Blogs » Politcs Plus » Not so fast


I'm glad this president has rejected all four possible solutions coming from his National Security team without a clear definition and time line when we could turn over the responsibility of securing Afghanistan over to its rightful owners, the Afghanistan government. He made perfectly clear that we will not engage in open-ended wars.This war is tied with the American Revolution as our second longest war,next to the 11 year Vietnam War.

The leaks coming from Washington are that he will send around 30,000 troops, which will consist of three Army brigades from the 1st Airborne division, the 10th Mountain division, and one Marine brigade for a total of 23,000 additional combat troops, and the other 7,000 would support the new division headquarters in the Taliban birthplace, Kandahar. These new troops cannot get there before the end of January, and probably will not be in total force until the end of next year. The number of troops is not the central issue; it's all about the clear definition of the mission and exit strategy. I still do not hear much opposition, of this huge impact on the deficit and budget; from the right.

Much to the chagrin of war Commander General Stanley McCrystal, the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, (he once served as the top American military commander in Afghanistan) has expressed in writing ,his reservations about the deploying additional troops to Afghanistan. The ambassador expressed, concerns about supporting President' Hamid Karzai's corrupt government, according to the New York Times. General McCrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry, have a history of disagreement because General Eikenberry, at the time, disapproved of General McCrystal's risky commando missions. This is the same General McCrystal, who covered up the Pat Tillman investigation. The fact that a prominent and respected and former state official, Matthew Hoh, resigned a few weeks ago, due to our foreign policy in Afghanistan, has to be factored into the equation. Matthew Hoh sees it as a civil war and increasing troops will only escalate that. There are those that are trying to equate the surge in Iraq and its temporary success, as justification to apply them same counterinsurgency tactics in Afghanistan. Iraq had a more stable government that was willing to cooperate with our efforts, so that is just one of the reasons those methods will not work in a country with a corrupt and unwilling partner. One must read of the Anbar Awaking to acquire the full knowledge of the Surge; instead of repeating talking points.

Right wing ideologue, Charles Krauthammer, recently called for the president to man up, but he does not have to account for the fallen, disruption of the military families, and a clear definition of a mission. Much was said about the president's visit to Dover (photo-op), and his non- visit to Fort Hood, prior to the memorial service; as if to paint him as an uncaring Commander In Chief. Those same people will not tell you that his administration assured that the VA budget is prepared as a must pass legislation, and passed the extension of the GI Bill of Rights to post 9/11 veterans. I can't say for sure, but I imagine his abrupt visit to the Arlington National Cemetery played heavily in his decision to delay his approval for a strategy in Afghanistan. I can only hope.