Could it be that hussein is reluctant to kill other muslims?Could it be that hussein would rather see more "infidels" die than muslims.
A humorous television commercial we love makes the point that timing is everything. A woman at a romantic dinner tells her date she loves him. He looks blankly at her until she leaves in a huff -- as he says earnestly to an empty chair, "I love you too."
Similarly, we wonder if Barack Obama is now saying "I'll finish the job" to an empty chair.
Indeed, even as Obama plans to convince the nation in a prime-time address Tuesday night that he's committed to winning the war in Afghanistan, he's lost a lot of support that he'll have to win back -- among troops, among allies and within American public opinion.
That much was clear when British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth last week, in a remarkable blast of blunt diplomacy, openly denounced Obama's months-long delay in deciding whether to finish the job.
The long "hiatus," says Ainsworth, has eroded British support for the campaign in Afghanistan.
The president's hand-picked commander in the battle zone, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, months ago delivered his recommendations for a troop surge. Since then, Mr. Obama has trotted the globe, hosted a state dinner and otherwise occupied himself in ways other than that of commander in chief.
"Senior British Government sources," writes the Daily Telegraph of London, "have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama's 'dithering' on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defense chiefs echoing the concerns."
They, and plenty of others around the globe, don't understand the hesitation.
Certainly, Mr. Obama should not be singled out for blame: President Bush, as well, seemed to prosecute the Iraq War with less than overwhelming force until forced by public opinion and congressional heat to produce the now-famous surge that is credited with turning the tide there.
Nonetheless, it's hard to argue that the Afghan war effort, and the goal of destroying the terrorist platform from which to launch attacks on America, hasn't been dealt a severe blow by the indecision at the White House.
It is starkly revealing that, this far in, the president's promise last week that "I'll finish the job" was such news. It should have been understood from the start, but was not.
Perhaps there is a method to his indecisiveness that we don't yet see. Maybe the extra deliberation will have revealed a new political/social strategy that makes our military tactics more effective in the long run. We certainly hope so.
Yet, the raw material the president and our troops have to work with isn't overly promising: Political corruption, tribal loyalties and a lagging culture and economy make Afghanistan nearly impossible to leave behind with any sense of confidence.
No one will ever cite Iraq as having been easy. But it's clear the social and political infrastructure was infinitely more amenable than Afghanistan's to a modern existence that seeks to leave warfare behind. In Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, as with every other enclave of radical Islam, we are facing a culture with Stone Age sensibilities and cave man temperaments.
Maybe this daunting set of circumstances is what led the deliberative Mr. Obama to push his minions to think of all the angles and implications.
We just hope he hasn't deliberated too long -- not only for the war effort but also for his own good.
It may not be too late to win the war in Afghanistan.
Rectifying President Obama's newly earned reputation for tentativeness may be another battle entirely.
Comments
Could it be that hussein is reluctant to kill other muslims?Could it be that hussein would rather see more "infidels" die than muslims.
justus;ALL of our allies are getting fed-up with hussein's ineptness.Does that mean they are biased also?
justus can't claim racism so he remains silent
Could be that Obama has finally made a reasonable decision. And, in their criticism, it could be that the local armchair "ginerels" will decide to serve their wine a long time before its time. Could be that we are in a Viet Nam like no-win situation and we cannot withdraw, nor can we go forward; and, it could be that some would opt for more American military deaths rather than deal with the unfortunate consequences of withdrawal; obviously we surely should not lose-face (Tell that to the parents of the sacrificed military personnel). Could be that we are all small potatoes in the bigger pot of stew. Could be, could be, and could be. GGpap
For one time, I find I must agree with justus4, without exception. GGpap
That's right,wait until the terrorist have regrouped and fortified their position.Wait until their numbers grow and grow.Wait until they attack more Americans on US soil.Lets just wait and wait and wait............ and the band played on
WHY do you muslims choose to live among infidels?You hate everyone that is not muslim,you hate our way of life,you hate freedom.So, I ask again-WHY do you want to live among infidels?
Someone please explain why our generals(with military experience)and all of our allies(with military experience)are ALL wrong and hussein(with NO military experience)is right concerning military matters.NEWS FLASH-It is impossible to fight a politically correct war.
BO would not no a reasonable decision if it jumped in front of him. GGap, thanks for the entertainment.
hussein worshippers;Why are ALL military advisors(with experience)wrong and hussein(with no experience)right?Any answer is better than no answer.
I can sum up our present military policy in two words ... Jimmy Carter .... It feels like the 70's all over again
Why not put the blame on George Washington?
Give Obama time he'll find a way to blame him too
I agree withJustus4!!
wizzardx1, all the military advisors do NOT agree with the counterinsurgency theory of war. Retired 3 star General Karl Eikenberry, who is now U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan & was formerly head of U.S. forces in that country, advised against sending more U.S. troops because the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai with its warlords is not reliable a partner. The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) has no credibility whatsoever. There simply is no way that the Bush 43 admin & the U.S. military got it wrong for 8 years, then Gen. Stanley McChrystal comes up with a plan that might succeed over a ten year period, but because President Obama has "dithered" since August, suddenly it may be too late to win the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Don't forget that President Obama already sent an additional 16,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan back in April. That did not tip the balance & neither will another 30,000 U.S. troops tip the balance. The U.S. Army's own counterinsurgency manual calls for 1 occupation troop per 20 population. It would take 600,000 occupation troops at least 10 years to win a counterinsurgency war at a cost of roughly $1 million per soldier every year. U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
cain;go to afghanistan now!
The claim that the U.S. has waged war in Afghanistan & occupies that country for more than 8 years with "the goal of destroying the terrorist platform from which to launch attacks on America" is bogus. United States had & still has the right & the responsibility to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. Those people are not in Afghanistan. United States was justified in invading Afghanistan in Oct 2001 in order to destroy Al Qaeda training camps & capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders. The former was accomplished. Afghanistan does not serve as a "platform from which to launch attacks on America." Obama & Biden still use that bogus rationale for this failed war. The leaders of Al Qaeda escaped to Pakistan. The "platforms" from which the 9/11 attacks were planned & launched include The Philippines (KSM lived there when he planned the airline hijackings), Hamburg, Germany where Al Qaeda cells operated, and even the U.S. itself where the 9/11 terrorists received flight training. Al Qaeda does not operate from Afghanistan. The Taliban is a local phenomenon not an international jihaddist movement. Many Al Qaeda leaders have left Pakistan for Yemen & Somalia. Afghanistan is irrelevant.
Why does the Editor have to rush President Obama? The Augusta Chronicle Editors were willing to give George W. Bush all the latitude and time he needed while in office, constantly making excuses for everything bad that happened, including attacking a country under false pretenses. They even likened the Iraq war to gambling in Las Vegas. http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/041504/edi_089-7029.shtml It's always easy to gamble with someone else's life and/or money. President Obama is showing due diligence in taking his time to make the right decisions. If George W. Bush had done that, we would not be in Iraq and thousands of American service men and women would be alive today. This isn't a crap game or a candle light dinner, it's war! There is a difference!
False pride and fear of humiliation are two major factors driving United States further into this quagmire of Afghanistan.
The problem with having a puppet president is that it takes Obama's handlers longer to decide which way the political wind blows and then tell Obama what to say and do. Also, the handler's goals aren't necessarily the same as the country's goals. The apparent incompetency of Obama on all things political and "leadership" oriented is a result of not yet receiving his marching orders. He can't possibly be as shallow as he appears on all subjects. Because of a horrible mistake by the voters, we have three more years of this act to contend with.
surprise, P.S. . Bush is no longer in office and hasn't been for the past year.
True, George W. Bush is no longer in office, but the errors that he made and lapse of judgment on his part are the root cause of most of the problems that are facing the current Administration today. The Augusta Chronicle Editors defended Bush during most of his failed Administration now want to blame President Obama for everything. Using the Editor's Restaurant analogy, it's akin to blaming the waitress for the cook's lousy food.
Afghanistan is now Obama's war. If President Obama doesn't have the prescience to end the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, not only his presidency is doomed, United States will be diminished politically, economically & militarily over the course of a long, intractable war in Afghanistan which has already spread to Pakistan & now portends India's involvement. The U.S. war on terror in South & Central Asia can flare beyond the ability of any superpower to contain. Russia & China are egging United States on. China is financing this war through massive U.S. debt. Why is United States exhausting itself fighting in an impoverished country ten thousand miles from home while regional superpower Russia & China sit on the sidelines? A regional conflagration which could become a world war is in no one's best interest. Obama will find it politically impossible to use so-called exit ramps when the military situation does not improve in the next year or two. It is easy to get into a quagmire & hard to get out. An immediate about face is the only tenable military option United States has. Afghanistan will be the American empire's graveyard. United States is one fiscal crisis away from collapse.
Congress and the President need to come up with how to pay for the additional troops (along with all the other programs).I heard an estimate that the additional troops would cost $1B over five years. Then there will be veterans benefits from now on. As usual, the answer looks like borrow more money. What they should do is add 50 cents per gallon to gas taxes, or reduce spending on Medicare, etc. But, you can't get re-elected unless you tell people Santa Claus will come up with the money.
fred, your posts are akin to blaming a cook that's been gone for the past year for today's bad meal. When does the current cook accept responsibility? (LOL just kidding. I don't EVER expect that to happen)
robaroo, many experts say it takes $1 million to place a U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan for 1 year. The U.S. military claims that figure is closer to $500,000. If the military is correct it will cost an extra $15 billion every year to send an additonal 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan. If the higher figure is correct it will cost an extra $30 billion for those additional 30,000 troops. The total cost of the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan could easily top $75 billion a year. President Obama will soon appeal to Congress for additional funds (all borrowed from places like China) for the expanded U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. If it takes ten years to win a counterinsurgency war, then the costs could easily top $750 billion.
The troops get paid, trained, equipped and taken care of etc wherever they are. Pulling out numbers like that is merely yet another pointless refuge of cowards.
Horse manure, JerryAtrick. It cost up to $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to Afghanistan. The costs of deploying an army to Afghanistan vs keeping the troops at home are magnitudes of times greater. It is the war profiteers and the pro-business-of-war-American-economy which are pushing for an expanded and more profitable (for them) U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
