Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Obama's War: Part II

He surely owns it now, doesn't he? The reasoning for expansion of the war is: a "surge" in troops now will allow for a sooner end to combat. Please! Give us a break. How many times have we heard that one? The same reason was given (more than once) during the Vietnam war. The same reason was given during the Iraq war; but we still have about 100,000 troops in that country. The war in Iraq hasn't ended yet.

If you were not listening carefully, you may have gotten the impression that the plan now for Afghanistan is to start pulling out troops during July of 2011...for sure. Wrong! That's not what they said, they being Obama, Gates, Clinton, etc. Some troops may be pulled out in 2011, depending upon various conditions; however, that could change, and it does not portend the end of our involvement in that war.

There is nothing new about this "new" strategy. It's all smoke and mirrors for the benefit of an increasingly disgruntled public. As I watched the news tonight, and listened to Obama, Clinton, and Gates, I was sickened by the hemming and hawing, the contradictory responses to Congress, and the slickster way in which the principals laid the groundwork for an extended war in Afghanistan. National politicians appear to think that they're being professional when they equivocate, being honest when they beat around the bush, and being smart when they display a total lack of common sense.

Who are these people?!

2 comments:

ilovebeeswarzone said...

hi i amrepeating the previous comment that seems to have been erase.I respect your opinions before so i came back to get your idea on the new strategye,i hope they can get rid of the terrorist sooner so they can end that dirty war even sooner,the militarys seems to have pick up a second wind and it seems that they are on the moves,so i am hopefull we will see the end of the battle at least,thank you.

Scott Haley said...

Historically the lesson is that it takes a 10 to 1 ratio (conventional troops to guerrillas) to be successful. In Afghanistan that would mean 250,000 NATO troops to the enemy's 25,000. That will never happen.

Personally, I don't believe that even 250,000 could accomplish the task. Guerillas can fade into the woodwork and then reappear later, even after we leave the country.

As I said in the article, I don't see anything "new" about the new strategy. It was tried several times in Vietnam...and we lost that war. Troops were increased, South Vietnamese troops/police were trained, etc., but the entire effort failed. Commentators claim that it worked in Iraq... but the war in Iraq is still going on, long after the "surge". The recent four major, synchronized bombings in Baghdad prove that.

From the interviews I've seen, most commoners in Afghanistan do not want us there. Only the corrupt Afghan government wants us there...and of course, the Corporatocracy. [I'll explain that last part in my next piece, which will be out shortly.]