Obama’s Vietnam
October 5th, 2009 at 9:40 am by BrianHow long before the last soldier is airlifted by helicopter from the top of a building in Kabal?
Well, we can’t say that al Qaeda doesn’t own a television set. They’ve done everything right over the last year.
First, the US casualties were so low in Iraq and Afghanistan that the media was allowed to switch the focus back to “it’s the economy, stupid” in the final days of the US presidential campaign last year so that Americans would think they weren’t a problem anymore and could elect a peacnik – which “we” did.
And once he started getting all wobbly on the effort, despite his numerous persuasive speeches on how he was tear them a new one in Afghanistan, they give him a bloody nose because he’s a paper tiger that’s going to fold like yesterday’s New York Times:
Saturday’s battle was the deadliest for US forces since the battle of Wanat, and the deadliest for coalition forces in Afghanistan since 10 French troops were killed in an ambush in eastern Afghanistan in August 2008, according to Agence France-Presse.
This year has seen a rise in the number of US casualties in Afghanistan as the US troop presence has increased to 68,000 and the frequency of confrontations with the Taliban has grown. The Christian Science Monitor reported last month that 80 percent of Afghanistan now sees heavy insurgent activity, as opposed to 54 percent two years ago, with the violence growing particularly in northern Afghanistan.
America voted for the weak horse. Of course Obama has no intention of a “surge” in Afghanistan. He wasn’t for the one in Iraq that worked even after it worked. He’s a lover (of himself first and foremost), not a fighter. No, if he moved to silence the resurgent al Qaeda network in Afghanistan with the vigor he’s gone after our country’s Generals they would need to recruit a speech pathologist:
General Petraeus’s aides now privately call him “Dave the Dull,” and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general’s ambitions in particular.
The general’s aides requested anonymity to talk more candidly about his relationship with the White House.
…
But until the president makes a decision, and determines if he wants to deploy General Petraeus to help sell it, the commander is keeping his head down. “He knows how to make his way through minefields like this,” said Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army.
Petraeus has made his way through the minefields of Iraq but now it’s his employers that are trying to frag him. After all, what do several Generals with winning records know about fighting a war than a community agitator who has zero military experience, who never held a real job and who was in the Senate for about a year before running for President? He’s more worried about Petraeus’ presidential aspirations than winning Afghanistan.
Next year we will see how America loves the guy who lost a war that was under control when he took office.
More from Teh Smartest President Evah:
Rice said on “Meet the Press” that “the president has to make a judgment based not only on military assesments” but on reports from diplomats and ambassadors in the region.
“The president, as commander in chief, has to look at more than what’s happening in a single theater,” Rice said…
That’s right – discount the word of our generals in favor of regional diplomats and ambassadors. After all, they always have our best interests at heart. Trade our guys in Afghanistan in favor of, say, a meaningless UN resolution on Iran. Throw in a unilateral nuclear arms reduction for the icing. It’s bulletproof!
I’m sure they’re shaking in their Members Only jackets and not just because the Brutal Afghan Winter ™ is coming.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Greetings:
There seems to me that there is more than a bit of “Looking for a Tet ‘68″ going on in the more recent Afghanistan coverage. I would like to insert a bit of perspective based on my own personal infantry experiences.
Just as there are two basic plays in basketball, drive to the basket or jump shoot, there are two basic plays in the infantry. The first is the classic “Find ‘em, fix ‘em and finish ‘em” scenario. The second is its corollary, “Let ‘em find you, fix ‘em and finish ‘em”. Effective infantrymen have to develop skills to deal with and execute both. Some days, you’re the cat looking for a mouse, and some days, you’re the cheese in the mousetrap.
The “Find ‘em” scenario is often referred to as a reconnaissance in force, if the target is yet to be located, or an assault, if their location has been determined. One of the difficulties with this approach in a guerilla war is that the enemy can chose fight or flight.
The “Let ‘em” scenario involves finding and occupying a location that may or has significant import to the enemy. The underlying logic is to draw the enemy into a battle, so inserting too large a force would probably be counterproductive.
It seems to me, based on the very limited information available at this point, that the two recent, costly battles were of this latter type. While our casualties are certainly both tragic and unwanted, this is how infantry work sometimes needs to be done. It would be a disservice to our fallen to turn these engagements into reasons to abandon their mission and their sacrifice.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
[...] Obama’s Vietnam [...]
October 15th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Release the DOGS of WAR and let them do the job or bring them home!
Obama the Chicken in Charge!!