Afgan Soldiers Treat Wounded U.S. Service Member - Military Time
American Casualtiesin Afghanistan are on the rise; with a total of 43 service men and women having died since August 30. President Obama, meanwhile, will wait several weeks before making a decision regarding the Afghan War – this according to an AP Report yesterday. The President is weighing the advice from both civilian and military members within his administration, while the 68,000 troops serving in Afghanistan face increasing pressures from Taliban/Al Queda Insurgents. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates is in favor of adding additional troops, in an effort similar to the counter-insurgency that worked in Iraq (until such time as the President withdrew U.S. combat divisions, leaving those military forces in Iraq vulnerable).
This is advice given by Stanley McChrystal, who asked for an additional 40,000 troops. Gates is not in favor of a proposal to use drones and limited military in order to strike at Al Queda camps – citing that this strategy was used pre-9/11.
The crux of the matter is that the President has found himself in a boondoggle as regards Afghanistan, a country that has yet to be conquered by any force, including those of Alexander The Great. On the one hand, should he commit to further increasing the military option, he runs the risk of an already comparative Viet Nam, as troops become scarce, the need for a draft will be evident. On the other hand, should he commit to a smaller police force, with limited back-up, the same situation will occur, emboldening Al Queda further, and leading other nations to assume the Paper Tiger is back (see Carter). The civilian advisors would rather limited involvement in Afghanistan, and those advisors are the Presidents base, without which, and during an upcoming election, he may not be able to do without, and the possibility that the President himself, shares the distaste for military action equal to his peers. Therefore he is stuck between a rock and hard place, with few discernible leadership skills, while American Troops are under fire in two theaters.
Obama options, according to the Washington Post, are somewhat limited. The President may rely on the G.O.P. members of both Houses to help him should he take the commander’s advice of adding more troops in the theater. Although that would be a good strategy after the 2010 election, should the GOP gain a majority (polls lean in that direction now), at the moment, there are too few Republicans to make much of a difference vis a vis, and extremely left-leaning majority. With the likes of Massachusetts Senator (I don’t’ know what Cap and Trade Means) John Kerry pontificating on the Viet Nam comparisons, using the fact that during the administrations of both Kennedy and Johnson, troop increases failed to make a difference. (He fails to mention which administrations). What Kerry does not mention is the fact that troops on the ground were hamstrung by political nonsense such as the demilitarized zone, which was honored by the U.S. Forces, not the Viet Cong. Additionally, they were mainly made up of 18 and 19 year old draftees, normally coming from poor urban areas, with little training, and less chance of survival – This is very unlike the volunteer military the U.S. enjoys today.
With the pressure mounting, the President must weigh all the facts before, deciding the fate of those in-country and the fate of those yet unnamed who will surely follow, or face the derision of the world, specifically those countries and terrorist organizations who are still bent on destroying the U.S. (despite the election of one Barack Obama). It will remain to be seen, if the President will weigh in on the side of the military for the first time in his very short presidency or allow his own political ideology (in concert with his civilian advisors) to shape the course of events similar in scope to those decisions made during the Johnson and Carter administrations.
2 comments:
Before the election Charles Krauthammer called Obama the single most unqualified candidate for Commander in Chief ever. I give you example A.
Hi Chuck,
Charles Krauthammer has an amazing outlook - as a conservative, I believe he is one of the great commentators. As to being a Commander In Chief - I had concerns regarding Obama, based on the uncanny similarities to Carter think and, as his administration progressed, these similarities grew more stunning day by day - the only difference was his reference to Lincoln (a Republican oh my!) as his favorite President, however, that said, I believe it was not dedication to country - rather Lincolns use (or rather abuse) of the Constitution that fascinated Obama - the addition of troops on the ground in Afghanistan, in my humble opinion, is a mistake - we have the wherewithal and the hardware to make precision strikes on high value targets - we also had the wherewithal to develop intelligence - that particular piece of real estate has been notoriously difficult for any military action historically - it was the hubris of campaign rhetoric that brought us to this point - the "shock and awe" that pushed the Taliban out needed to be reinforced - as well as an education blitz - drop a million computers - get the youth involved in language exchanges between all nations, rather than allow them to remain ignorant - this is the plight of the average Palestinian - they are held hostage by the indoctrination of their youth - (see Suicide Mickey) that is fostered on them by Hezbollah (Iran) for what? - Look at how the Iranian youth are standing up - risking life and limb - for a chance at democracy - it was not fostered by any government - it was the ability to communicate to the outside world that led them to understand that basic freedoms allow nations to prosper and the individual to rise above - during the Israeli/Lebanese conflict (the last one) (see Iran) - those youngsters were chatting between nations - they have no animosity - it is the tired old dictators that hold the military and mercenaries (for how long is a question) over the people’s heads that has, to date, kept them prisoner - but for how long - that is the question. Remove high value targets, those who would dictate destruction, not only of our nation and of Israel, but of their own people, and let those who would advocate peace and advancement rise - on their own.
Just a theory.
Post a Comment