We’re back to the old V-N adage of we must destroy the village to save thinking. BO and Hillary are discussing leaving Afghanistan, but want to make sure the country doesn’t fall under the Taliban and a safe have for terrorists. Huh?????
Administration Lowers Bar for Success in Afghanistan War, Seeks Exit Strategy
But while the three-month delay in settling on a new war strategy has frustrated Democrats and Republicans alike, administration officials argue that Obama is within his rights to take his time and that the mission must be narrowed. They say the focus from here must be on ensuring that Afghanistan does not return to being a “safe haven and a staging platform” for terrorists.
“We have no illusions. This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state and do all of these wonderful things,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. “That could happen, but our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America.”
So, we’ll leave Afghanistan, and hope the Taliban and Al-Q don’t come back is now the strategy?
Yorkshire:“So, we’ll leave Afghanistan, and hope the Taliban and Al-Q don’t come back is now the strategy?”
Obama has promised to present his strategy to the American people when he has made his decision, so we do not know yet.
Here are my thoughts. I am hopeful that the Obama strategy will focus on being a winning exit strategy, meaning that we move into a defensive mode around populated, urban areas, while training Afghan security forces, army and police, and simultaneously helping them rebuild critical infrastructure. Moderate Taliban tribal leaders must be engaged in this process, as per the Petreaus model in Iraq. A modest increase in troops may be necessary. This strategy should minimize loss of life and limb, since the combat mode is minimized.
Al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan. Ultimately, it will be up to the Afghan people to keep them out. Moreover, we must recognize the reality that al-Qaeda has multiple countries in which they can operate, more than we could ever defend, so it is in our interest to protect ourselves by focusing on homeland security, borders, shipping, intel, technology, …, as I have suggested here before. We simply cannot control these whack-a-moles throughout the globe, so we need to take care of security right here at home.
In the meantime, as evidenced by the terror attacks that Pakistan has been experiencing lately, it is therefore in their interest to cooperate with us to fight the terrorists and insurgents who currently dwell in their eastern border areas, though being very careful not to violate Pakistan sovereignty. Let the Pakistanis be on the front lines in combat, with our taking a support role. It is their country!
We can do both at the same time. Playing defense only just lets the other side play more effective offense.
York asked, “So, we’ll leave Afghanistan, and hope the Taliban and Al-Q don’t come back is now the strategy?”
That’s not quite the whole of it, we also have to pull the covers up over our heads and promise never-ever to doubt that President Obama puts our national interests ahead of his plan to give Muslim terrorists a bully pulpit in New York City.
You can watch this in increments, so it isn’t overwhelming. How about acknowledging what Veterans want to tell us?
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
Eric:“We can do both at the same time. Playing defense only just lets the other side play more effective offense.”
Eric, you don’t seem to understand, Afghanistan is a sovereign nation. We have no right to fight our wars there, which is why I favor a winning exit, as I explained above.
With al-Qaeda no longer there, we are fighting an insurgency against the corrupt Afghan government. In other words, there is a civil war going on there. It is up to the Afghans to fight that, not our troops, in harms way. We still have obligations, as I discussed.
I recommend you take the time to watch the six videos of Blubonnet’s link, well worth your time to understand some of the arguments against the war.
Please explain to me how our war in Afghanistan is providing security for us. Also, define exactly what winning is.
Some say that we are worsening our security, by alienating more civilians due to collateral damage, thereby attracting more fighting against us. This makes no rational sense for us to continue as we are in an unending slog!
For what it’s worth, I have no confidence in BO to make the right choice. We could stay, but BO says on one occasion we’re there to win, and another time, we don’t know what to do. We can leave and depending on the exit strategy we may look like quitters and no one will trust us, or we can leave afghanistan secure for the Afghans. BO may capitulate to the Taliban and they can go back to the repression they showed in the 90′s and befriend Al-Q again for the training camps.
It appears to me the BO has no clue. He appears to have no trust in his General, the Pentagon, the military by saying he trusts them for running this, then ignores them. Three months to make a decision means to me, he’s plain indecisive and making a plan that if fails, it won’t be his fault. I think he wants the thing to go downhill so he can do what he does best, blame Bush. I think the Armed Forces in the field are getting totally demoralized because they can see a strategy that could work, only to have the CIC lack confidence in them.
I really belive BO is just plain inept. He’s a child in man’s clothing looking for adulation that he feels isn’t coming. Bless our troops, the CIC is a wuss.
“Winning” means keeping the Taliban at bay. If they take over the country again, ten to one Al Q moves back as well, and will have a safe haven for planning more attacks. Winning means we prevent that from happening.