Last week President Obama asked his military chiefs to review their Afghanistan plan and pondered "What is the end game?"
I noted then that it would seem The President should have his own game plan, considering much of his campaign rhetoric revolved around how much we screwed up in Iraq and that the "real" war on terror, or whatever the administration is calling these days, should be fought in the mountains of Afpakia (Afghanistan and Pakistan).
"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban." - then candidate Obama last August.
It's also worth nothing that Afghan President Karzai told Obama to "Settle down" and "Use better judgement".
From The Wall Street Journal:
The regents are on the ground and commanders are crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge in Afghanistan. Let's hope he's willing to see it through when his most stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.
...
Among other useful things, Mr. Obama's surge may help to educate his friends on the political left about Islamist terror. The National Security Network, an outfit that never missed an opportunity to bash President Bush, has quickly come into line behind the new President. The group says Mr. Obama's strategy must be focused "first and foremost on preventing the Afghanistan-Pakistan region from becoming a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the U.S. and other nations or a source for instability that could throw Pakistan into chaos."
Sounds good to us -- and sounds a lot like the Bush strategy. America's goal isn't to turn a backward Central Asian country into the next Switzerland, but to keep al Qaeda and its Taliban allies from using it as a safe haven. Toward that end, the U.S. and its allies can help build Afghanistan's institutions and army and help a weak Pakistan government flush out the terrorists in its wild west.
Also like the Bush Administration, Team Obama recognizes the Pakistan dimension to the Afghan problem -- even calling the place "Afpak." The Taliban came back in the past three years only after finding sanctuary around Quetta, in southern Pakistan, and in the country's northwest tribal regions. The U.S. has also won Islamabad's sotto voce cooperation to strike terror leaders, though more should be done around Quetta.
Mr. Obama's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, has been in Afpak for a week's fact-finding. Before arriving, he said, "In my view it's going to be much tougher than Iraq." Even by Holbrookeian standards, that's hyperbole. The government in Kabul isn't in danger of collapsing, the Taliban isn't popular where it has ruled, and the insurgents are no match for the U.S.-led force on the battlefield.
The Obama team wants to play up Afghanistan's troubles so it can look good by comparison a year from now. But soon enough Mr. Obama will own those troubles, and talking down Afghanistan carries risks. Our allies and the American people may come to doubt that the conflict is winnable, or worth the cost.
Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist Richard Reeves, "Why are we in Afghanistan?" The President's friends at Newsweek are helpfully referring to "Obama's Vietnam." Mr. Obama may find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support -- to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.
***
I find it very interesting that The Journal states: "The Obama team wants to play up Afghanistan's troubles so it can look good by comparison a year from now."
It sounds very much like his "doom and gloom" economic forecasts that he used to sell the Economic CRAPulus Generational Theft Act.
It's our belief that Obama will govern by popularity and polls, and will continue to use deceit to sell his agenda, making preposterous forecasts that will make him look good by comparison.
He has never taken a stand on anything in his life. He is the kind of man who will take credit when the economy turns around, but if it does not, he will blame Congress and somehow, manage to blame Bush and Republicans.
Unfortunately, we fear he will use similar blame for a failed war on terror, if it comes to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment