A Stumbling Bumbling 45 Minutes of Nothing - Obama's Plan for Afghanistan, or Not

We waited for this? First, let's start with the lying.

"Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military, and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less. This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan."

Let's review: General McChrystal said,

“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,”

 There is an obvious immediacy there and if Obama had spent five minutes in the military he would have known it meant sooner than later.

 Delay is deadly in war and whether he and his people want to believe they didn't "delay" or "deny" help to our forces in Afghanistan, it's exactly what they did.

 Given the plan he outlined, or rather lack of, it now seemed totally unnecessary.   As to that plan - what little there is, it seemed as disjointed and as teleprompted/packaged as most of his speeches.  It said all the words, but carried none of the passion fitting of a Commander in Chief.   You could tell his heart wasn't in it and by the looks of the cadets they knew it too.

If you can't win the hearts and minds of our future leaders you're lost before you get started on the quest. It was quite telling.

 On that point, note the way Chris ("Is telephoning Al Qaeda a crime?") Matthews, calls the venue for the speech - West Point - "Enemy Camp", and too notes the lack of leg tingles.



 



h/t Michelle Malkin for the video.

After Twiddling His Thumbs for 10 Months - Obama Makes a Decision on Afghanistan

Well what do you know, the commander and delay has made a decision which has been a no-brainer all along.

"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House.

They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.

As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops."

This of course is less than what commanders on the ground wanted and what McChrystal asked for. While it's welcome and about time, one would think why take all the time to arrive at the obvious conclusion? Witness this:

"The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said. "We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said. It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday."

Six months is hardly enough and Obama knows it. He's trying to walk the line of "war hawk" and "dove" and yet not get any bird poop on him.

Did Obama Bankrupt the Country to the Point it Can't Defend itself?

At last the real reason Barack Obama is stalling on sending needed troops to Afghanistan - he can't - we're broke.

 The Ny Times explores this truth - a first I might add.

 "Senior administration officials reported to the New York Times today that budget projections for the war in Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1 million per soldier, per year. 

 The plan to add 40,000 American troops and greatly expand Afghan security forces, supported by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is estimated to cost between $40 billion to $54 billion annually. “Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House...appears almost constant,” according to the NYT. 

 The new estimate for the cost of war in Afghanistan will cancel out the $26 billion savings projected for a 2010 troop withdrawal in Iraq. Under this scenario, the overall military budget could rise as high as $734 billion. The highest annual military budget during the Bush era was $667 billion. 

 A senior administration official speaking anonymously with the NYT said that concerns over politically volatile spending influenced the President during a White House meeting on Wednesday. Obama was insistent that each military plan incorporates the quickest possible exit strategy. 

“He knows we cannot sustain this indefinitely,” the official said." 

 Of course "politically volatile spending", such as bailing out banks, Wall Street, Newspapers and God knows who else is just fine.

Back during Vietnam Democrats - who began the war - stopped the war by pulling funding. But at least they did it out front. Barack Obama did it from the rear - in secret - and I might add dishonestly.

 Subsequently he stuck a knife in the back of every soldier who has served in this war, for now there is no money to complete the task.

Obama AWOL on Afghanistan Again

Andrew Sullivan:

"The news that Obama has refused to sign off on any of the four major options presented to him in Afghanistan reminds me of why he was elected president. This critical decision - arguably the most critical of his young presidency - is one that will not be rushed the way such decisions often are. His insistence that the civilian branch truly control policy there and that empire not be passively accepted as a fait accompli are real signs of strength in the struggle to recalibrate American foreign policy."

Un-huh.

No what we have is a dolt who in spite of getting all the proper information still can't make a decision. That's not leadership, it's incompetence.   There is nothing else to know.  If he fails to do his duty and send more troops the failure of the war in Afghanistan is on his shoulders, and on that of the Democratic Party for years to come.

Just as it was with Vietnam.

By the way, my bonafides outrank Sullivan's - who never served, so that statement is fully qualified. Had we had a president such as this during any one of our numerous campaigns we would have lost them all.

Emanuel - We Suck on Afghanistan but of course it's Bush's fault

Everyone knows that your name is good for blaming things on six months after you leave the job. But were at the ninth month and still Obama-World is blaming Bush.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of President Obama's top advisers said Sunday the Bush administration failed to ask critical questions about the war in Afghanistan, leaving the Obama administration starting from scratch -- and leaving the war "adrift." White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says President Obama is asking new questions about Afghanistan War. "

The president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN's "State of the Union." Among the things the Obama administration wants to know from Afghan leaders: "Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?" 

The United States faces "a much more complex decision" than just determining the appropriate level of troops, Emanuel told CNN chief national correspondent John King in a rare interview. "It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting point ... and that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner," Emanuel said.

The only thing "adrift" is competence in the Obama White House.

 They're totally enept at this point. But let's review the tape.

Things in Afghanistan did start to take a turn for the worse in 2008, but the current morass began in March of this year.

 After asking General McChrystal to give an assessment, one in which he called for more troops, Obama and his clan instead demonized the General and to this date has failed to send reinforcements.

  The Angry White Guy, "Since Obama took office over 318 American lives have been lost in the war on terror. We have a general asking for more troops, 40,000 to be exact to suppress the Taliban and Obama does nothing. Oh Obama says he’s going to study it… he’s going to look at it… he’s going to think about it and he is going to delay and cost more American lives."

 Obama's current dereliction of duty and incompetence is the issue not what Bush did or didn't do a year ago.

 It's nice to know that while our guys are dying and scraping with little support from their Commander in Chief, his Chief of Staff is pulling out the weasel clause.

Report: Weapons Fail During Afghan Fire Fight

Disturbing:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either. When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents. Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy? Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

Any soldier that has served in a desert region knows that weapons maintenance is a pain in the duffle bag. In my time it was the M16, faithful when it fired, but prone to jams with just the littlest amount of dirt. Many times it's not the weapons but the quality of the ammo, something that also needs constant inspection but often doesn't get it.

Obama's Dereliction of Duty on Afghanistan

Perhaps since Bill Clinton have we've seen such indecision and outright dereliction of duty from a US President, but Barack Obama meets the criteria. Take this from the Politico:

"President Barack Obama met privately with McChrystal for 25 minutes aboard Air Force One in Europe on Friday. Asked on CBS's Face the Nation what happened during the session, Jones said, "the two had a good meeting and it was a good opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better." And, he said, "I'm sure they exchanged very direct views." In September, the Washington Post obtained and published a candid 66-page report by Gen. McChrystal assessing the deteriorating situation American forces face in Afghanistan. And in a speech in London last week, McChrystal argued that any effort to scale down the war in Afghanistan would be misguided. Vice President Joe Biden is one of the most visible proponents of scaling back the U.S. footprint in the country. "

Up to that point Obama had only met with McChrystal once - that's "one time" - since asking for his assessment in Afghanistan. Only when that fact became public did Obama have a meeting with McChrystal, and from what we have read it was nothing more than a photo op. In fact, Obama seemed far more focused on getting his hometown the Olympics than doing his job as Commander in Chief. Military leaders on both sides of the pond have expressed concerned about the dwindling situation in Afghanistan and through that Obama's inaction. And while he fails to act, our soldiers are dying.

What Experience Does George Will Have in War?

I've never considered George Will anything other than a "true Conservative", nevertheless this is insane.

"George F. Will, the elite conservative commentator, will call in his next column for U.S. ground troops to leave Afghanistan, according to publishing sources. “[F]orces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters,” Will writes in the column, scheduled for publication later this week. President Obama ordered a total of 21,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan in February and March, and casualties have mounted as the forces began confronting the Taliban more aggressively. August saw the highest monthly death toll for the U.S. since the invasion in 2001, the second record month in a row. Will’s prescription – in which he urges Obama to remember Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870 - seems certain to split Republicans. He is a favorite of fiscal conservatives. The more hawkish right can be expected to attack his conclusion as foolhardy, short-sighted and naïve, potentially making the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorist attack. The columnist’s startling recommendation surfaced on the same day that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, sent an assessment up his chain of command recommending what he called “a revised implementation strategy.” In a statement, McChrystal also called for “commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort.” In the column, Will warns that any nation-building strategy could be impossible to execute given the Taliban’s ability to seemingly disappear into the rugged mountain terrain and the lack of economic development in the war-plagued nation."

Fer crying out loud, who in the hell is talking about "nation building"? It's about containment of the Taliban, controlling Al Qaeda - who are not in Afghanistan, and a commitment to the people of Afghanistan. It's about honor George, of those who gave their lives - which you never had a chance to sacrifice - and about winning - not retreating. Lobbing missiles vis Clinton will not do in. Wake the f-k up man!