6
POPSThe Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy ~ Mark Steyn
...to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed, objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general vibrancy of the base. Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their actions " flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of our own " taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and Toronto and Dearborn. But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like “radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic .......
3
POPSPainstaking Baby Splitting to protect population centers, or one that makes counterterrorism the main focus of U.S. efforts in the country, which would rely on relatively fewer American troops. … The timing of Obama’s decision on Afghanistan remains up in the air. But his request for another meeting with the military chiefs " and the expectation that he will meet again with his top national security advisers before reaching a conclusion " may leave him too little time to decide the issue before he travels to Asia on Nov. 11. I’m afraid that’s just not enough time for him to recognize that he is the President of the United States, that the buck stops with him, that he’ll never make everyone happy, that his current direction is more likely to make no one happy, that extended indecisiveness is its own kind of decision and, in time of war, fundamentally, it gives him enough time to grow a set. Also that, no matter how he painstakingly he splits it, it’s his baby now.
5
POPSU.S. Official Resigns Over Afghanistan War Policy Hoh's letter caused a stir in the Obama administration, and he was hastened to meetings with senior U.S. officials in Kabul and Washington. They praised his record of service and begged him to stay, offering him new positions in both locations. Hoh initially accepted the Washington job, but changed his mind a week later. Hoh said that his act of protest and decision to speak out were painful, even "nauseating" at times, but he was strongly motivated by the friends he had lost on the battlefield and the mental anguish he has experienced since returning home. "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right,' " he explained, adding that he "is not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love."
3
POPSNATO Agrees - Someone Else Needs To Send More Troops To Afghanistan That counterterrorism strategy is identified with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. In contrast, General McChrystal’s review calls for implementing a full-scale counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting population centers and accelerating the training of Afghan army and police units, both requiring significant numbers of fresh troops. NATO diplomats noted that it was difficult to see how an acceptance of this broad strategy could be viewed as anything but an endorsement of the need to increase both military and civilian contributions. Great! The Little Red Hen has convinced everyone that planting seeds to make bread would be a great idea! Let's see where the Coalition of the Free-Riding takes this. Posted by Tom Maguire on October 23
3
POPSThe Obama-McChrystal Gap He answered, “I’m always worried about using the word “victory” because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” … Obama either doesn’t understand " or, worse " doesn’t take seriously McChrystal’s report when it says, “While not a war in the conventional sense, the conflict in Afghanistan demands a similar focus and an equal level of effort, and the consequences of failing are just as grave.” Obama is neither smarter nor more politically astute than his generals. He tried to snooker McChrystal by requiring the general to send three options for Afghanistan catalogued as “low”, “moderate” and “high” risk. That way, he thought, he could accept a lower number of troops to be sent and still say that he followed McChrystal’s advice. But the general " seeing through that (according to a senior House member who I spoke to last week) " beat the president at his own game. The “moderate risk plan . . .
3
POPSThe Long Road to Indecision (we need a "Decider") selecting Gen. Stanley McChrystal to implement it, the administration began to get very cold feet about the war it had described as a strategic necessity. Consider this quick timeline: March 27 . Accompanied by Gen. David Petraeus, author of the Iraq “surge” and head of U.S. Central Command, President Obama announces the conclusion of the “Af-Pak” review: a “comprehensive strategy” to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda” and “combat insurgents”"i.e., the Taliban. May 11 . McKiernan is fired and replaced by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. “We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. Late June . Traveling in Afghanistan with Bob Woodward"who has by now simply opened an office in the West Wing"National Security Adviser (and ex-Marine general) Jim Jones tells on-the-ground commanders “that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, . . .
3
POPSPakistan Dawn, Pakistan Trutherism Obama's military problem is getting worse President Obama is presiding over a slow-motion civil-military crash occasioned by his meandering Afghanistan strategy review. The crash has not yet happened and is avoidable, but it also foreseeable. Of concern, the latest reports out of the White House suggest that Obama's team is not yet fully aware of the dangers. If it happens, it will be a problem entirely of Obama's own making and it could have a lasting impact on the way his administration unfolds. As Rich Lowry has observed, President Obama rarely misses a chance to blame a challenge he is confronting on his predecessor. This rhetorical tic served Obama well during the campaign and probably still resonates with partisans who post anonymous comments on blogs or who suffer from chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome. . . .
6
POPSDick Cheney's losing his old black magic It's great to watch people step up to smack Cheney down. Retired Gen. Paul Eaton blasted back today, and I couldn't say it any better: "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11. "The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. …
3
POPS Waiting For Godot “The thunderstorm is there and it’s kind of brewing and it’s unstable and the lightning hasn’t struck, and hopefully it won’t,” said Nathaniel C. Fick, a former Marine Corps infantry officer who briefed Mr. Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and is now the chief executive of the Center for a New American Security, a military research institution in Washington. “I think it can probably be contained and avoided, but people are aware of the volatile brew.” Last week the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., gave voice to the concerns of those in the military when he issued a terse statement criticizing Mr. Obama’s review of Afghan war strategy. “The extremists are sensing weakness and indecision within the U.S. government, which plays into their hands,” said Mr. Tradewell’s statement on behalf of his group, which represents 1.5 million former soldiers. Last August, in a speech to the V.F.W., Mr. Obama defended . . .
4
POPS "dumb" Well, they’re falling down on that score in Afghanistan. Hang on, Gates gets it. USA Today: ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY JET (AP) " The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy for Afghanistan without waiting for a government there to be widely accepted as legitimate, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Gates’ comments put him at odds with top White House and NATO officials who are balking at ordering more troops and other resources to Afghanistan until the disputed election crisis there is resolved. The Pentagon chief called the Afghan elections " and the larger issues of curbing corruption in its government " “an evolving process.” “We’re not just going to sit on our hands, waiting for the outcome of this election and for the emergence of a government in Kabul,” he told reporters en route to Tokyo. That part of the O admin doesn’t sound as dumb as the other part.
7
POPSBush's pre-emptive strike doctrine to be canceled by Obama The only difference is that now we have cowards running our country. Last week Russia reiterated their right for not only preemptive strikes, but nuclear preemptive strikes, to defend the country. Tell me this trojan horse president is not an enemy of the state.
6
POPSChechen, North African and Pakistani Fighters Helping Taliban Defense Minister Requests More International Troops, Says Thousands Bolstering Taliban Insurgency (AP) Thousands of foreign fighters have poured into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban insurgency, the country's defense minister said Saturday as he called for more international troops. The remarks come as the U.S. debates whether to substantially increase its forces in Afghanistan or to conduct a more limited campaign focused on targeting al Qaeda figures - most of whom are believed to be in neighboring Pakistan. An American and two Polish troops were killed by bombs in the latest violence reported by NATO forces. U.S. military officials said they could not immediately comment on the claim of a recent influx of foreign fighters. Afghanistan's interior minister, who also spoke to parliament, endorsed a strategy promoted by the top U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal to focus on protecting civilians rather than simply killing insurgents.
4
POPS Then There’s The Iran Bit Reidel led the Obama Administration’s strategy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. But he’s also worried about Iran. “It’s clear that U.S.-Iranian relations now are going to go into an increasingly difficult period,” Reidel said. “If I was sitting in Teheran, I’d be looking for the place where you could hurt the Americans the most and that’s Obama’s war right next door in Afghanistan.” Remember that Chicagoland speech in The Untouchables? “He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.” Not exactly the community-organizing Chicago way, I know … Anyway, another nuance overlooked in the complex AfPakInd picture painted by the AP’s Reid today. It isn’t just a war about al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, or Pakistan or India. It’s a war about Iran, too. A lot like Iraq that way. jules crittenden
0
POPSDebt Free In 3 Years Essential reading for those looking for a viable solution to erase debt.It will take 3-5 years but it is certainly a means to an end
3
POPSAfghanistan: Krauthammer's Take If he tells you that his expertise in that area is useless and what you have to do is go to the other strategy, it's persuasive. The administration is refusing that advice, at least up until now, because it means a costly year, year and a half, two years " as we had in Iraq with the surge " that it thinks that politically it cannot afford.
0
POPSJust give us the money... The thugs want the money but don't want to reform. These elites making noise are the ones who take bundles of American aid, eat the funds in corruption, still spout anti-American rhetoric, and support the Taliban while suppressing democracy and human rights of smaller nations like the Sindhis. Let's hope President Obama sticks to his guns and follows through with trying to enforce it. He may have to then finally give up this strategy and face the fact that he will not get honest cooperation out of Pakistan and its brutal, fanatic and dangerous military.
2
POPS Afghan War Units Begin Two New Efforts The moves underline the military's efforts to remake itself in response to the Afghan war despite the Obama administration's signals that it is far from committed to the current counterinsurgency approach. President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates Monday as part of the ongoing White House review of Afghanistan policy, which is being re-evaluated in light of the country's flawed presidential elections and the Taliban's recent gains. A senior military official acknowledged that the Afghan Hands initiative, the most important of the new efforts, could be modified or scaled back if the White House decides on a new strategy. "None of this is inflexible or set in stone," the official said. The strategic review comes amid worsening violence across Afghanistan. At least 16 U.S. troops have already been killed in October, matching the entire American death toll for October 2008. Mr. Gates, speaking to an Army gathering on Monday . . .
6
POPS Chaos-istan The big question now is whether this is going to be about Obama’s ego, or about winning in Afghanistan. If any general is ill-advised to shoot his mouth off, this business may also teach the administration something about blowing off generals at (unnecessarily extended) criticial moments and insisting that political parameters trump military ones in wartime. Maybe if he wasn’t so distracted with trying to have Democratic Christmas in October … an expensive tax-and-fee-subsidized health care giveaway in the middle of economic crisis and war. To be followed on by cap-and-trade’s assault on business, industry, utilities and consumers. And then you’ve got Iran, unresponsive to the extended hand of friendship. AFP, “On Afghanistan, US military puts Obama on the spot,” NYT with a look at Petraeus includes the unfortunate news that this president is less interested in listening to his generals than his predecessor was.... LA Times: “Afghanistan assault points out .....
4
POPSTo document our pessimism Max Boot is member of the infamous neo con cabal. Still, he knows a thing or two about warfare and national security policy. His opinion here is not good news.
1
POPSU.S. Iraq Withdrawal 'accelerating' What a waste of lives and money Iraq and Afghanistan are! "President Barack Obama meets senior military officers and administration officials to discuss US strategy in Afghanistan." It's pathetic!
4
POPSObama to Meet High-Powered Aides for Afghan Review were the top ranking civilian officials expected for a bracing session on a war some supporters fear could swamp Obama's presidency. War commander General Stanley McChrystal, who warned in a leaked report that the conflict could be lost within a year without more troops, was also due to to take part, either in person or by video link-up, the White House said. Other top military brass included were General David Petraeus who heads US central command, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair. CIA chief Leon Panetta was also due to take part, along with Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the US ambassadors to Islamabad and Kabul. Obama warned after meeting NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Tuesday that the United States could not fight the battle in Afghanistan alone, in remarks apparently aimed at European partners.
4
POPSObama's Move: Iran and Afghanistan continued But it is not clear that time is on Western forces’ side. Increased offensives are not weakening the Taliban. But halting attacks and assuming that the Taliban will oblige the West by moving to the offensive, thereby opening itself to air and artillery strikes, probably is not going to happen. And while assuming that the country will effectively rise against the Taliban out of the protected zones the United States has created is interesting, it does not strike us as likely. The Taliban is fighting the long war because it has nowhere else to go. Its ability to maintain military and political cohesion following the 2001 invasion has been remarkable. And betting that the Pakistanis will be effective enough to break the Taliban’s supply lines is hardly the most prudent bet. In short, Obama’s commander on the ground has told him the current Afghan strategy is failing. He has said that unless that strategy changes, more troops won’t help, and that a change of strategy will
2
POPSObama and Afghanistan: Making plans, Faking plans, Breaking plans which even at the time they were made should have been seen as what they obviously were: so much campaign puffery. What is this strategy? It’s one Obama uses for many issues, not just Afghanistan. It goes something like this: (1) say whatever you think will get you votes, even if you don’t mean it (2) do something opposite when the original stance becomes politically inexpedient and/or unecessary (3) don’t acknowledge the contradiction or even attempt to explain it (4) if somehow you are forced to break rule three and acknowledge your reversal, blame it on someone else"preferably George Bush, Republicans in general, and/or those crazy Tea Party attendees. [ADDENDUM: The wrongness and inconsistency in Obama’s Afghan policy was all quite clear back in July of 2008, when I wrote this post. And don’t forget that Obama could not have been more incorrect about the surge, not only at the very beginning but repeatedly, even after it had clearly succeeded.
2
POPS President Interdum Fidelis Let's include the stated reason for the review: Obama is shocked - shocked! - to learn that there is corruption in Karzai's government: But the Afghan presidential elections, widely marred by allegations of fraud, undermined the administration’s confidence that it had a reliable partner in President Hamid Karzai. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden already had raised doubts about Mr. Karzai, which were only exacerbated by the fear that even if he emerges from a runoff election, he will have little credibility with his own people. “A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That’s in doubt now,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s strategy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. “Part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that they are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election.”
4
POPS The Biden Plan Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics. The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan. Mr. Biden has often said that the United States spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to American national security interests is in Pakistan. Mr. Obama rejected Mr. Biden’s approach in March, and it is not clear that it has more traction this time. But the fact that it is on the table again . . .
1
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update