Posted on 08/25/2008 7:12:21 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I was never fan of the Iraqi war, but even the most wild-eyed critic has to acknowledge now that Gen. David Petraeus’ “surge” worked. Violence has dramatically declined and political tranquility in the region is improving. In time we can put that war behind us.
But what is more disconcerting is Barack Obama’s disastrous war plan. During the primaries the stealth candidate wore an “anti-war” façade. The public was not listening closely enough. Obama has been pressing for a time table to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, but then goes on to say we should shift our efforts to Afghanistan, the “right war,” and continue the pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Barack has pledged if elected to shift two U.S. combat brigades, 10,000 troops, out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, bringing the total force up to about 40,000 troops.
As Pat Buchannan put it, “In spite of Obama’s criticism of the Petraeus surge, why does he think his surge of 10,000 troops will succeed in winning a war in which we have failed to prevail after seven years of fighting? What does President Obama do then? Send in 10,000 more? The Soviet Union, whose 115,000-man army in Afghanistan reached more than twice the size of U.S.-NATO forces, even with the Obama surge, went home defeated in 1988. The Soviet Empire did not survive that humiliation.”
Osama bin Laden is reportedly hiding out along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. President Bush has been pressuring the government of Pakistan to crack down on the region where al-Qaida terrorists allegedly camp. Our best efforts so far has been pinprick air strikes which only resulted in killing a wedding party and destroying homes on both sides of the border. Former President Musharraf threatened to retaliate against U.S. forces if more of his people become victims. President Obama, instead said, if necessary he would invade Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden – a friendly sovereign nation who possesses nuclear weapons!
Barack Obama hasn’t thought his war plan through. He has no strategy for victory. He fails to provide time-table for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan (and Pakistan), though criticizes Bush for not setting one for Iraq. The Afghanistan war resembles Vietnam far more than Iraq ever did. Most critically, Pakistan has become for the Taliban, bin Laden and al-Qaida the same sanctuary that North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia provided for the Viet Cong and NVA. Barack’s war plan is a prescription for World War III.
What is strategic importance of Afghanistan anyway? None, other than a base camp for al-Qaida. But loss of Pakistan to Islamism, however, a nation of 170 million Muslims with atomic bombs, would be a calamity for the Near East and United States. The real power in the region is the tribal leaders who have no global ambitions, but are very passionate about kicking foreigners out of their poppy fields.
Is Barack Obama’s inexperience really the reason for his confused foreign policy statements? Not at all. Look no further than Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security advisor and now Barack’s foreign policy campaign boss. Born in Warsaw, Poland in 1928, Brzezinski grew up with an extreme hatred of the Russian bear. Brzezinski was very concerned about the division in the Democratic Party caused by the passivity of McGovern and Clinton. In his 1997 hawkish book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski laid out a master plan to make the United States the sole superpower. Brzezinski was the creature behind the Carter foreign Policy: the 1978 U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and the 1979 Iraq-Iran war. And who can forget the 1979 Iranian revolution resulting in Brzezinski’s disastrous hostage affair? Later at Columbia University, Professor Brzezinski took a bright and manipulative student, Barack Obama under his wing – an opportunity supported by George Soros to re-activate The Grand Chessboard.
We can never risk having war hawks like Brzezinski and Obama in the White House again.
i’ve never taken the left seriously with their protests that afghanistan’s the “right war”.
no war is theirs.
it’s a sham to get us out of iraq, and then to deal with afghanistan later.
It's that last point that explains everything about the timid, tentative, and thoroughly cowardly approach taken by the Democratic party toward foreign affairs - if it can't be blamed on Bush they won't do it. Eight years of a comfortable opposition have left them so entirely reflexive that a complete paralysis has set in, and the course of action recommended by their putative strategic thinkers is (1) to refuse to acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq and simultaneously (2) to imitate it in Afghanistan because they haven't any better ideas and they know it worked even if they'll never admit it.
Afghanistan is, of course, another case, and although bombing Pakistan might be a part of a plan it's hardly likely to do anything on its own but make noise and irritate people, much like the notorious blowing up of a few empty tents by Field Marshal Clinton. Redeploy a couple of brigades from Iraq to there? That isn't a mission, it isn't a strategic aim, it isn't a plan, it's waving a magic wand at the problem and hoping it goes away.
It is along these lines that I find the complete lack of military experience between the two ostensible Democratic candidates most disturbing. It's bad enough that they don't know what they're doing, but their staff doesn't know what it's doing either, and no one around them seems smart enough to listen to somebody who does, least of all the candidates themselves.
This is a flawed analysis. For one thing the similarities
to Vietnam he cites are wrong. There is no superpower
providing the Taiban/AQ a SAM barrage, nor is Afghanistan
a singluar national state divided as Vietnam was.
For another, we are winning in Afghanistan, just as we
were in Vietnam until Congress and Pres Ford pulled the
rug out from under with pressure from the traitors and
student leftists under subversive Communist influence.
Methinks this guy has a agenda.
Ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha haha ha.
These people still haven't admitted the Alger Hiss was a spy.
The left doesn't realize its pacifism makes it dead as a doornail, but it is. It bet against the wrong Marines.
This article is somewhat uncertain.
Afghanistan is, in my opinion a more important war. Why? Because Afghanistan lies right next to Pakistan. Pakistan is the birthplace of the modern Jihadist movement, having practiced Jihadi policy as an instrument of state power, for the last 25 years.
Now, the Taleban, as we know, were the brainchild of the Inter Services Intelligence (the paki KGB). Osama Bin Laden was one of their pet operatives.
Afghanistan gives the Pakis strategic depth and deniability to carry out their dirty ops. This has been denied to them the last 8 years.
And the writer quotes the soviet experience. The soviets werent fighting arab/pakistani/chechen/african muslim terrorists backed by the Pak ISI. They were fighting freedom fighters who at that time actually had a country to degend. And much more importantly were backed by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Phil Billington: I was never fan of the Iraqi war, but even the most wild-eyed critic has to acknowledge now that Gen. David Petraeus' "surge" worked. Violence has dramatically declined and political tranquility in the region is improving. In time we can put that war behind us. But what is more disconcerting is Barack Obama's disastrous war plan. During the primaries the stealth candidate wore an "anti-war" façade. The public was not listening closely enough. Obama has been pressing for a time table to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, but then goes on to say we should shift our efforts to Afghanistan, the "right war," and continue the pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Barack has pledged if elected to shift two U.S. combat brigades, 10,000 troops, out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, bringing the total force up to about 40,000 troops... Osama bin Laden is reportedly hiding out along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border... President Obama, instead said, if necessary he would invade Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden -- a friendly sovereign nation who possesses nuclear weapons! Barack Obama hasn't thought his war plan through. He has no strategy for victory. He fails to provide time-table for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan (and Pakistan)... The Afghanistan war resembles Vietnam far more than Iraq ever did. Most critically, Pakistan has become for the Taliban, bin Laden and al-Qaida the same sanctuary that North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia provided for the Viet Cong and NVA. Barack's war plan is a prescription for World War III... But loss of Pakistan to Islamism, however, a nation of 170 million Muslims with atomic bombs, would be a calamity for the Near East and United States... Look no further than Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security advisor and now Barack's foreign policy campaign boss... In his 1997 hawkish book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski laid out a master plan to make the United States the sole superpower. Brzezinski was the creature behind the Carter foreign Policy: the 1978 U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and the 1979 Iraq-Iran war. And who can forget the 1979 Iranian revolution resulting in Brzezinski's disastrous hostage affair? Later at Columbia University, Professor Brzezinski took a bright and manipulative student, Barack Obama under his wing... We can never risk having war hawks like Brzezinski and Obama in the White House again.Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.