04 December 2009

Obama's Surge

Obama has unveiled his great plan for Afghanistan. He is sending 35000 troops (5000 less than McCrystal's requested minimum of 40000) and they will be home by fall of 2012. Obama doesn't even believe in Obama's plan. Hence the time table. You can establish a timeline without announcing it to the enemy. All Obama did was signal his weakness. The perceived weakness of our leaders is why Afghanistan and Iraq have been seeing increasing levels of violence in recent months. At any rate, there is little reason for us to invest so much into Afghanistan. We should seek to effectively manage the country rather than initiate any further nation-building steps. It is a tribal region that has never had a strong central government. We can prevent the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from building a stronghold, but there is little else we can do for the Afghans unless they initiate change themselves. Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan and Somalia. Our interests would be better served working in those nations to destroy the enemy and show them we can hit them wherever they hide. I will support Obama's surge if he fights to win. Unfortunately I think his strategy is more about a protracted retreat than a surge to victory. What I find humorous is that 3 years ago Obama was riddiculing Bush's surge and saying it would not work. Now Obama is implementing essentially the exact same plan and even sending administration officials to capitol hill to sell the plan to Congress. Gates just testified the merits of the plan by pointing to Iraq's success as a model. As usual democrats are being hypocrites. Corruptocrat John Murtha, who demanded timetables for Bush's surge, is now arguing against Obama's current timetables. His anit-war leftwing base is "grieving" over my fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama has manged to piss off the right and left on this one. Good job, that takes talent.

0 comments: