What is the definition of Afghanistan victory?
C’mon, Mike. You’re assuming Hussein wants the US to WIN!!
Oh, and exactly where is the Marxist Usurper going to learn that? He’s more comfortable plotting in dark little rooms in Chicago.
Michael Barone is assuming that Obama wants what is best for the country, rather than just what is best for his own political fortunes and agenda. Obama doesn’t want anything to happen in Afghanistan that might jeopardize his own re-election. I doubt he cares any further for what happens there—and might be pleased if it came under the control of a left-wing or Islamist dictatorship—to make George W. Bush’s decision to intervene there a long-term failure, and to do Leonid Brezhnev one better.
But a commander has the responsibility of setting the tone of his subordinates. And it is astonishing that a general would give such ready access to a writer from Rolling Stone, especially one who is, as the article makes clear, a skeptic about the general’s strategy.
This ^^^^^^ would be the reason I would say it is good for him to be gone as it shows poor judgement and a low regard for OPSEC.
FTA:
Like most American presidents, and like all presidents during the last 50 years, Obama came to office with little preparation for being commander-in-chief.
Since there isn't likely to be another Eisenhower anytime soon, the solution is?????
FTA:
Unfortunately, there’s not much correlation between the skill set needed to win the Iowa caucuses and the Super Tuesday primaries and that needed to decide on military strategies and to select the appropriate commanders for different military operations.
Guess that skill set thing would apply to community organizers and shakedown artists, too?
FTA:
Obama’s decision-making on Afghanistan so far could be characterized as splitting the difference. He added troops early on and opted for McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy while propitiating his party’s left with something in the nature of a deadline for withdrawal.
In the cleaned-up colloquial, Obama didn't know whether to crap or go blind so he settled for farting and closing one eye, AKA failing to make a mission-oriented decision.
FTA:
A president is entitled to take political factors into consideration in making military decisions. Franklin Roosevelt, who of all our presidents showed the greatest gift for selecting the right general or admiral for particular assignments, ordered the invasion of North Africa in 1942 against the unanimous advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He believed that the American people and our allies needed to see America taking decisive action in the European Theater, even in a peripheral location.
IMO and reading of history, the N. Africa invasion was more the doing of Churchill than any great insight of Roosevelt's. Of course, it may be inferred that this is all about political acumen and a good reading of the Allies.
FTA: And it may be time for Obama to embrace a word he has been reluctant to utter: “victory.” His duty is to set a course that will produce success, to install the people who can achieve that goal, and to give them the backing they need.
I think history has shown that the association of "victory" with the country of Afghanistan approaches that of oxymoron. Our better choice is operations that disrupt the ability of Taliban and al-Quaeda forces to prepare for global terrorism. This can be done at a lower cost, in both dollars and lives, with a smaller footprint and logistics tail. See Doug Stanton's book: Horse Soldiers.
FTA: We didn’t need this, and Barack Obama didn’t, either. But he wanted the job, and now he must command.
Not bloody likely...
Why would “I am a Muslim” Obama want to win a war against other Muslims?