Have We Learned Kiddies?

It was announced today that the last combat brigade has left Iraq, leaving appx. 56,000 non-combat soldiers behind. This announcement startled me a bit not because the decision is so atrocious but because you don't really hear anything about Iraq in the news anymore as Afghanistan is getting worse and worse by the day.

This is a curious development and devastating to liberals.

Afghanistan was the good war. It was approved by the UN and it became a joint NATO operation. It had all the telltale signs of a liberal wet dream. A community of nations coming together in agreement and harmony to vanquish a common enemy.

Iraq was the savage war of choice, unilaterally spearheaded by cowboys in DC and London and looked down upon by most of the world.

Which one has been going better? If liberal world view ideology was correct, Afghanistan should be a Utopian example of what can be accomplished through a little peace, love and understanding. The only problem is that Afghanistan is sliding back into a hell hole because the liberal world view doesn't exist. The initial part of the war went well because the United States is so good at destroying the enemy. The UN and NATO were more than happy to step aside while we kicked ass and we were happy to do so. However, when the time came for the real work, the political and societal rebuilding combined with security, they pretty much took a pass there too. With the exception of the Brits, who have been solid of course. The rest though didn't want to fight, they didn't want to provide security, they didn't want to pay for anything. They wanted the US to act unilaterally only with there approval and under the umbrella of the idiotic NATO/UN rules of engagement which are designed to lose wars.

There were no such illusions in Iraq. That was the killing war, the Shock and Awe war. Now don't get me wrong, the aftermath of combat operations didn't go well and the insurgency that followed was a horribly bloody affair. The difference was that the Iraq war didn't have to follow the intergovernmental, bureaucratic nonsense that they did in Afghanistan. While the UN and NATO happily sat on their ass and watched Afghanistan crumble, the US/UK coalition in Iraq made the tough choice to increase troop levels and increase violence to end the insurgent threat. No meetings or UN resolutions but more bloodshed. That's what stabilized Iraq.

If Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Somalia haven't taught the lesson, let Afghanistan do it. Intergovernmental agencies like the UN and NATO don't exist to get anything done. They exist to give all the nations of the world cover for doing nothing. It's an excuse to let bad things happen while world leaders talk endlessly about international law (which doesn't exist), treaties and the rights of mankind. It reflects most leftist programs on any level as they only give the appearance of compassion without the trouble of actually having to do anything.

I applaud what the coalition has been able to do in Iraq but it troubles me what is going on in Afghanistan. It would be far better to pull out of there now if it's only going to be fought on NATO terms. If the soldiers there aren't allowed to aggressively kill the enemy, they are simply providing life sized target practice for Taliban fighters which is an unacceptable situation to simply allow to exist in a war zone limbo. Let them do what they were trained to do or get the hell out of there and get ready for the next war, which will surely come after this particular display of weakness.

Commander In Who Gives A Crap

The highly anticipated Obama announcement concerning Afghanistan should becoming this week, maybe even today and I must admit I feel a bit underwhelmed by the whole thing.

In the months leading up top this monumental decision (more so recently) we've been hearing through leaks that Obama will authorize somewhere in the range of 30,000 troops with the focus being turned to ending the war.

How inspiring.

This decision is classic Obama. It's weak, it tries to play both sides, it assumes the American people are morons and it will ultimately fail.

First of all, we should all now know that Obama was just lying during the campaign about this being a just war. As far as he is concerned, the only just war their is is one America will lose badly in.

How do we know he's lying? Because, as always, his policy doesn't match the stated goal. If the real goal is to end the war, then there is no need to send 30,000 more troops. The number of troops you need to not fight a war is zero. Everybody knows this and for Obama to make this move that is clearly designed to do nothing but endanger soldiers lives shows how little respect he has for the American public. He seems to think if he keeps repeating it enough than we must believe it because of the power of his persona. I guess he really doesn't check the polls.

So what does he think it'll do? He thinks by sending 30,000 more troops it will prevent pro-war conservatives from labeling him weak in a fight and therefore not tough enough to lead. He also assumes that by ordering 30,000 more troops into a battle so they can surrender, he will placate the Mike Moore/Dennis Kucinich wing of his own party. Both these propositions are of course absurd and will achieve the opposite result. I always thought Bill Clinton was a man of far less than average intelligence (I still do, actually) but he was able to triangulate issues in a masterful way that confounded Republicans for eight solid years. Watching Obama try and take all sides of an issue is an exercise in the painfully absurd. It's like listening to British people speak Spanish, it has all the fundamental elements required but is still horribly wrong.

I'm sure Obama will stride up to the podium in West Point (guess he needs some cover) like Patton addressing his troops and then give a speech that makes him look like Alan Alda in M*A*S*H* (not a compliment lefties). It should be high theater of a mind completely gripped in an egotistical delusion of its own making. Hopefully no soldiers get killed while this idiocy hashes itself out.

Everyone Wins! . . . Except the Dead

Another day, another mindless conversation about Afghanistan. The Generals want another 40,000 troops, at least, and Obama wants to placate the Kucinich wing of his party. Thank god I'm here to offer solutions.

OPTION #1
Give the Generals all the troops they want. This would actually be the politically sound thing to do. There aren't enough pacifist-socialists in the country to doom Obama in 2012 or the Dems in 2010. Probably won't happen since Bama is an ideological robot.

OPTION #2
Do nothing, maintain the status quo. This would make nobody happy and hurt the Dems in every election going forward. Might happen anyway since Obama isn't any kind of leader in tough situations.

OPTION #3
Instead of 40,000 extra troops, send 40,000 extra Massive Ordinance bombs. You could even reduce the troop level so long as you were aggressive bombing. I'm not talking about any "shock and awe" crap either, I'm talking about Dresden style carpet bombing and Japan style fire bombing. Obama might rule it out completely due to predictable civilian casualties.

OPTION #4
Leave all troop levels as they are but relax the rules of engagement dramatically. American soldiers are good at many things but they are most effective when they are just allowed to kill the enemy. This would renew troop morale by giving them a legitimate say in the outcome of the war and by extension their lives. This would also result in an increase on the amount of dead terrorists and Taliban fighters. The objective of the war, as I understand it. Maybe possible as the media might hide the change in ROE from leftist activists.

OPTION #5
End the war, remove all troops. This is a horrible idea but could be feasible. Obama could justify it to average Americans by blaming Bush for letting it get out of hand and then blame NATO for not fully committing to the war. This would make his uber pacifists orgasmic, provide plausible cover to a goodish chunk of NATO hating Americans and allow him to stress just how important international institutions are to world peace. You know how he loves that.

Let's see. Five options, three would win the war, two would be a disgrace. I wonder which ones are seriously being considered now.

The Afghan - Worlds Worst Blanket

Listening to the running debate between Obama and his generals, it's tempting to just rampage on and on about the Presidents stunning lack of commitment to our troops or to the concept of victory. Well not surprising really but still disappointing.

However, while Obama should just send the reinforcements immediately or end the war completely, one group is getting off without so much as a public reprimand.

NATO.

You know, the group of nations united as one to fight common enemies, blah, blah, blah.

Last time I checked McChrystal was in charge of all NATO forces. If he says he needs 40,000 more troops, why exactly does the United States have to supply all of them? What possible benefit is there to forming an alliance with a group of nations that have no capacity or desire to fight? Most of these countries wouldn't actively fight the Soviets so the odds of them fighting some stateless terrorist is slim indeed.

This sordid situation is becoming all to common in NATO exercises and it is becoming clear that NATO is suffering from UN-itis. That is the disease that makes nations talk about unity out of one side of their mouth, then shirk all responsibility out the other.

If all of NATO can't get 40,000 troops together to keep a nation state from falling completely into anarchy, taking Pakistan with it, then the long term usefulness should be seriously reexamined.

Perhaps, like the UN, this is an organization that simply need not exist anymore.

Certainly not as is, being subsidized by American blood and money.

Voluntary Quagmire

Recently it has been in the news that American forces are turning over areas of Iraq to Iraqi military forces. Despite a predictable rise in insurgent (fanatical Muslin terrorist) attacks, the transition has gone smoothly.

While this is news now because the handover is becoming official, in reality American forces have been pulling back from some time now, allowing Iraqi forces to take the lead on and responsibility for securing cities.

Yet since the pull back began violence had started to flare up again, this time in Afghanistan. The Afghan war has been on the back burner for at least a couple of years but it seems Taliban/Al-Qaeda forces have decided that they have been regrouping long enough and have started the offensives again.

The real question is why NATO forces, especially with American forces from Iraq available, aren't kicking the hell out of these terrorists as we speak.

I know President Obama isn't exactly a warrior but the Afghan war was the one everyone agreed on in the beginning, so what's up?

I realize that chasing Ahmed through Waziristan isn't like invading a city but it seems that we know about where they are, after all, they have to be fairly close to kill U.S. soldiers.

Also, our forces obliterated that country with relative ease deposing the Taliban, even our limited forces should be kicking some serious ass.

I can't believe the problem is the military. Destroying things and killing people is what they do best. So the problem must be political and that problem lives in the White House.

After all that bitching from liberals about how W. forgot Afghanistan they are willfully doing the same thing. Why? Easy. Liberals in the American government have decided to burn all their political capital and our country's money on their social restructuring programs. If they committed to an Iraqi-esque surge or some special offensive, they would have to justify that to the American people. The administration has already burned every bridge with Republicans, even the moderate, sissy ones who became star-struck with Obama during the campaign. If they commit the money to really fight the war in Afghanistan, all the radical, anti-war leftists will be howling for their heads as well. Essentially, Obama decided turning our country into a European Socialism was a more pressing need than giving our troops the tools they need to fight the war and fulfill our promise to the Afghan people.

The second reason is Obama's warped foreign policy views. I'm sure he thinks his hands are tied given that many of the terrorists are in Pakistan now, specifically the border/Waziristan area. Following his pattern of letting unstable countries full of fanatics do as they please, he'll just wait until the Pakistan situation plays itself out then do something, maybe.

There are a few problems with that. First, Pakistanis lie to the U.S. all the time. They have no interest in clearing Waziristan. They can barely control the "civil" parts of the country. Besides, some Pakistani leaders like having those nut jobs around. They can be useful in the right circumstances. Secondly, they can't clear Waziristan if they want to. They have no control over that area. In reality, that part of the world is just a void. Not existing in a country, not sovereign, no recognized government. Just a black spot full of militants, plotting and planning their next violent action.

President Obama shouldn't give it any legitimacy by treating it as a territory issue with Pakistan. What he should do is break out the A-10's, B-52's and B-2's and give that a whole area an old-fashioned Dresden style bombing. Might as well see if you can bomb somebody back further than the stone age.

Putting this conflict on the back burner during the Iraq war is one thing but it's embarrassing that the Taliban has been able to regroup. The only reason Afghanistan is a third world country is because he we haven't defined a fourth yet. We should be mopping them up by now.

It's time to get it in gear, bloody some noses and let our troops put this thing to bed.


(Baitullah Mehsud, head Waziristan tribal terrorist. Planned assassination of Benazir Bhutto.)