Following up on yesterday's post, there was some very encouraging news yesterday concerning the proposed escalation of the war in Afghanistan. First, the Washington Post reported that U.S. ambassador Karl Eikenberry:
And Karl Eikenberry knows of what he speaks on the subject of Afghanistan. He is a retired lieutenant general who was in charge of building and training Afghan security forces from 2002-2003, and was the top American commander in Afghanistan from 2005-2007 before being appointed ambassador by President Obama in January.
Then the White House released a statement yesterday after a top-level security meeting saying that, "The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended."
Yessssss. Then last night I was watching Rachel Maddow (like any self-respecting DFH does) when she broke the news of an AP report that President Obama had rejected all the options of troop increases by his national security team, which ranged from 20,000 to 40,000.I'm getting that "hopey" feeling again.
..."sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise...The ambassador also has worried that sending tens of thousands of additional American troops would increase the Afghan government's dependence on U.S. support at a time when its own security forces should be taking on more responsibility for fighting."
And Karl Eikenberry knows of what he speaks on the subject of Afghanistan. He is a retired lieutenant general who was in charge of building and training Afghan security forces from 2002-2003, and was the top American commander in Afghanistan from 2005-2007 before being appointed ambassador by President Obama in January.
Then the White House released a statement yesterday after a top-level security meeting saying that, "The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended."
Yessssss. Then last night I was watching Rachel Maddow (like any self-respecting DFH does) when she broke the news of an AP report that President Obama had rejected all the options of troop increases by his national security team, which ranged from 20,000 to 40,000.
I'm glad to see that Obama has adopted the same Bush stragedy for Iran that worked in Iraq, with one difference. Bush didn't publisize an exit timetable that our enemies could use for their future planning.
Obama is finding out, to his surprise, that:
1. The Bush policy of engagement and rebuilding relationships via trust in the US's intentions was the best way to go, and
2. his policy of bowing to their desires and blaming the US has gotten him nowhere.
Let's hope that he doesn't handcuff our military with rules of engagement that will only make their job harder and get more of them killed.
**********************************************************************************************
Editor's note: Alex, what the hell are you talking about?
1. Bush's policy of engagement was premptive invasion and shooting the world the finger.
2. Bowing to who's desires?
3. Handcuffing our military...you mean like GWB?
"McChrystal warned, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures....
----------------------
We've been training THEIR people for 8 years. How friggin' long is that "maturing" gonna take. I'll give him that we "have lost the momentum". But considering we've got guided munitions and they have single shot rifles, how exactly did that happen. With all due repect to the general....he's FOS.
More good news. The President has asked for 3 new options, all with withdrawal timetables, and has “demanded” an exit strategy.
http://washingtonindependent.com/67521/inside-this-mornings-white-house-afghanistan-meeting-anger-with-eikenberry-beef-with-mcchrystal
Make no mistake, the pro-war, right wing is gonna go BERSERK if we begin to orchestrate a withdrawal. They will be certain that the minute we announce a troop reduction that the entire brigade of Al-Qaeda, accompanied by the several Taliban divisions, will book the first flight out of Kabul for New York with their AK-47's and RPG's in checked baggage to avoid the metal detectors.
Shortly thereafter, Afghanistan will fall, along with Palistan, Turkmenistan and Stancliffe, Connecticut. The Sears Tower will come down followed by the NEW Yankee Stadium. There will be fighting in the streets of Philadelphia although that will not be related to this. It will be the Taylor Swift people versus the Brad Paisley fans protesting the CMA awards.
Anarchy will reign and the absence of the DEpartment of Homeland Security "colored threat warnings" will prove to be our downfall. Oh, the U.N. will send Bosnian and Italian troops to stop the madness. But to no avail. THis will make 2012 look like a picnic on a sunny day.
wow...Maybe I'm suffering from a case of missing time but this seems like a huge turnabout in attitude from what it was last year.
I'm going to betray my inability to truly commit to anything and agree with the trend (here anyway) that the best option is the get out option.
My only concern is that the American people feel safe from the foreign hordes because I think that's what drives the insanity of the right. That paranoid streak colors every aspect of their reality view and has horrible consequences for our society. If we can get past that then everything's cool.
But then we do have a responsibility to help keep the world safe, a responsibility that all legitimate governments should share.
YES! And if the strategy is to go after Al-qaida on the Pakistani border, that is troops and treasure going to the REAL fight against terror. I know that we promised to rebuild what we bombed, but with the money Karzai's bro et al bring in from the cocaine industry, they HAVE the funds. If they choose to enrich their own coffers rather than help their people, then the people need to revolt. We don't need to be enabling these poppy addicts.
As for building up Afghani troops, who will they be loyal to... Karzai? The Taliban? They could be used against their own people. The govt. is corrupt. NOT our problem!
Is it necessary for me to say lomamonster is 100% right?
I didn't think so.
"And Karl Eikenberry knows of what he speaks on the subject of Afghanistan"
And that may make a huge difference, I suspect. McCain, Cheney, Gingrich et al are all urging haste and waste, while the person who is probably the most well informed of all urges caution.
Count this as yet another day that I am grateful this nation elected Barack Obama as our president.
Biden still has the best idea - Keep the rats in the caves with the Predator drones and save our troops for more reasonable missions. An occasional sweep with an AC gunship or a B52 strike wouldn't hurt either. But we really need to get out of there ASAP!
I too was very encouraged by last night's news regarding the President's refusal to accept the current options being presented to him.
I'm sure that, whatever the President decides, it will involve adding more troops. However, I do think that he's doing the right thing by making sure that whatever option he chooses has an endgame.
I feel the same way. I really do hope that we are not going to send more troops to a no win situation, but bring them home instead.