Analysis: Obama's Afghanistan problem gets worse

AP/WorldMag ^ | Mar 11, 11:24 PM EDT | ANNE FLAHERTY and LOLITA C. BALDOR

[quantim]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama has a PR problem when it comes to Afghanistan, to say the least.

Once the must-fight war for America, the decade-long mission has spiraled into a series of U.S. missteps and violent outbreaks that have left few ardent political supporters. After NATO detained a U.S. soldier Sunday for allegedly killing sleeping Afghan villagers, Republicans and Democrats alike pointed to the stress on troops after years of fighting and reiterated calls to leave by the end of 2014 as promised, if not sooner.

"It's just not a good situation," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Our troops are under such tremendous pressure in Afghanistan. It's a war like no other war we've been involved in. ... We're moving out, as the president said. I think it's the right thing to do."

Likewise, many Republicans -who as a party fought against a quick exodus in Iraq and criticized Obama's 2008 presidential campaign promise to end the war - are now reluctant to embrace a continued commitment in Afghanistan.

[Gene Eric]

The Leftwing tenor will be completely different given Obama is POTUS, and not Bush.

[R_Kangel]

Analysis: Obama's Afghanistan problem gets worse...

Oh c'mon people .... How the heck can it be getting WORSE?

There is no way on this planet that Mr. Obama's Afghanistan problem is getting worse ..... at least as long as the Main Stream Media isn't reporting it to the masses!!!!

The media is reporting in a fashion the creates a perception to the electorate. As they say .... perception is reality ... and until otherwisw reported ... the perception shall be the reality of the people!!

Unless the masses find out about this ..... it will be shuffled to the outer darkness where no human shall be privy to this knowledge.

And the Nation shall dwell in their perceived bliss.

Perception IS reality!!! What are we doing to change that perception folks?

[longhorn too]

I didn’t know that NATO forces were involved in Afghanistan. Wonder what country they represent?

[cpdiii]

Afghanistan holds no strategic importance. We went there to get Ben Ladin and the Taliban and Al Queda. There is a nation called Afghanistan but it is not truely a nation. It is a collection of tribal areas ruled by tribal leaders and warlords. Some of them are good and some of them are bad.

We must leave that place. If the Taliban give aid and support to Alqueda after we are gone, bomb the s—t out of them from the air and have special forces kill others on the ground. If the Taliban take over the government of Afghanistan, kill the leaders of the government. Kill them from the air, or on the ground, or pay their enemies to kill them for us.

Afghanistan is basically a feudal society. Leave them to kill each other at their pleasure. If they try to project harm from Afghanistan toward our interests, kill the leaders in any manner that is necessary.

But first, WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THAT PLACE!!!

[The_Media_never_lie]

Afghanistan holds no strategic importance. We went there to get Ben Ladin and the Taliban and Al Queda. There is a nation called Afghanistan but it is not truely a nation. It is a collection of tribal areas ruled by tribal leaders and warlords. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. We must leave that place. If the Taliban give aid and support to Alqueda after we are gone, bomb the s—t out of them from the air and have special forces kill others on the ground. If the Taliban take over the government of Afghanistan, kill the leaders of the government. Kill them from the air, or on the ground, or pay their enemies to kill them for us.

Afghanistan is basically a feudal society. Leave them to kill each other at their pleasure. If they try to project harm from Afghanistan toward our interests, kill the leaders in any manner that is necessary.

But first, WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THAT PLACE!!!

Exactly. I've been thinking this way the last 10 years. We should leave them to their paradise.

[nathanbedford]

The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the deteriorating situation in Iraq, the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, the deteriorating situation in Egypt and Libya, all demonstrate that our policy is in ruins.

It is imperative that the United States fashion a new policy to defend itself against militant Islam. The need becomes more urgent every day as Iran moves closer to an atomic weapon which it might hand off to terrorists who might easily penetrate our Mexican border and destroy one or American cities and concurrently demand that we submit to sharia.

There is virtually no realistic chance that the Obama administration will fashion such a new policy, certainly no new policy that will be palatable to conservatives. Codicil: I believe it certainly possible if not probable that Obama will strike Iran to prevent them getting the bomb and he will time the strike to effect an October Surprise and likely win the election.

This administration is unlikely to fashion a rational policy against militant Islam because it's philosophical objectives for America oppose our own. That is, they do not see America as the shining city on the Hill, the beacon of democracy and civilization, the champion of the rule of law, the exemplar of capitalism, rather, they see America as the principal obstacle to the furtherance of racial and social justice and the onrush of universal utopian socialism.

That is why the left's policy concerning militant Islam is so incoherent and inconsistent. On the one hand militant Islam seeks the same ultimate objective as does Obama's leftism, to wit, the distruction of America as the obstacle toward their goals described above. So leftism is inclined to tolerate terrorism on the theory of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." On the other hand, when the international aggressive impulse of militant Islam threatens the socialist model for one world government, it will be resisted.

Even more will Islam be resisted and even destroyed when possible as and when it threatens leftists' power. When leftists gave atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, it advanced socialism in their eyes. No such philosophical correlation exists with Islam. If Iran getting the bomb poses a threat to the narcissism of Barack Obama, he will certainly strike. If he can strike and improve his reelection chances at the same time he defends his power, he will certainly strike.

Every good leftist knows that ultimately they must destroy Islamism or be destroyed by it. That is why Obama extended our commitment to Afghanistan and that is why Obama pulled the trigger on the assassination of bin Laden.

So even though we cannot expect a coherent foreign policy out of this administration, much less a pro-American foreign policy, that does not relieve conservatives of the obligation to formulate a foreign policy ourselves.

If boots on the ground does not work,-and it obviously does not work- we must find a formula that does work.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“If boots on the ground does not work,-and it obviously does not work- we must find a formula that does work.”

Not sure what does work, but one thing that doesn't is bankrupting the US such that we become weak. That seems to be the road we've taken.

[Joe Boucher]

longhorn too
I’d bet the farm texas has at least a couple of militias that could hold their own against any U.N. or NATO army.

[Mister Da]

Afghanistan is certainly FUBAR.

George Bush made it that way when he began the idiotic process of civilizing a country of essentially rabid dogs.

That Obama has made the effort even more FUBAR is hardly a surprise.

If the Afghan effort is to EVER succeed, we must replace the Karzai gov’t with US martial law, severely loosen the ROEs to allow our soldiers to do their job of killing Al-Queda & Taliban, & bomb our enemies to rubble.

Frankly, I don't think our leaders have the stomach for the brutality required to do the above, so I favor a complete pullout.

IMO, the entire country of Afghanistan is not worth the life of ONE US soldier.

[Mister Da]

“I believe it certainly possible if not probable that Obama will strike Iran to prevent them getting the bomb and he will time the strike to effect an October Surprise and likely win the election.”

Not a chance in Hades that Obama will attack Iran. Not in October or ever.

Why?

1. Obama is a coward, not a warrior. Starting a new war with islam, no matter how many want such a war, is not his style. See Libya for his military motivation - lead from behind.

2. Obama believes in endless talk, as do most in Washington. Bush had every provocation from Iran during the Iraq war, yet he did nothing. You expect Obama to be more aggressive than Bush? Not likely. Obama & Co. will talk, talk, talk about an Iranian nuke, just as Clinton & Bush did about the North Korean nuke program, & do NOTHING of substance.

3. An “October Surprise” attack on Iran would anger his Liberal, peace-nick base, the only solid political support Obama has. He is counting on these people to help him steal the election, which is his primary game plan. Obama is a weasel, not a grizzly bear. Stealing the election is much more his character than starting a war.

4. Obama considers Israel a nuisance, not an ally. He doesn't give a damn for Jews, or anybody else beyond himself. That Iran is building a nuke doesn't really bother him. Selling Chevy Volts is probably more important to him than Iran or Israel. His overriding priority is the destruction of white America, to be replaced by a “colored” socialist utopia. What happens in the Middle East is simply a distraction to Obama. His foreign policy mirrors that idea - the world will love the USA once it is as corrupt & impoverished as it is.

5. To use a sports analogy, if you are behind in the game, you don't go with your weakness, you play to your strengths. Obama knows his strength is as a politician & crony, not as a warrior. Too much can go wrong with an October Surprise: Pilots shot down, ships damaged or sunk, Iran inspired terrorist attacks in the heart of America. There is no way Obama would put his reelection chances in the hands of the admirals & generals, with whom he has a tenuous relationship, at best.

Obama is as likely to use an October surprise attack on Iran to win in November as he is to start cross-dressing for the same reason.

[nathanbedford]

Your 10 reasons are all plausible even persuasive but hardly conclusive as you suggest. I had previously presented counter arguments in this vanity some of which overlaps the post to which you are reacting:

Never mind the Ides of March, beware the Surprises of October

If you take a look at Obama's speech at AIPAC I think you will agree that, as I predicted, he is laying the predicate for a strike or at least he declined to rule out a strike. Moreover, he has abandoned his policy of containment which, in logic, leaves no option but a strike if diplomacy fails as is almost certain. However, I'm not naïve enough to believe that Obama will be controlled by logic on this issue.

I remain of the view that he will be guided exclusively by his own self interests and his rather rigid ideology.

[ops33]

Amen to that, Brother

[Mister Da]

“Moreover, he has abandoned his policy of containment which, in logic, leaves no option but a strike if diplomacy fails as is almost certain.”

There is another option for Obama: Do nothing beyond talk; the option Clinton, Bush, & Obama have pursued in N. Korea. If, as I said, Obama cared nothing for Israel, then that is a perfectly valid option for him.

There are 2 ugly little secrets about nukes that nobody talks about. First, any regime that is serious about obtaining nukes will get them. Second, once you get them, you can't use them except in self defense w/o risking annihilation.

This is why Clinton, Bush, & Obama have done little to stop a determined NK & Iran to develop nukes. They have depended on the MAD theory to protect our interests, & that works quite well with godless commies, but may not work so well with men seeking eternal Paradise.

Of course, as interesting as this is to you & I, it doesn't interest Obama. His focus is on immediate reelection & long term destruction of America. Foreign relations play no part in his plans. The last 3 1/2 years make that clear.

[PapaBear3625]

On the other hand, when the international aggressive impulse of militant Islam threatens the socialist model for one world government, it will be resisted.

The Islamic Caliphate IS the model for one-world government. All the elites need to do is give lip-service to Islam.

[nathanbedford]

There ain't room enough in the world for two one-world governments.

Even if there were enough metaphysical room in Dodge for the both of them, they are not compatible and one would have to exterminate the other.

[PapaBear3625]

There ain't room enough in the world for two one-world governments.

There isn't enough room in the world for Russian Communism and Maoist Communism. Nor for a Sunni Caliphate and a Shiite Caliphate.

In the end there can only be one.