WhatFinger


Without returning to the Bush Middle East strategy of limited Afghan engagement and renewed concentration on the real enemy, Iran, the war will be lost

Inept Obama Fighting Wrong War in Afghanistan: Real Enemy is Iran



Republican support for the troops and the spread of democracy throughout the world is one thing, but standing behind a disinterested Commander in Chief whose halfhearted policies and questionable commitment to the Afghanistan war, which under his leadership will almost certainly lead to defeat, is quite another.

Support Canada Free Press


President Obama views the war is nothing more than a distraction. While he has given numerous prime time speeches on liberal priorities including healthcare, banking and energy reform, we have yet to see a single Oval Office address on Afghanistan. His personal commitment to the conflict stems mainly from campaign pledges he made in 2008. In an attempt to portray himself as a capable military leader, Obama argued the “good” war was in Afghanistan, and as President he would bring the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Unfortunately for us, the Afghan situation probably doesn’t mean much more to him than a campaign slogan. Rather than go all out for victory as President Bush had done in Iraq, Obama treats the war like it were any other political issue. The military asked for 45,000 additional troops … it took four months for Obama to give them only 30,000. They said 400,000 Afghan soldiers would need to be trained in order to form a government capable of assuming power, Obama agreed to only 230,000. In an effort to appease his liberal base, Obama went so far as to announce to our enemies that our commitment would be limited and troops would start coming home in 2011. While the road to war was bad enough, the end goal Obama has in mind for Afghanistan is even more unrealistic. CIA Director Leon Panetta described Obama’s strategy as the establishment of a country where “Afghans accept responsibility and are able to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability.” Considering Afghanistan is a poorly educated nation dominated by the heroin trade and ruled by warlords strait out of the Middle Ages, the successful formation of a law abiding society capable of self-rule in the next 12 to 16 months is unlikely, to say the least.

We Need to Return to the Bush Middle East Strategy

When Obama came into office, U.S. troops in Afghanistan were stationed mostly around the capital city of Kabul. The military limited its exposure to the enemy by relying on air strikes and engagements by small Special Forces units. Since Obama ordered troop buildup, military strategy has changed from killing the enemy at a time and place of its own choosing, to gaining and holding ground, a far more difficult and dangerous task, especially considering the mountainous terrain. This past week Panetta described progress in Afghanistan as “slower than I think anyone anticipated…There are some serious problems. We’re dealing with tribal societies. We’re dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency.” I would have hoped the Obama administration would have foreseen those seemingly obvious “problems” before escalating the war, especially given our recent experience in Iraq. Obama clearly does not understand what President Bush did … the key to success in the Middle East does not lie in Afghanistan, but rather with regime change in Iran, the number one source of terrorism worldwide. Bush understood there could be no victory without first dealing with the mullahs. The establishment of a stable Iranian democracy would create an environment that would allow freedom and prosperity to spread to other Islamic societies, including Afghanistan. With that in mind, the best course of action for the U.S. is a return to the Bush strategy of limited Afghan engagement with renewed emphasis on toppling Iran, preferably starting with the destruction of their nuclear weapons program. After all, if it’s OK to escalate the war in Afghanistan, then why can’t we bomb Iran? Continued pounding of Al Qaeda and Taliban targets with air strikes and selective use of Special Forces should be sufficient to force them to give up the fight, especially if we make it clear we’re willing to keep it up until the end of time. It would also save our military and the Afghani people from a whole lot of bloodshed.

War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means

When announcing the departure of General McChrystal last week, Obama made this observation: “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a Private, or General or a President.” I find it particularly disturbing that the man who chose to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and blame Bush for every bad thing that has happened to America over the past 10 years, now says the conflict is even bigger than him. I can only imagine what the media would have done had Bush made a similar attempt to escape personal responsibility for Iraq. President Bush gave up golf, a sport he loved, as a sign of solidarity with the troops. Not only can’t I picture Obama doing the same, I doubt he is even capable of understanding the meaning of such a gesture. Considering the inept leadership provided by President Obama and the fundamentally flawed strategy for our armed forces, it would take a miracle for us to prevail in Afghanistan. Without returning to the Bush Middle East strategy of limited Afghan engagement and renewed concentration on the real enemy, Iran, the war will be lost. And it’s time Republicans let people know it.


View Comments

Fred Dardick -- Bio and Archives

Fred Dardick got a BS in Biology at Boston University and MS in Biology at Stanford University before deciding that science bored him. He now runs a staffing company in Chicago where he is much happier now.


Sponsored