One Cheer for Obama’s Afghanistan Troop Decision
(with more possible pending tonight’s speech)
While I have faulted the President in private conversations for his “dithering” on Afghanistan, I have barely touched on the subject on this blog. It’s not that I don’t think the issue is important, it’s just that I think pundits and other bloggers have pretty much said all that needs to be said.
I am somewhat heartened to read that he has “issued orders to send about 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan“. While I was hoping he would send the full complement that General Stanley McChrystal had requested, this may well be enough to secure victory in that troubled land. I will wait until after hearing (or reading, depending on my schedule) his speech at West Point this evening (and perhaps even later than that) before offering a more complete opinion on the matter. But, for now, it seems to be a step in the right direction.
While Obama did dither, resembling the dissembling George McClellan more than the more straightforward Abraham Lincoln, in the end, he will be judged not by the time it took to make the decision, but by the decision itself. Should we see the victories in Afghanistan similar to those which followed the “surge” in Iraq, the dithering may soon be forgotten (or least downplayed), while the successes will make headlines. Should our armed forces succeed in defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then President Obama will have won a great victory for our nation, the Afghan people and the free world.
It is one achievement for which I am ever eager to praise this Democrat. And hope that all Americans are prepared to offer him such accolades. For he will achieve them not for himself alone, nor for his party, but for the country. We wish him every success in this endeavor.
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Given his dithering, his disdain for the word “victory” and his “America Sucks Ass” travelling one-man show, I have no confidence that he’s interested in succeding in Afghanistan.
You’ll pardon my skepticism, of course.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 1, 2009 @ 6:01 am - December 1, 2009
Colour me with TGC. I fear that 30k troops will be just enough for a meat grinder. I hope I’m wrong, as my little brother may be one of those 30k.
but we’ll see if this ’surge-on-the-cheep’ will have many parents or is an orphan.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2009 @ 6:36 am - December 1, 2009
And my nephew may soon be one of the 30k.
The problem with the left-wing Presidents from Kennedy on has been, they haven’t fought to win. They have only set up meat grinders (thanks TL) that will let them posture and preen about their alleged moral sensitivity while young Americans die for a cause that the left-wing President has no real ability to desire to win. It’s almost as though such Presidents want America to suffer.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2009 @ 9:55 am - December 1, 2009
Juan Cole knows what he’s talking about. If he’s even a little bit correct, Obama and your nephews are sleepwalking into a minefield.
Comment by wesellchairs — December 1, 2009 @ 10:19 am - December 1, 2009
Normally I’m very much about Conservatism and I have no love lost for Obama, but “They have only set up meat grinders (thanks TL) that will let them posture and preen about their alleged moral sensitivity while young Americans die for a cause that the left-wing President has no real ability to desire to win” by this standard, take out “left wing” and you just described by omission President Bush as much as Clinton (Somalia) or Vietnam (Johnson).
I don’t claim to have a positive answer on what should/could be done in Afghanistan, and don’t claim that Obama’s decision is good or bad, should it be a limited and tailored “surge-lite,” but the destabilization in Afghanistan can be at least to some extent pinned on the lack of focus on the “Older War” under the previous administration as much as any other factor.
Comment by Retcon — December 1, 2009 @ 10:32 am - December 1, 2009
to clarify, I meant W., not H.W.
Comment by Retcon — December 1, 2009 @ 10:32 am - December 1, 2009
Retcon,
I’d point out that While President Bush did delay too long, he enacted the surge (which many on the left and the right opposed) and deployed what was requested. It turned out to be the correct thing, but he gave the men and materials his generals requested.
With Afganistan, I fear that the 30k troops won’t be enough. He will be able to appease the centre in ‘doing something’ while telling his anti-war party ‘We’ll let them fight for a bit, declare it’s too much, and go home.”
Our military as props, again.
As to the Johnson comparison, don’t forget, Nixon got us out of Vietnam, it was only when congress cut funding to our allies (wow, that seems to be a habit) that the south fell.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2009 @ 10:58 am - December 1, 2009
It’s not the “number” of troops that may spell success or failure, but their composition and more importantly their Rules of Engagement. And this should include pressure on the Karzai regime…I shudder to call it a government…to at-least clean-up their act to a Chicago-standard of official corruption. (The Obamessiah should have a grasp of THAT….)
Perhaps instead of attemptng to assist the Afghan government in training-up an National Army, we should instead be recruiting and training our own Afghan regiments in the manner of the British Gurkas for local service as militias and overseas deployment serving our interests.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 1, 2009 @ 11:31 am - December 1, 2009
Since you are all cheerleading this move, how do you all think it should be paid for?
It seems we spent at least 1.2 trillion dollars since 2001 on these wars.
That does not include the added costs of benifits to our soliders after they return home too!
I think it should be new taxes.
What say you?
Comment by gillie — December 1, 2009 @ 11:53 am - December 1, 2009
I can’t give him “credit” when he is ignoring the needs of his commanders on the ground in theater. Either we are committed to winning this war by committing the forces necessary or we should cut our losses and pull out now. Perhaps my view on this is colored at the moment and I truly hate to raise this example, but in studying on the Vietnam War for an upcoming exam I’m getting a sickening feeling of deja vouz…
Comment by John — December 1, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - December 1, 2009
Since you are all cheerleading this move, how do you all think it should be paid for?
Rescind the remaining “stimulus” spending.
After all, gillie, I’m sure you would agree that our country’s defense is more important than sending billions of dollars to imaginary Congressional districts and into the pockets of Obama’s cronies, wouldn’t you? Don’t you believe that tax dollars are better spent on our soldiers and their benefits than on paying off people who Obama and his cronies sexually harass?
That really shows you the priorities of the Obama Party; it hasn’t a dime to spend on our country’s soldiers and defense, but it has all the money in the world to buy its way out of criminal and wasteful behavior.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - December 1, 2009
recend the stimilus.
revoke benefits to ilegals
turn over more of medicare/medicaid to private insurances. the savings in fraud elimination alone will pay for it.
See gillie, it’s easy when you do more than parrot talking points.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - December 1, 2009
If there’s money enough to pay for studying how to eliminate the odor from Iowa pig-shit… then I think Americans can scrape up all the money necessary to give our boys every thing they need to win in Afghanistan.
My only fear is Obama thinks pigs and their feces are more important.
Comment by Spartann — December 1, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - December 1, 2009
How about ending this nonsense? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent $2,993 (598.60 a month) in taxpayer money on flowers between June and October. Also, how about those $120,000 flights between DC and CA, what she’s too good for business class? There’s a start.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 1, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - December 1, 2009
The left is now out in full force trying to undermine the war by falsely claiming that we all must “share” in the sacrifice of war by increasing taxes. A lie that President Bush exposed — one of the reasons they hated him so much.
You see, the left wants to establish as fact the FDR model of war, where if we go to war, it means the federal government MUST raise taxes, ration, set price controls, and seize all sorts of new powers that have nothing to do with war whatsoever.
Bush proved that the best way to help the war effort is to keep the economy running strong by freeing it up, not by seizing control over it. His tax cuts grew the economy, created jobs, and increased revenue to the federal government, making the war MORE affordable, not less.
One of the many reasons they worked so hard to undermine and discredit that war which liberated 25 million people and turned an avowed, rogue enemy into a democratic ally.
Comment by American Elephant — December 1, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - December 1, 2009
And the same tactics they are increasingly employing now against the war in Afghanistan.
Comment by American Elephant — December 1, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - December 1, 2009
So you have ZERO interest in paying for it then?
While you’re on the liberal BS horse about how we must all “sacrifice”, how about putting Granny Botox on Greyhound between DC & SFO? The libs could set an example rather than bitching that everybody else “sacrifice” while excluding themselves.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 1, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - December 1, 2009
One things liberals will NEVER sacrifice is one whit of their radical agenda.
How about that Gillie? Why dont YOU sacrifice Obama’s $6 Trillion Dollar Fascist health care takeover? Why dont YOU sacrifice the multi-trillion dollar Cap and Trade power grab?
I am willing to sacrifice those fascist power grabs right this second. NEITHER of which we can afford. Either one of which could pay for the war many times over. Why arent you?
Comment by American Elephant — December 1, 2009 @ 6:34 pm - December 1, 2009
Lawrence Eagleburger on Your World with Neil Cavuto video, He doesn’t think this troop build up is a good idea it isn’t even nearly enough to stabilize the region and he isn’t the only one who thinks so many have doubts that 30,000 troops can do much of anything inside of Afghanistan.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/12/afghanistan-america-gets-ready-to-ante.html
Comment by keyboard jockey — December 1, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - December 1, 2009
Here’s 500,000 that could be saved. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20091130_5171.php
and look at this, House Majority Whip James Clyburn has a thing for Chantilly Donuts, spending about $265 at the Virginia shop in the past quarter. What 170,000+ and they can’t buy their own damn doughnuts? At work when we want doughnuts, we go out and spend our own money for them.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 1, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - December 1, 2009
[...] One Cheer for Obama’s Afghanistan Troop Decision(with more possible pending tonight’s sp… [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama’s strange speech, his (mostly) sound Afghanistan strategy — December 2, 2009 @ 5:54 am - December 2, 2009