Obama’s War?
"We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in," says Barack Obama of the U.S. war in Iraq. Wise counsel.
But is Barack taking his own advice? For he pledges to shift two U.S. combat brigades, 10,000 troops, out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, raising American forces in that country from 33,000 to 43,000.
Why does Barack think a surge of 10,000 troops will succeed in winning a war in which we have failed to prevail after seven years of fighting? How many more troops is he prepared to commit? Is the Obama commitment open-ended?
For, without any visible strategy for victory, Barack is recommending the same course LBJ took after the death of JFK. Johnson bombed North Vietnam in 1964, landed Marines in 1965 and built U.S. forces from 16,000 advisers on Nov. 22, 1963, to 525,000 troops in January of 1969.
Gradual escalation, which is exactly what Barack is recommending.
LBJ never thought through to the end game: how to break Hanoi, withdraw and leave a South peaceful, prosperous and pro-American.
Has Barack thought his way through to how this war ends in victory and we withdraw all U.S. ground troops from Afghanistan? For this writer cannot see anywhere on the horizon any such ending.
If the old rule applies—the guerrilla wins if he does not lose—the United States, about to enter its eighth year of combat, is losing. And, using the old 10-to-one ratio of regular troops needed to defeat guerrillas, if the Taliban can recruit 1,000 new fighters, they can see Obama's two-brigade bet, and raise him. Just as Uncle Ho raised LBJ again and again.
What does President Obama do then? Send in 10,000 more?
The Soviet Union, whose 115,000-man army in Afghanistan reached more than twice the size of U.S.-NATO forces, even with the Obama surge, went home defeated in 1988. The Soviet Empire did not survive that humiliation.
Obama—and John McCain, who has endorsed the build-up—should, before committing any more combat brigades, explain how and when this war ends in an American victory. For as of today, the Afghan war resembles Vietnam far more than Iraq ever did.
Consider. Taliban attacks are up 40 percent this year. U.S. casualties in May and June exceeded those in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus says al-Qaida is moving assets from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Karzai's writ still does not extend beyond the capital. He is mocked as the "Mayor of Kabul." Security in the capital is deteriorating.
For the sixth straight year, the poppy crop, primary source of the world's heroin, has set a new record. The Taliban eradicated the crop when in power, but are now collaborating with farmers to extort cash to keep fighting.
Most critically, Pakistan has become for the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida the same sanctuary that North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia provided for the Viet Cong and NVA, with this critical difference: We cannot bomb or invade Pakistan.
The new Islamabad regime is exhibiting no enthusiasm for fighting the Taliban who dominate the border regions and North-West Frontier province and have sympathizers in Pakistan's military and intelligences agencies.
Air strikes, to which we have begun to resort, have resulted in wedding parties and families wiped out in their homes on both sides of the border. President Musharraf has even threatened to retaliate against U.S. forces if more of his people become victims.
Anti-Americanism, pandemic in Pakistan, is rising.
As for Afghanistan, how do we win a war in a nation of 27 million, the size of Texas, with only 50,000 U.S.-NATO troops? How long will it take us to train, equip and arm an Afghan army that is both loyal to the regime and an effective fighting force against its Pashtun brothers?
How, ever, can victory be achieved, if the enemy can retire every winter to Pakistan to rest, rearm and prepare new attacks?
If the Pakistani army will not clean out the border regions, how can we accomplish it with pinprick strikes by Special Forces, or Predators and F-16s, which invariably cause civilian casualties?
Afghanistan, in and of itself, is of no strategic importance, if it is not a base camp for al-Qaida. Loss of Pakistan to Islamism, however, a nation of 170 million Muslims with atomic bombs, would be a calamity for the Near East and United States.
Under the (Colin) Powell Doctrine for fighting wars, questions must be asked and answered affirmatively before committing U.S. troops:
Is a vital U.S. interest imperiled here? Do we have a defined and attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully weighed? Is there an exit strategy? Is the war supported by a united nation?
How many of these questions did Obama ask himself before pledging 10,000 more U.S combat troops to what will surely become, should he win, "Obama's war" even as Iraq has become "Bush's war"?
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Are there any real Democrats---maybe Kucinich's people?---who are really 'against' the war? Mika Brzezinski was enamored with this column on today's Morning Joe. But does her father prefer Lindsey Graham to a paleo? Because that choice is out there, and the DNC and George Soros are choosing Grahamnesty. Antiwar, anyone?
Enough BS. Time to tell the truth:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/wwoop.htm
Btw, one of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is to bleed the white Americans even whiter than they already are, both physically and financially.
More Stormfront (or is that "Strom Front") drivel. Go away, idiot, and peddle your kiddie porn website elsewhere.
As for Afghanistan, Buchanan is right that we need a clearly defined strategy. Can it actually be stated? Given the history of the Brits and Soviets in Afghanistan, I think not.
"The Surge" is taking on the mythical stature of "Munich"--no reasoning required just invoke the talisman and that's all the answer required.
Why is it that media coverage has always been primarily on Iraq, thus drawing public attention away from Afghanistan. We know why the war in Iraq happened, but could it be that, for the Bush gang, the Afghan war is more important, behind the scenes? What are they hiding? It wouldn't be because a certain government agency wanted to get the opium fields going again, would it?
Dear Mr. Wilder are you more upset with the post about a former editor of NR or the NYT's allowing a crackpot religious bigot from Israel use its pages to clamor for a nuclear strike against Iran?
I had dinner in Moscow in 1988 with a Soviet veteran of the Afghanistan war. (I was there as an exchange student.) We only touched upon his experiences briefly, but the pale cast that came over his face reminded me greatly of my uncle when he spoke of Vietnam.
There is no good solution to the Afghanistan war, and I'm perplexed by the liberal reaction to Obama's willingness to stick this thing out: silence. An "endless war" in Iraq is intolerable, but an endless war in Afghanistan is not? Nonsensical.
Of course, I can't understand the liberal reaction to much of what Obama says. George Bush professes a faith in Christ, and he's labelled a Rapture-headed, right wing extremist with delusions of leading the Crusades. Obama sticks a note in the Wailing Wall asking God to "make [him] an instrument of [His] will," then promises to raise troop levels in Afghanistan, and I hear nary a word.
Morons, all.
Former editor of NR or no, I have no use for crackpot anti-Christians like Oliver (the ludicrous "Revilo" described Christianity as a disease.) Even the Birchers were not absurd and paranoid enough for him. Oliver's history amply illustrates the conspiratorialists who disdain academia, but then idolize a crackpot academic who toes their line.
Nor do I have the use for adherents to nonsensical "race ideologies" (such as the phony notion that all Europeans/caucasians are part of a race identity that should trump all else.)
Finally, the silly speech by Oliver (with its paranoic racialist idolatry) was posted by a white nationalist you just went to the clink for possession of child porn.
If you wish to identify with such, be my guest, but I submit you have little in common with, and little reason to associate with, either Chronicles and its readers.
As for warmongering in the NYT, is that really surprising? Crazed Zionists will always be considered a "respectable" voice, just as the neocon warmongers in the US (Max Boot, Hanson, et al.) will. They NYT isn't Chronicles. My wish is that the Stormfront, racialist crackpots go away from here and don't come back.
Bill-
Do you note the irony that these people talk about race, which is a group, but they are to a man egoists? You can smell the contempt for others in their voice.
Oliver's linked article is a perfect example. It is rambling incoherence. There is little attempt to communicate, since if you cannot follow his brilliant mind, you must be stupid.
It is easy to degenerate into a crackpot if one believes he is the ultimate mind. He is not accountable to anyone. He can say whatever whimsy currently strikes him.
That's why that crowd cannot communicate here. Egoists have a hard time learning from others and they expect you to acknowledge their superiority.
They cannot discuss, only pontificate. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Race is their trump card, because by believing that they alone have got it right, they can assure themselves they are indeed superior to everyone – even those Chronicles pinheads.
The ultimate man has no Creator but himself. The ultimate man needs no Savior but himself. There is no God because he has taken God's place.
Therefore the egoist dreams of fantasy Fuehrers and super-states. And blames his shortcomings on others.
I dont think its fair to compare the USSR's problems with Afghanistan with the US and NATO's today. During the 80's the Afghans were trained by western intelligence, given billions of dollars and given the latest arms to fight the Soviets.
The reason why its hard to get peace in places like Afghanistan is that there boundaries were composed of competing tribes or ethnic groups by the british empire so it was harder to unite against british rule.
The same is true with Iraq and some African states especially when you add a religion like islam to the mix.
@6Bill Wilder
I cant stand these fake alterative media celebs like the John Birch society and Alex Jones or left wingers like John Pilger that say corporations and big oil where behind things like the Iraq war.
Poor Revilo Oliver, a man in many respects so admirable but who fell into the Nietzschean trap. He did decent work as a classical scholar and never failed in courage; he understood the shoddiness of the conservatives with whom he collaborated but sank to the level of hanging out first with the candy butcher and his stooges and then to the pathetic cranks who have only one thing to be proud of, their skin color. I have never known which came first, in Oliver's case, his hatred of Jews or his hatred of Christians. I honor the man's brilliance and courage, though I cannot help thinking he was quite mad. The saddest part of his personal tragedy is that his memory is now kept alive by pathetic losers. The madness of this man who might have been great is a genuine American tragedy, one that illustrates the sickness of our country. It would have been better to have taken a vow of silence 30 years before his death.
You cannot replace man with your words. Your institutions lie in rot and yet you propose a new wording to yet try again to reform that which consumes your birthright. You wish to deny your race that is fine it is your choice after all, but if you think you can take your new words and join "mankind" good luck with that. Because it seems those you choose over your race choose their race over yours. Ask them instead of playing the nazi card. Do you wish to immolate yourself to prove Benny Morris wrong? How self centered.
PcH,
I think such egoism is typical of ideologues. Construct ideas at odds with human nature and history, and you must inflate yourself in order to reconcile the conflict.
I, of course, would defer to Dr. Fleming's appraisal to Oliver as a classicist as my education is that area ranges from meager to woeful. But his comment on racialist have nothing to be proud of but their race is both amusing and accurate.
As for Mr. Simmons, I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to ratify PcH's observation about incoherence. Or perhaps Dr. Fleming should add "drunkards" to his description of racialists.
James,
That the Soviet experience in Afghanistan differs from the American is true. However, I think the current conflict is of a piece with the earlier in terms of the motivation of various tribes/ethnic groups to resist occupation. The Uzbeks/Tajiks in the North v. the Pashtun in the South who collaborate with their Pashto brethen in Pakistan and Pakistani Intel. I'm not sure that support from an outside superpower is necessary for them to accomplish what they want.
Mr Brezinski sure screwed up. For the past 30 years he has supported and created a international terror network spanning the globe to fight as a proxy against potential rival states most noticably Russia.
This backfired on 9/11 and since then it has only gotten worse. The balkans has been a disaster, chechen militants have failed to get NATO to incur into Russia and block Russias access to the Caspain oil reserve, islamic revolutions have failed to occured in Central Asia and his terror network are transfering there resources and man power to fight the US in Iraq with techniques US special forces help train islamist insurgents in the Balkans.
In fact in regards to Russia it has only grown stronger not weaker making its own gas deals in Central Asia and paid of its debt whilst the opposite is true in the US.
If McCain wants to throw out Russia from the G8 fine then Russia will just join a new alliance like BRIC ( Brazil, Russia, India and China ).
The US's dealings with Russia have suffered (and continue to suffer) from a refusal on the part of the US to accept that Russia has a traditional sphere of influence and interest in the regions contiguous to its borders.
And this outfit gave Respail an award, better take that back for his racialist demagogery about "demythification" and other unpleasant descriptions written about christians throwing away their birthright. Personally I don't blame TJF for distancing his institution from Stormfront, TRI being perpetually on the financial rocks it certainly must remain respectable for old widows to feel comfortable in leaving it in their wills. Otherwise some mega church scoundrel will move in and make better promises that eases the worries of those nice people. I say this as a 12 year subscriber with no intentions of cancelling, even after such silly stunts as the Sam Francis show trial episode. As for Stormfront it is the flipside to the TRI coin in one respect it is all about defeat and who to blame.
As for the WOT Pat is on the right track, ceaseless critique thru ceaseless inquiry.
Obama, if he wins, cannot remove US forces from the Gulf for one reason: the US dollar.
The strength of the dollar right now is very much tied to America's military presence. In fact you might say that there is nothing else keeping the dollar afloat right now. All international goodwill to the US government has vanished in the last 8 years, and nobody in America has any money left, so the only way the US can keep influencing things is by strongarming other nations into doing its bidding.
It's a sad state of affairs. If the US military loses it's influence, there will be nothing that the US government can use to maintain its power and influence. And when it tumbles, so will the dollar.
I'd hate to be Obama right now.
TJF @ 9
A very sensible and diplomatic reply, in regards to one of your fellow classicists and conservatives, that acknowledged both his shortcomings and your esteem for him. I think you are right about the Nietzschean trap. Grandiosity makes fun reading, but leads to disappointment if taken too seriously; the world is controlled by 'D' students, not supermen.
I have a question for anyone that thinks he can help me solve this little mental delimma I have with the following quotes:
{Please excuse my getting off the subject of the header article.}
"...Churchill was right when he told FDR in Dec. 1941 it [WWII]
was the unnecessary war..."
__Patrick J. Buchanan June 14, 2008
...with...
"...Americans fought along side British soldiers in a just and moral war from 1941 to 1945...:
__Patrick J. Buchanan June 24,2008
How could World War II have been both unnecessary AND a just and moral war ?
How could it have been a just and moral war if it was unnecessary ?
I am a strong Buchanan admirer and I have read all his works except Right From The Beginning...I collect his columns regularly.
I am not trying "to get" Buchanan here. I sincerely don't know how to reconcile these two statements. And I thought over here
at Chronicles...somebody might would take a shot at it for me.
Don't get "philosophical" please, and don't get "academic" ~~
just a straight up answer without any dodging the language in the quotes.
Thanks in advance for your help with this ??
Jagman
Late response to PCH @8: Your description of these egoists could also be applied to so many leftist ideologues, thus proving that both groups are of exactly the same psychological and anti-spiritual type. They just have antithetical beliefs and ideas, that's all.
More sadly, so many run of the mill leftists, neocons, extremist environmentalists, radical vegans, atheists, and other ideologues (take your pick, any will do) are also of this type, they're just less intelligent. That's especially true of bloggers. It's no wonder the state of Western civilisation as a whole is so cataclysmic.