toilet, and is trying to cram it further into the pipe with a broom handle. He’s about to sign with Copenhagen, even though a huge chunk of the info they’re using has proven fraudulent and promises to cost the US TRILLIONS of dollars we don’t have. He’s pushing forward for his HOPERcare which is going to put us all in even deeper in the red before the thing even takes effect, and still leaves most the people who are currently without insurance in the EXACT same position. He’s sucking up to the unions, who are largely responsible for the near-annihilation of our auto industry. He’s nationalizing everything he can get his mitts on, in direct defiance of the Constitution. He surrounds himself with criminals, communists, racists, utter sickos and complete loons. And yes, Virginia, he IS botching the war. Troop morale is low…as in Viet Nam low…because our troops see what all he’s doing and they’re interpreting it much as I do; he’s more interested in his PR than in winning this war and keeping our troops alive.
Like I said, cheer for the guy all you want, but don’t expect the rest of us to start shaking pom-poms with you.
Amazona says: December 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
u mistaken that retrograde movement only means “retreat”.
often it is a planned adjustment to facilitate attack against a moving enemy.
in afghanistan, as in iraq, it is a planned movement to shift positions due to changed strategy & tactics.
Sergei, you do seem determinedly oblivious to the fact that while the uber-Left is accusing the Right of fear-mongering, they have made it a centerpiece of their strategy.
Funny how the incessant drumbeat of negativity and brutal attacks on Bush, regarding Iraq, never brought up the spectre of a world war as the result. No, it is only when people comment on Obama’s effort to vote “Present” on Afghanistan that criticism might destroy the planet.
And demanding that more troops be sent immediately, as requested by Obama’s hand-picked general, might cause Congress to pull out completely? Hmmmmm Now demanding decisiveness and a commitment to victory in Afghanistan has morphed into eroding support for the war in Afghanistan. Who knew? Is that one of those Unintended Consequences we keep lecturing you Lefties about?
Here’s a different approach to ponder, should pondering be part of your pay grade:
Terrorists around the world feared Cowboy Bush and his determination to dig them out and kill them, over the anguished pleas of the Left that they be understood, coddled, given the rights of citizenship, and treated like simple criminals. They knew he didn’t give a flip about public opinion and would just as soon kick ass as take names.
Then along comes genial Barry Obama, whose most fearsome attempt to convey strength was a feeble Mad Daddy scowl, which was directed at his own political opposition at home, not at those poor misundertood implementors of unpleasantness abroad. Said terrorists, who have now beeen downgraded to marginally bad guys who create man-made problems, realize that with Barry at the helm, they can pretty much do whatever they want to do. He is more worried about getting along with Muslims than hunting them down, more worried about World Opinion than protecting his own nation, more focused on consolidating political power for the radical Left than winning a war. So the LAST thing they want is to have a strong opposition to Barry mounted in the US—they want him office for two full terms.
Seeing opposition to him based on his wishy-washyness toward the very concept of terrorism makes them realize that while the US has a temporary president who is no threat to them, he can be kicked out, or at least voted out, and that in the meantime considerable pressure can be brought to bear on him, particularly through an upheaval in a midterm Congress.
So I see the possibility that strong opposition to Obama based on his reluctance to aggressively pursue this war could be a deterrent to terrorists, as they would have to realize that they can create a situation in which another Bush, maybe this time even more dedicated to rooting them out, can be the result of a weak-appearing Obama.
Just positing an alternative scenario—and a far more likely one than demanding a more aggressive stance in Afghanistan resulting in erosion of the war effort there and pressure on Congress to pull out.
And FYI—you are on the bubble, concerning being identified as a Lefty shill. When you go off the rails into rabidly radical Lefty goofballdom, you make it pretty hard to see you as anything but a seminar poster here only to disrupt the blog and not to contribute. Your ironclad allegiance to all things Leftist does you no credit……..
And thanks for giving me “pompous” and “sanctimonious” and just quibbling on “student”.
orrin, u dum
But thanks for admitting that the Powell strategy you keep referencing is not about retreat but about, well, strategy.
It’s not just a lack of experience in the military, it’s a lack of interest in the military, a lack of respect for the military, and a general philosophical indifference to the realties of war.
Yes really. Even in the case of Turkey, whose restrictions are most clear cut, the troops will fight back if attacked, which is why they’re in charge of Kabul’s security. However, they still cannot be used for offensives.
Except that we already know that doesn’t work, because we’ve been trying it for eight years. I strongly recommend you read at least the introduction to the McChrystal report; it describes the fundamentals of counterinsurgency better than I can. If you still don’t believe that COIN works, read up on the Dhofar Rebellion.
No, letting them take the nukes might cause WWIII. Remember, I’m arguing against surrender.
Who are armed by the Americans, are not trying to reestablish the Caliphate, are not invading Israel, are not oppressing women brutally enough (no, not even Saudi Arabia), etc. These guys are so crazy that other lunatics seem sane in comparison.
Some of the rank and file do, but the leadership is much more realistic. Zawahiri has expressed skepticism even about being able to establish a Caliphate limited to the Middle East in time for the end of the world, though he’s certainly not ruling it out.
All of whom, except France, are contributing troops to the surge, and France has yet to make up its mind.
And like I said, I don’t expect you to support him on anything but Afghanistan. Seeing as you are, however, Republicans, you’d think you’d be a little bit more pro-war. Do you really want to be on his side?
Ah, no, Sergie. I’m a Conservative. And you’re pretty much arguing against t=your own points here.
Even in the case of Turkey, whose restrictions are most clear cut, the troops will fight back if attacked, which is why they’re in charge of Kabul’s security.
Think about that phrase for half a second, and maybe you’ll grasp why it, and the bulk of the ROE is ridiculous. They can only FIGHT if they are attacked. In other words, only AFTER the enemy has attacked them. In other words, only AFTER the enemy has managed to kill several people in their opening salvo. If there is anyone left alive, then sure, by all means, start shooting.
WAITING for a guy with a gun to shoot you is sound policy? No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
because we’ve been trying it for eight years. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Obama’s big bitch about how the war in A-Stan was going was because enough WASN’T being done? If more troops aren’t going to help, then why send more troops now?
And no, more boots on the ground aren’t going to help ALONE. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if the ROE were tossed in favor of something that actually MADE SENSE, this war would have been won years ago, and with half the manpower.
No, letting them take the nukes might cause WWIII. Remember, I’m arguing against surrender.
Make up your mind, Sergei. And bear in mind, you are arguing on the behalf of a president that is NOT INTERESTED in winning this war, nor against stopping lunatics from grabbing the ability to wipe out civilizations at the push of a button.
Letting them take the nukes might start WW3. Gee, kinda what I said. And there is a very good way to prevent this from happening; KILLING OUR ENEMIES INSTEAD OF PLAYING HOPSCOTCH WITH THEM.
Who are armed by the Americans, are not trying to reestablish the Caliphate, are not invading Israel, are not oppressing women brutally enough (no, not even Saudi Arabia), etc. These guys are so crazy that other lunatics seem sane in comparison.
Are we even in the same conversation anymore?
Some of the rank and file do, but the leadership is much more realistic. Zawahiri has expressed skepticism even about being able to establish a Caliphate limited to the Middle East in time for the end of the world, though he’s certainly not ruling it out.
The leadership is more realistic. Riiiight. You really have no idea how Islam or Sharia law works, do you.
Sell it to someone in your echo chamber. I will agree or disagree with whomever I choose, and I will do so based on the best information I can find, and by dint of my own ability to reason. Do not expect me support Obama on Afghanistan when he is putting members of my family in danger with his waffling, dithering, and blatant stupidity. If he wants my support, and he’s made it abundantly clear he gives not ONE DAMN FIG for the opinion of a Conservative, then he needs to butch up and fight to WIN, rather than score cutesy little political points to help his commie traitor cohorts keep their jobs in 2010.