President Obama spoke tonight to an audience at West Point, detailing plans to add thirty thousand troops in Afghanistan but calling for a finite time frame for the mission of building Afghanistan’s military and governmental infrastructure. He spoke of the need to deal with major problems in Pakistan, and pledged to both countries that the U.S. has no interest in being an occupying power. He also dismissed the talk of nation building in Afganistan:
“That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended, because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own,” the president said.
Is this strategy correct? I have my doubts. The fight is tribal as well as ideological, and getting the country on a different path may well be impossible, especially in a shorter time frame. But I must say that the United States cannot afford the effort required to nation build in Afghanistan. There is not the political will, or the financial ability, to do so. The President was faced with the most difficult of choices and has made the call. Was it the right one?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
Congratulations for not drinking the koolaide.
Let’s summarize:
1. Obama’s Re-election Campaign
We send in 30,000 troops for 18 months and then pull them out. War hawks get their surge and the Liberal left sees a time when we are out. (More votes for he President because not only does he satisfy everyone, eventually, but it’s over before 2012 election)
The President wins his election and troops get killed” to satisfy political ends.
Note: this could be worse as the first troops may not get in position for quite a while.
2. Tali-ban Battle Plan.
After recovering from the victory party they formulate their plan. Unlike Obama, the Tali-ban have decades to win and the patience to wait.
a. Kill American Soldiers whenever possible for 18 months.
b. Withdraw main forces and train for resurgence after Americans are gone. Keep small parties on the battlefield to meet the goals of part (a.)
c. Corrupt the Afghan government, even more than it is, to help insure the Americans leave.
d. After Americans leave return for final battles.
The big looser in this “plan” is our troops who will die for nothing.
We know his plan is to get out in 18 months, but how does he characterize a win? Oh wait, I forgot, he does not like winning. He said so during his campaign.
See what happens when you put a Chicago Politician in charge of war?
Jules
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor:
He has no choice: he was left with this quagmire by the Bushies, and there really is no legitimate way out. If we left tomorrow, we know what would happen. If we stay forever, we know what would happen. We cannot afford nation building exercises all around the world, wherever the Taliban or God knows who else decides to site itself next.
The real unfortunate part of the Iraq-Afghanistan cluster**** is that we’ve managed to show the world the limits of American power, and how empty threats to use it will be.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
What is the difference between leaving now or in 18 months?
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
Political cover for the 2012 election, a whole lot more dead Afghans and less so brave American sons and daughters.
The political result in Afghanistan, my guess, will be exactly the same. We’ve been propping up a weak and corrupt central government, and the tribes will take over when we leave.
NPR ran a defense department report that suggested that about 10% of the money we’re giving to the Afghan government is being siphoned off to the Taliban in bribes to pass our equipment: so we’re even continuing the funding the Taliban Weapons Stimulus Program started by Bush / Cheney (didn’t think I’d end this post without that point, did you?)
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
Your last comment is not surprising as you haven’t gone beyond the Bush years. Is is because this President has disappointed you?
The other stuff is all known for years now.I do agree there is no seeming winnable goal.
I say it’s not worth one more American life if he is out in 18 months. Have you and I flipped on the war?)
Loose lips sink ships.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
If you want me to go back to Carter and the desire to draw the Soviets into their own Vietnam in 1979 via propaganda, and with the CIA adding advisors and aiding Bin Laden in 1980 under Reagan, I will.
-FM
LikeLike
… but in my haste to punch “submit comment” …
You and I mostly agree, but politically, there is no choice. If the Republicans wanted to take the war off the table, those brave Americans who will undoubtedly die for no cause would still be with us. But, we’re about to fund a 40B farce for 18 months at a time when we could be using it for more constructive needs, all to make sure Republicans are sated and not allow the “weak on defense” argument in 2010-2012.
These are the days when I think that we should put Congressional sons and daughters on the front lines.
Or maybe Congressmen themselves. With appropriate body armor, of course.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
With me it’s simple, if you cannot define the goal of the military operation and you set a short term retreat date, then every soldier killed is a terrible and unjustified waste.
Afghanistan is a country of individual, unrelated tribes that act independent of each other. There is no way to make a country from this collage.
I thought all we were doing is to kill the bad guys. The locals will not help and the President wants out.
Let’s not lose any more of our boys.
Why did it take 10 months to reach this decision?
Jules.
LikeLike
Jules:
My sense is that it’s not about actual goals, it’s about perceived goals: for 8 years, now 9 years, it’s been about being “perceived” to be doing something about terrorism, and it’s easy to send “the boys” to go do something about “them”.
It takes intelligence, thought, negotiation, and compromise to reach political settlements. Something that you may have noticed has been in short supply in this country for some time now.
-FM
LikeLike
I heard neither Doug MacArthur or George Patton..or even Geo Marshall or IKE..he never really stated why we will use blood and guts..neither of them his..and not all our technical and strategic resources…why do we always fight with our hands tied behind our backs..we should have MORE respect for our troops….and by the way..why is he not burning the poppy crop..90% of which ends up as drugs on American streets????
LikeLike
Bob:
Ever stop to wonder what funds those tribal warlords we’re making deals with?
-FM
LikeLike
Fred, (response to Dec. 7 entry)
I figured you’d have no where else to go than back in time.
And in response to your entry; It does take, “….intelligence, thought, negotiation, and compromise to reach political settlements”, and have seen it in this guy either.
Jules
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor:
You know, it just struck me.
”
Fred,
With me it’s simple, if you cannot define the goal of the military operation and you set a short term retreat date, then every soldier killed is a terrible and unjustified waste.
”
How much does our Jules sound like John Kerry in front of a Senate Committee during the Vietnam war?
See, maybe things CAN change.
-FM
LikeLike
Say good night Lucy.
LikeLike
Jules:
Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
As your postings amply prove.
Still curious to me that you are a part time historian. Curious indeed.
-FM
LikeLike
… and since all of history provides teachable moments, for anyone actually interested in reading and pursuing knowledge, see if you can draw any parallels to what then Lt. Kerry said in 1971 and what’s going on today in Afghanistan.
http://hnn.us/articles/3631.html
-FM
LikeLike