Obama cannot further succeed in Iraq because that would prove George W. Bush right. That's a given. If Obama proves Bush right, then what is left of the shreds of his base will simply disappear into the chimera covering the door named disappointment.
So, what is Obama going to do in Afghanistan and the region?
Well, he quietly added 13,000 support troops to the 21,000 he approved in March for service in Afghanistan. His generals want an additional 40,000, but Obama is fiddling for his "base" and for the morons that make up the leadership in congress. Add into the mix a bureaucracy that permeates everything from food servers, elevator operators that operate computerized elevators and all the way up to analyzers and the leadership of our covert operations. One is left with a president worse off than Bush because the bureaucracy openly hated of Bush, but cannot do so with Obama. That bureaucracy has become the true decision maker in our government, not the elected officials that we vote for and who doesn't listen to us anyway, but in a different way that the bureaucracy doesn't have to listen.
Obama needs to show he has some vision, any vision beyond community organizing, concerning Afghanistan and terrorism or he will fall to more ridicule than the ghost of Alphie "TNT" Nobel.
I have a nominal idea of what has to occur in Afghanistan, in fact I believe I'm right, but my phone ain't ringin' so I'm assuming it ain't him. So, from afar and in fly-over country I will offer this.
Why not win?
The United States helped the Mujaheddin to win over the Russians, but squandered that victory by no follow through allowing crude forces to tame the vacuum left over and then pacify the citizens of Afghanistan by allowing simple goods to be delivered and sold so people could feed their families. Napoleon. Food. A chance of victory.
Now, the U.S. military appears to be going through phase II of the late Mr. Johnson's war which allows bureaucrats and Obama to direct the effort in Afghanistan from thousands of miles away through the prism of political needs, not military necessities.
If the military asks for 40,000 more troops, why doesn't Obama ask back, why not 60,000? If 40,000 is good, why isn't 60,000 better? What will it take to militarily defeat the Taliban and to bring the Afghani citizens into the effort of helping us bring stability to the country and to some degree, the region.
Most Americans don't know, and don't know whether to care, that Afghanistan and Iraq are just the advertised disaster specials for upcoming stories that are are designed to drive fairly inconsequential political desires here in the United States. Inconsequential when compared to having limbs cut off, wives and daughters raped or killed and villages enslaved to ideologies they don't want or understand. I'm not sure if a cash for clunkers program was considered a necessity in Afghanistan, but I do know feeding a still alive family is a necessity for what's left of the adults in Afghanistan. New cars, not so much.
How inconsequential is Iran or the Chinese military buildup on a nuclear India's northern border? What could be the consequences of a blundering bully from Russia trying to resurrect its once not so-greatness in the region by clumsily stomping throughout? Is it consequential that SoS Clinton appeared to recap the nuclear genie in Pakistan or has she really put those weapons out of the reach of terrorists? How resolved are we to following and resolving these threads that do not fit the narrative that this president got elected on?
Does Obama understand that resolve is a value that transcends language?
One can say what they will of Israel, but Israel's resolve has impressed even their enemies. The United States enjoys no such respect. Once again, looking back to the late Mr. Johnson's war in Vietnam, the United States offered no and gave no follow through to the Republic of Vietnam's government. We left them holding the ball, hence, all of Vietnam is now communist and a model used to ridicule and defeat the United States in other theaters. Mr. Nixon's pinpointing of priorities in southeast Asia was a poor as Mr. Johnson's bombing target lists were in Vietnam. No resolve.
Our current lack of resolve in eastern Europe is squandering historic gains for freedom in the region made by past presidents, ergo the world. Poland wouldn't believe Obama if he said 'good morning' and they'd be right to believe as such. I'm hoping Obama understands the difference between resolve and back stabbing, but I wouldn't believe him if he said he did. Maybe Obama would get a better feel for the political reality outside the United States if Axlerod or someone would inform him that eating a Chicago Polish sausage is not an education in the needs and trust of the Polish nation. And sauerkraut on the wiener is not evidence of advanced thinking on such a situation.
We're in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time.
The need to win militarily so we can win, thus stabilize, the hearts of Afghanistan to a truly safe and free Afghanistan is a long term necessity. It is a necessity to the emergence of freedom across the world, thus the spreading of peace, and it is a necessity to prove to potential allies that the United States can be trusted in the short and long term. Resolve in Afghanistan means not just winning militarily and then building roads, schools and hospitals, but resolve also means protecting Afghanis from a re-emergence of a Taliban by any other name and by bringing as many Afghans, as possible, into our current century of knowledge and the free flow of information.
What Obama is going to do in Afghanistan is unknown and that scares the hell of of me. It should scare you too. I know it scares the people of Afghanistan.
