While Barack Obama continues to ideologically draw and quarter the entire country with his Socialist Reconstruction and the American people's shortened attention spans are focused on the fight over health care, American soldiers and Marines continue to die in Afghanistan.
Although we routed the Taliban and took control mere months after the initial invasion, we're currently bogged down in a stalemate. We're engaged in a war of attrition with an enemy who is centuries behind in terms of the technology and weapons they bring to the fight, but who makes up for that deficiency through sheer blood lust and a depraved disregard for the sanctity of human life.
As Obama constantly reminds us every time he opens his mouth, Afghanistan was the forgotten war. I think we can all agree that it was indeed forgotten; neglected by President Bush in his rush to invade Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated, although not quite to the tipping point the the media portrays. Still, we continue to ignore it at our own peril.
In March of 2009, Barack Obama fired up his Teleprompter and announced to great fanfare, the replacement of General David McKiernan by
"comprehensive, new strategy" for fighting the ongoing war in against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan.
Obama waffled, hypocritically
At that time, Obama told us that his decision to replace McKiernan was the result of a careful policy review, that he was committed to an American victory against al Qaeda and that Stanley McChrystal was the right man for the job. Obama reiterated the same message every time he bloviated on Afghanistan, including as recently as August.
Even before he announced his candidacy, Obama repeatedly castigated George W. Bush for not listening to commanders on the ground and said that, unlike cowboy George, he would listen to their recommendations. Yet, last Sunday, September 20, 2009, on Meet the Press, Obama waffled, hypocritically saying he wouldn't provide the additional resources (soldiers) that McChrystal will soon ask for, until the "proper" plan is in place. Obama's leadership on Afghanistan is simply pathetic.
Before Lt. Gen. McChrystal took over, there was a series of high-profile incidents where civilians were used by al Qaeda as human shields. In one of these unfortunate incidents, scores of civilians were killed when the Taliban hijacked American fuel trucks, abandoned them and then told locals there was free gas. When the locals began offloading the gas, American bombs struck the convoy.
Although every civilian death is tragic, they aren't always avoidable, particularly when terrorists put civilians between themselves and NATO forces. When this occurs, it is the Taliban who is responsible. Yet, as a result of these civilian deaths, McChrystal imposed new Rules of Engagement, which are now resulting in increased coalition and civilian deaths, due to our inability to protect them. As a result, current popular sentiment among both Afghans and Americans that we should leave continues to grow.
The problem with Afghanistan is not that it is unwinnable. The problem is a lack of American leadership
The problem with Afghanistan is not that it is unwinnable. The problem is a lack of American leadership. The problem is politicians and desk jockeys with zero military experience who think you can fight a war on the cheap, with fewer soldiers; or that you can depend solely on technology to do your dirty work; or that you can put your faith in Afghans, whose loyalty can be bought or coerced, to have your back.
The problem with Afghanistan is the imposition of overly-restrictive R.O.E.s that may be killing fewer Afghans, but come at the expense of more dead US soldiers, a fact recognized by the Germans, who have since relaxed their own R.O.E.s in July.
The problem with Afghanistan is that liberals are now in charge of it. They sarcastically dubbed Afghanistan the "Good War", the implication being that Iraq was the "bad war". Now that the end of our involvement in Iraq is clearly in sight, it's evident that liberals are just plain, anti-war.
In hindsight, we have done a lot of things wrong in Afghanistan. We should have destroyed the opium trade long ago. Because of that failure, opium is purchasing weapons that are killing US soldiers and prolonging the war. But we must now look forward. As I have said many times before about our involvement in Iraq, we have a moral obligation to end war and the attendant suffering as soon as possible. And, as was the case in Iraq, we now we have a critical decision to make:
Are we going to take the initiative and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, or are we going to allow Afghanistan to fall back into Taliban control?
America has grown weary and complacent. Recent opinion polls show an even split between those who think the fight should continue and those who think it should end. But we can't allow a resurgent Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Do we forget that the Taliban gave al Qaeda sanctuary, allowing them so set up training camps where hit squads learned how to efficiently slit the throats of American female flight attendants?
Like so many other pundits who chose the comfort of an Ivy League classroom over the hardships and camaraderie of military life, although well-intentioned, George Will is dead wrong on Afghanistan. While it is true we must end the neo-conservative pipe-dream of building western-style democracies in places that abhor our values, we cannot turn our back on the men and women we've tasked with breaking the back of al Qaeda. Nor, as Will suggests, can we accomplish our objectives using just Special Forces, intelligence or air power, whether manned or unmanned. Will's assessment ignores the political realities of the intelligence fight being waged in Washington as I write this. We'll be fortunate if Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder haven't dismantled the CIA completely before the mid-term elections.
Imagine that it is your son or daughter on the ground in Afghanistan right now and their Commander-In-Chief is waffling on whether to send help? Obama's indecision is a slap in the face to our allies, to the friendly Afghans who died helping us and to the families of Neil Roberts, Jason Cunningham and every other American who has given his/her life in Afghanistan. Like Tillman, many of these men joined the military in the aftermath of al Qaeda's September 2001 attacks, specifically so they could take the fight to the terrorists on their home turf.
Unless Barack Obama dispenses with the political chicanery and liberal pandering; unless he ignores MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and does what's right for those risking their lives in defense of our country and our country itself; unless he approaches al Qaeda and global terrorism as the military threat to global security that it is, instead of a law enforcement matter for the courts to decide; unless he follows the recommendation of Stanley McChrystal, backed by Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen, and orders in the reinforcements that McChrystal is asking for, we could very well wake up one day to find yet another smoking hole in the ground where one of our cities once stood. We must seize the initiative and defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda or face the prospect of dozens of foot soldiers like Najibullah Zazi, intent on waging renewed attacks on American soil. Barack Obama himself called Afghanistan a "war of necessity". So why the hesitation?
