From AFP:

The White House said Monday that July 2011 was a “non-negotiable” deadline for starting a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, while insisting that President Barack Obama and his top general in Kabul were on the same page.

The White House was quizzed about a seeming disconnect between the two after General David Petraeus said in an interview aired Sunday that he could seek a delay in the troop drawdown if conditions on the ground required it…

The switch to General Petraeus gave the White House an excellent opportunity to mute the 2011 time table and thus add an element of uncertainty in to al Qaeda and Taliban plans. They are banking on us leaving, and thus their strategy is merely to remain viable until we start to leave – and then they’ll move in. Additionally, it is hard for us to gain local support from people we’ll leave to the Taliban’s tender mercies. This White House statement just blows Petraeus out of the water and provides security for the enemy.

I hope that better thinking people in the White House will prevail – the campaign in Afghanistan is proving very difficult and our troops are extending full effort to win…they need to be given the tools to do so, which includes time. And keep in mind that if we take away the time limit, we may even be able to start drawing down sooner – we are looking for some sort of replay of the “Anbar awakening” in Iraq…some shift in popular opinion which will bring the Afghans down on our side, thus taking away the “sea” the terrorist “fish” swim in. As we saw in Iraq, once that is done it become only a matter of a relatively short time before most of the terrorists are picked off or picked up.

Holding to an absurd, artificial time line at the behest of the Democrat left is just plain and simple stupid – we must go for victory in Afghanistan, and you can’t set a date for that.

A recent report on the cost of freedom – from the AP:

In the summer twilight, a crowd gathers on a baseball diamond in Seattle, candles in hand, to remember a sailor who not long ago ran this dusty path.

In a California church, a young widow reunites with friends she saw just nine months ago at her wedding – this time, though, they’ve come to bid farewell to her soldier-husband.

And in a Tennessee high school, a family friend remembers the eager boy who grew up counting the days until he could don an Army uniform.

Day after day, the war in Afghanistan comes home…

Remember that every day while you and I sit safe and dry here at home, our best and bravest are out there putting their lives on the line. In this, it doesn’t matter your opinions – your opinions mean nothing to a 20 year old soldier on patrol in Afghanistan. All that soldier wants is the knowledge that you’ll back him up, and honor him by living the liberty he secures for us.

Don’t let a day go by without thinking of them – praying for them, and for the victory which will allow all of them to come home.

From the Telegraph:

…Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.”

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”

Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”.

His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” …

Bitter and frustrated, I guess he decided to lash out – in the manner of a spoiled, rotten little child. The fool probably still doesn’t realize that while he didn’t tell any perceptive observer anything new, he did release the names and addresses of people who might now pay with their lives for his indiscretion.

Normally, I judge these sorts of actions to be worth ten or twenty years in prison – but life at hard labor hardly seems sufficient punishment for this craven, pipsqueak of a “man”.

The troops are in the thick of it:

In a summer of suffering, America’s military death toll in Afghanistan is rising, with back-to-back record months for U.S. losses in the grinding conflict. All signs point to more bloodshed in the months ahead, straining the already shaky international support for the war.

Six more Americans were reported killed in fighting in the south — three Thursday and three Friday — pushing the U.S. death toll for July to a record 66 and surpassing June as the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the nearly nine-year war…

Keep them in your prayers – always remember that while we are safe here at home, the best of America is overseas, fighting for us.

The “wikileak” of US military documents related to the Afghan campaign doesn’t really tell us anything perceptive observers had not already figured out – but it does highlight, once again, the need for a clear US policy regarding the use of military force.

The fundamental problems we face in Afghanistan – attempting to win hearts and minds; dealing with timid allies; enemies who have safe havens from which to launch attacks upon us – have been with us ever since the Korean War. In the highest councils of our government and in spite of having, at times, Presidents and generals who understand war, we have had an overall paralysis of will which has prevented the United States from securing clear-cut victory most of the times we have engaged in battle since the Second World War. Only the comparatively minor operations in Grenada and Panama have been fought to a conclusion – and the clear peace resulting from such action stands in stark contrast to the bitter defeat or disappointing half-victories of other conflicts.

In Korea were the bad military seeds planted. First in Truman’s decision to go to war without a clear, Congressional declaration of war. Secondly, and most fatally, in the loss of nerve when things didn’t immediately work out as well as planned. In these two actions came about both the concept that the American people cannot sustain a big war as well as the insane proposition that wars may be fought for limited ends (this last bit had a shred of support from the fact that in the 19th century Bismarck had fought three wars for very strictly limited ends and wound up with a united, powerful Germany dominating the European scene – left out of such considerations were, of course, the dragon’s teeth sewn by those limited wars which united to undo Bismarck’s Germany in World War One). The truth is that both the Civil War and World War Two demonstrated America’s willingness to go all out for victory, while to fight for less than absolute victory is an absurdity no great captain of the past would understand, let alone agree to.

It is America’s leadership which has been unwilling to either declare war or to show courage when things go badly. Because of this unwillingness/cowardice, America’s wars since WWII have tended to be half-fought, and thus rapidly lose support from a public which seems to instinctively know that if you go to war at all, you go all out (and they understood this from the start – the massive, unprecedented outpouring of public support for a relieved General MacArthur in 1951 was testimony to a popular desire to win, once war was started). It is time for us to bring to an and the era of quasi-war for the United States – we have to short-circuit an often faint-hearted leadership, and ensure that if an American soldier is ever engaged in battle from this point on, then his entire nation is absolutely committed to victory regardless of cost.

As a first step, we need to retrieve our war-making power from the Executive Branch. We must pass whatever legislation is necessary to forbid the deployment of US ground forces outside the territory of the United States except during time of declared war. The President must lose his ability to send troops in to battle outside our nation until such time as he obtains specific war powers from Congress. Many will say that this ham strings the United States in times of emergency and to a certain extent they will be correct. But given the baleful effects of leaving this power in the Executive, alone, I think that on balance we’d be better off, even if a US response might be delayed a day or two while Congress gathers to debate and vote upon a war resolution.

The second step must be to prevent a Congressional cut-and-run once the war starts. The cut off of funds by Congress to South Vietnam ensured that our efforts there would end in complete failure; the attempts by Congress to cut off funds for the Iraq campaign nearly caused our complete defeat in that campaign. Once in, we must essentially be forced to stay in until victory is done – and so, legislation must be enacted to ensure that war appropriations can only be refused by a 2/3 vote of both houses.

Once in and committed to funding the fight, we can have some assurance that the war won’t be left half done. We can then look our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the eye and tell them that whatever sacrifice they make, it won’t be for anything less than victory. It will also tell the world that while we might be slower to act than previously, you can rest assured that once we do act, we’re coming in all the way and with everything we’ve got.

We dare not become a fortress trying merely to protect ourselves. But we also cannot become a global 911. Diplomacy and economic activities will play a large roll, as always, but behind words and trade must lie not just a superb US military, but the knowledge that if we un-sheath the sword, it won’t be laid down until the enemy is completely destroyed.

None of this will help us in Afghanistan. For good or ill, the plan and forces we have in place now will have to do the best they can. The troops there deserve our support – but once we do finish in Afghanistan, we should pledge ourselves that will be the last such war we fight. Next time when faced with an insurgency supported by a Third Party, we’ll have to steel ourselves to taking on the sponsors, as well as the terrorists – in any fight, the enemy will know that war with us means ultimate destruction for them.

War is a terrible thing and should not be engaged in save for the weightiest of reasons – but once we determine that war is the only means of securing our interests, then it must be war to the bitter end.

Showing, once again, that the best man doesn’t always win – from Breitbart:

US Senator John McCain Sunday slammed the July 2011 target for beginning to pull US troops out of Afghanistan, saying setting a firm date for withdrawal would raise questions about US commitment there.

“I’m concerned about the perception of our friends and our enemies as well as the people in Afghanistan, as to the depth of our commitment,” McCain told ABC news in an interview from Kabul.

The Republican lawmaker and former prisoner of war said the policy of announcing a planned draw down date was a “bad idea,” and that the United States should only leave Afghanistan when the country is stable enough to maintain a strong government.

Which is the only sensible thing to do – but good sense is in short supply in DC these days. I recall watching a short bit of the Petraeus confirmation hearings where I believe it was Sen. Leahy (D-VT) who said that time tables proved their worth in Iraq. A statement more at variance with the facts would be harder to find – it was because President Bush stubbornly resisted Democrat attempts at setting a time table that we were able to win, at all. Obama’s July, 2011 time table just sets the date for our defeat.

The enemy is just waiting until we leave and our friends – actual and prospective – in the area are trimming their sails to the withdrawal date. This is what bin Laden was on about when he talked of strong and weak horses – the strong horse isn’t necessarily the fastest or more muscular horse, but the horse with the greatest endurance. Right now, we’ve set a limit to our endurance, and our enemies are determined to last just one day longer.

General Petraeus has signaled that he doesn’t mean to hold to the July, 2011 time table, and that is good. But the ultimate decision isn’t his, it belongs to President Obama. The President must, in public, set aside July, 2011 and commit to victory…which may, by the way, come sooner than July of 2011 if we show that we’re not going to quit. People would much prefer a peace based upon our ideals than upon the Taliban’s – but they’ll swallow the Taliban if there is no other choice.

Right now, for them, there is no other choice – we must change that.

Seems that “courageous restraint” might not stick around quite as-is – from the Telegraph:

“There will be no change in overall policy but all aspects of tactics and implementation will be looked at afresh,” a Pentagon official told The Daily Telegraph. “The issue of ‘courageous restraint’ is a controversial one on the ground and there may be ways it can be modified.”

War is a brutal business and can’t be made otherwise – what is chivalrous in war is to not deliberately harm non-combatants. To offer mercy to the vanquished. But when someone starts shooting at you, “restraint” must be left aside and only once the shooting has stopped can restraint be exercised.

A dose of realty has been needed in Afghanistan policy, and its looks like we’re goig to get it.

One should not think that changing horses mid stream is really all that bad in military terms. It happens fairly frequently in history, and very often with good results. It has been clear that General McChrystal had to go and, on his record, General Petraeus is clearly the most suitable man for the post.

But, can he pull it off?

In Iraq, General Petraeus had the 100% backing of President Bush to obtain whatever he needed and take as much time as required. In Afghanistan, there is a time clock already running out and while more has been sent, it seems pretty clear that the military did not get all it requested (which, by the way, is not necessarily decisive – generals tend to ask for more than they know they’ll get; sort of taking out insurance against politics, as it were). The real question is whether or not General Petraeus has the time and resources to secure victory?

I hope he does – losing in Afghanistan would be a catastrophe for us. But the clock on the wall continues to worry me. I’d feel much better if, taking advantage of the fracas, Obama were to set aside his self-imposed time limit. Unfortunately, I don’t see Obama as a man who remotely understands military reality, and thus the opportunity to re-commit ourselves to victory might be lost.

I wish luck and offer my prayers for General Petraeus and his command. He has been given the hardest job in the world, I have faith in his courage and capability – and now we’ll see what he can do.

Michael Yon over on Facebook links to two must-read articles about Afghanistan. One is an analysis piece for the Associated Press, the other an article in Foreign Policy dealing with the specific inability of the British army to gain control, and the transfer of a good part of the fight to the military. Both pieces are sobering and call for a review of our effort in Afghanistan.

Michael Yon has made it clear that he doesn’t think General McChrystal’s strategy is working – that while our troops and allies are doing some good work, the basic strategy of trying to provide security first and attacking the Taliban second is not bearing fruit. Yon considers his exclusion from Afghanistan likely due to his criticism of the effort – and asserts that such actions by the authorities betray their own concerns about the success of the mission (that they are, in effect, trying to hide the truth of the matter).

I can’t render any hard and fast judgment on that though Yon has my respect for the honesty and courage of his reporting since the entire War on Terrorism began. When he says something, it must not be dismissed out of hand – there’s something to it. The distinct impression I get is that our troops – as usual – are behaving magnificently – doing all we ask of them and as much as soldiers have ever accomplished. But war isn’t just fighting – it is politics by other means, and the concern is that on the political side, we’ve set ourselves up for defeat no matter what our troops do.

My view is that the flaw stems from the fact that President Obama, in announcing the surge to Afghanistan, pledged less force than the military apparently asked for and what might prove quite fatal for the whole enterprise, he pledged to start drawing down our forces in 2011. He announced when the war would end – and thus provided the Taliban a time line for when they will be able to start advancing, again. For the Taliban, it has been a matter of just enduring until we start to leave.

For the Afghan people, the fact that we have not pledged to stay for as long as it takes puts them in a difficult position: they don’t support the Taliban, but they also know just how savage the Taliban will be with those who opposed them. As we’re not pledged to protect the Afghan people indefinitely, it becomes for them a calculation: will the Taliban be defeated before America leaves? One can only assume that events on the ground have convinced the Afghan people to, at best, sit on the fence – but fence-sitting on their part is a strategic defeat for us; a political defeat which does not appear amenable to a military fix.

It must be kept in mind that our victory in Iraq’s Anbar province was predicated upon convincing the Iraqi people that we would not leave until the job was done. The actual start of our victory somewhat predated the surge and was well under way by the time we maxed out our forces in Iraq. President Bush was convincing on this – and knowing we wouldn’t abandon them as we had in 1991, the people of Iraq decided to jump off the fence and help us route the terrorists. Obama’s decision about Afghanistan was just about the worst he could have taken – even ordering an immediate withdrawal in 2009 would not have been as bad as ordering a half-effort with the end date pre-marked on the package.

So, what do we do? The only way to retrieve the situation – with or without a command shake up, which may be necessary – is for Obama to clearly and forthrightly state that given the changed circumstances, the 2011 draw down date is suspended indefinitely and we’ll fight on in Afghanistan as long as it takes for victory. That plus a possible command change – with possible changes in tactics on the ground – would open up the prospect of getting the Afghan people enthusiastically on our side, thus allowing us the real power to defeat the Taliban for good.

It is highly questionable if Obama can do this – or would be willing to do it, supposing he felt strong enough with his base to drag them kicking and screaming in to an enhanced effort in Afghanistan. Obama is already a much diminished figure on the left – calling for longer and bloodier war is not the way to refurbish a tarnished image. But this is part of the job of being President – not always thinking of the political calculus, but of doing what is best for the nation as a whole.

Make no mistake about if, if our effort in Afghanistan ends in anything other than a semblance of pro-American government in Kabul, then disaster would follow. The terrorists would be emboldened not just in Afghanistan, but around the world. The immediate effect would be stepped up attacks around the world and in the United States – the long term effect would be an unwillingness of more moderate Moslems to work with us. No one wants to back the side which will cut and run, leaving its allies to be beheaded by victorious Islamists.

We’ll now see if Obama has the stuff in him of an American President. The stakes are high, victory or defeat hangs in the balance. The decision is entirely President Obama’s – no one can make it for him, and no one can hide the consequences of his action or inaction.

Michael Yon’s latest:

The counteroffensive has begun. More accurately, it might be called a counter-counteroffensive. Close to a decade ago, we beat the Taliban and al Qaeda here. The Taliban regrew and waged an increasingly successful counteroffensive. And so our ninth year at war is the year of our counter-counteroffensive.

The most remarkable feature of our counter-counteroffensive likely will be the Battle for Kandahar, or BfK. Kandahar was the birthplace of the Taliban and Kandahar City is the provincial capital. The Taliban is succesfully wresting Kandahar back into their control. The BfK is likely our last effort to halt and reverse Taliban influence from spreading. The winner in the BfK will be set to eventually take most or all of the chips off the table, and so BfK is crucial to the outcome of the war.

This is, as Yon says, crucial. Do read the whole article.

Always keep in mind that while we sit here safe and dry, better men and women than us are risking their all in Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. I have absolute confidence our men and women will be crowned with victory – as long as we sustain them here at home.

Yon is reader-supported, so don’t forget to drop a dime in the bucket.

Visiting the troops who are, after all, engaged in our most important effort:

Air Force One landed in darkness at Bagram airfield north of the Afghan capital, and Obama was whisked by helicopter to Karzai’s palace in Kabul, where he was greeted by the Afghan president and a band playing the U.S. national anthem.

“I want to send a strong message that the partnership between the United States and Afghanistan is going to continue. We have already seen progress with respect to the military campaign against extremism in the region,” Obama told Karzai in front of reporters inside the palace.

“We also want to continue to make progress on … good governance, rule of law, anti-corruption efforts — all these things end up resulting in an Afghanistan that is more prosperous, more secure, independent,” he added.

Karzai said he hoped “the partnership will continue in the future toward a stable, strong, peaceful Afghanistan that can sustain itself, that can move forward into the future.”

Perhaps a little less concentration on the fundamentally flawed health care and a bit more on the War on Terrorism and the economy? This, at least, would be some change we could believe in.

Michael Yon reports on some of the very good work our troops are doing with the people of Afghanistan. Most of us talk a good game of helping the less fortunate – these men and women actually do it, and do it at the risk of their own lives.

They are the best we have, and a cut above the rest of us. God bless them all.

The battle continues:

Six Nato troops have been killed in Afghanistan in the worst single-day loss for international forces since the launch of a big offensive to drive Taliban insurgents from the town of Marjah.

The deaths on Thursday, followed by the loss of another soldier on Friday, underscore the risks US, UK and Afghan troops face as they seek to clear what commanders describe as pockets of resistance by fighters digging in to resist one of the biggest operations launched by Nato in Afghanistan since 2001.

The seven casualties brought the death toll of international troops from the six-day operation to 12, an official for the Nato-led force in Afghanistan said.

We’re all busy, but do not forget about these men and women. Think about them, every day – and say prayers for their victory and safe return.

From Michael Yon via Instapundit:

…Chaplain Gary Lewis said a prayer, then 1st Platoon left the Gate heading to “Brick 1″

The soldiers checked weapons yet again and adjusted gear, and we walked out the gate, keeping intervals so that a single bomb couldn’t get many of us at once. Sometimes enemies “daisy chain” bombs together like a trotline, killing or wounding many soldiers simultaneously.

The morning was cool, bright and dry, and so the fine dust left perfect boot prints. This was to be the final mission for 1st Platoon in the area before the 82nd Airborne would take over responsibilities at around midnight…

Read it and don’t forget that Yon is reader-supported, so give what you can.

Michael Yon has the latest from the campaign in Afghanistan.

Say a prayer for our troops.

The news:

U.S. troops are bracing for the biggest joint offensive since the start of the Afghan war.

Officers say the troops will be joining their Afghan and NATO allies, targeting a southern town that’s believed to be a big Taliban stronghold and a hub for the militants’ lucrative opium trade.

Security issues prevent officers from giving a date the offensive begins. But U.S. commanders have said they plan to capture the town of Marjah in Helmand province. That’s about 380 miles southwest of Kabul.

It will be the first major offensive since President Barack Obama ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and many of the Marines set to participate arrived as part of the surge.

We know that a terrorist rabble cannot withstand our troops – as long as they are properly supported from home, they will win. But it will be a long, hard fight and we can expect serious casualties.

Remember, fellow Americans, that as we debate and argue here at home, the best we have are doing the real work of our nation. Pray for the troops, and pray for victory.

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?

Pay attention, liberals:

President Barack Obama’s speech on Tuesday night deserves to be cheered. Over the objections of his vice president and despite opposition from his political base, the president is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight terrorists.

This is the sort of thing you do when you’re a patriot – even if you oppose the man in office, you still try to pick out the parts you can support, especially as it relates to foreign and military affairs.

To be sure, Rove notes that Obama still isn’t giving as much as the military asked. Of course, the military brass could have sensed this sort of thing coming and asked for more than they needed, knowing that the request would be pared back. Bottom line, though, is that we patriots are pleased that President Obama is going to at least try to win.

It’d be better if Obama were to say the word “victory” as part of our goal, but we know we’ve got a liberal with zero military – or, indeed, real world – experience, and so we’ll take the baby steps, if that is the best we can get. It was also dismaying that President Obama laid out an 18 month time frame on this effort – better to have said nothing about it at all, if he was unwilling to use George Bush’s “when the generals request it” for withdrawal questions on Iraq.

This campaign can be won – and in my view, it must be won. We dare not leave Afghanistan with less than victory – if we don’t win, then we’ll pay the price for it in blood and treasure down the road. Interests, honor and basic, human decency require that we validate the sacrifices to date by ensuring a free, prosperous and united Afghanistan. And I hope you liberals with both join Karl Rove and learn a bit about what patriotism requires from him – and from the rest of us conservatives who simply will not attempt to take cheap, political shots at the President for temporary political gain.

UPDATE: With the continuing concern that Obama simply won’t stick it out.

The story:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday lashed out at President Obama for claiming the Bush administration rebuffed commanders’ repeated requests for more troops in Afghanistan.

In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a “bald misstatement” and “disservice” that cannot go unanswered.

“Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response,” Rumsfeld said in a written statement. “I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006.”

What Obama is still hoping is that he can shovel responsibility off for Afghanistan (and, indeed, everything else) to President Bush. Obama, you see, has nothing to do with the current state of Afghan affairs…that is all Bush; and if its necessary to shade the truth to make it so, then Obama is fine with that. Rumsfeld’s statement shows, however, that the truth of the matter is different.

At any event, Afghanistan is from now on entirely Obama’s – he’ll try to dodge the burden, but he can’t escape. Win or lose, its Obama on the line – and, Mr. President, as this is the case, you’d might as well do everything you can to win.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) makes the GOP anti-war case for Afghanistan. The two salient points:

…We can win any war, Mr. President, but only with your full commitment to the mission. Absent such a commitment, our presence in Afghanistan does nothing more than endanger our troops, compromise our readiness, and waste our money…

…Mr. President, in my humble opinion I believe it is time to bring our troops home. The troops have fought valiantly and won. Yet, the fight is not over. For generations the United States must continue to hunt and kill terrorists around the world who want death and destruction for the American people.

Mr. President, if you believe we must continue to fight in Afghanistan with tens of thousands of our men and women, let’s do so with a full commitment to win by giving the commanders in the field everything they need so they can bring all of our troops home swiftly and safely.

There is no real argument against the assertion that if we’re to fight, we must fight for victory with every ounce of our being. But is there validity in the argument that we can pull out? Rep. Chaffetz offers up the prospect of using “hunter-killer” units to go after any manifestation of al-Qaeda, but asserts that the nation-building aspect of the Afghan campaign is not in our best interest – and notes that with the threats from Iran, domestic terrorist attacks and our increasing debt leading to national bankruptcy, we’ve got other matters which demand our attention. Does this state the unarguable case?

Not in my view.

Certainly, if President Obama is not willing to go all out for victory, then we’d better get out of there as swiftly as physically possible. But the only reason for this is that it is immoral to have a pointless effusion of blood. If we’re not fighting to win, then fighting shouldn’t be done at all. My largest concern about President Obama’s war policy is that he’s half-hearted – that he doesn’t want to have the stigma of military defeat, but that he also doesn’t have the plain guts to see a war through to victory. But supposing that President Obama’s plan does work out as a pledge to victory, is it still better that we leave?

I agree that Iran is a growing threat. But Iran is, also, an easily manageable threat at the moment. The trouble is that President Obama seems determined to go about Iran in exactly the wrong way – so there’s no point is saying that we should pull out of Afghanistan and concentrate on Iran: Obama will continue to get Iran wrong and thus I don’t see the policy benefit of surrendering in Afghanistan in order to concentrate on surrendering on Iran’s nuclear program. Better to win in both places, but if we can only possibly win in Afghanistan – and that is the case – then we should go for what victory we can achieve.

I agree that terrorism is a continual threat here at home – but I’m enough of a student of military history to know that the only thing which results from a purely defensive effort is defeat. We can’t sit tight here and believe we’ll be safe – any defense can be overcome by imaginative offense. No matter how tight we make our borders and how many security programs we implement internally, if we’re not striking at the enemy then he will strike at us, and with great success, in the by and by – he only has to get past our defense once, while we have to always catch him. Such is not possible. To me, fighting in Afghanistan is, among other policy desires, a means of not fighting here at home.

I agree that our debt is out of control – but Obama simply will not do anything to control our runaway spending. Any deficit reduction over the next four years will be mere happenstance – something which happens because Obama simply can’t think of something new to spend a lot of money on; or because an increasingly fearful Democrat Congress simply won’t go along as election years approach. To terminate the Afghan campaign in the hopes that the saved money will go towards deficit reduction is to live in a fantasy world. Its just not going to happen – any savings in military spending will just be spent elsewhere. I’d prefer that we did pay for the war as we go along – I’d even agree to tax increases if I could get some massive cuts in non-defense, discretionary spending…say, two dollars in spending cuts for each dollar in new taxes (it’ll still work out best for the economy – better to be taxed than to be borrowed in to oblivion; best if we can cut taxes and spending, but we’re never going to get anything like that past Obama and the Congress).

Finally, any American withdrawal from Afghanistan will be viewed – correctly – by the enemy as a crushing American defeat. The whole purpose of the asymetric warfare of our enemies is to wear down and discourage the stronger force until it just gives up. A US withdrawal would fit perfectly in with the Islamists campaign model – we’ll have proven to them that if they can endure us for years, we’ll eventually throw in the towel. This will, in turn, encourage them to try again – remember, to them it doesn’t matter how many people die or how many years it takes to get us to quit…if they can get us to quit, they win and as long as they’re winning, they’ll keep right at it.

Any withdrawal from Afghanistan will eventually be paid for in blood and treasure – and far more blood and treasure than fighting for victory would cost (but its still better to get out, now, rather than fight half-heartedly…the bad stuff will still follow, but we’ll at least have saved some lives and some treasure and thus the ability to fight down the road when the enemy over-provokes us, once again – Obama offers the prospect of years of killing, then a withdrawal/defeat – I’m willing to take the horrible course rather than the horribly bad course). And don’t think that hunter-killer units will dismay the enemy – they’ll consider that just part of the cost of doing business.

We have entirely lost sight, I think, of what this war is about. It wasn’t that 19 Moslems just got it in their head one day to drive planes in to our buildings. Those men, and the men who currently fight us, are the result of a complex series of historical events churned up by the horrific politico-economic morass of the Moslem world. Only a fundamental change in Islam will end this war – and this change cannot come from within, it must come from without. If we refuse this task, then all we’ve done so far will be fruitless and, eventually, we’ll pay a high price for our unwillingness to fight for victory. We’re all tired of the war – but wars don’t just “end”: they are won or they are lost. If we pull out now, we will have lost no matter how much we try to sugar-coat it. The question all Americans must ask themselves – from President Obama on down is: do you want to win, or to lose?

I want to win.