What About the US Troops Already Deployed?
Obama’s Dithering Continues
As I’ve written her too many times to count, the single most important responsibility of the President of the United States is the security of the United States and her citizens, whether here or abroad.
And, whether it’s been here, in unpublished letters to the intellectually corrupt Editorial Board of the Boston Globe, or the discussion boards where I occasionally traffic, my position on America’s involvement in Afghanistan has been perfectly consistent: if the President of the United States says winning the war in Afghanistan is instrumental to the security of the United States, then I support the war effort in Afghanistan.
Let me also underscore that Gen. Stanley McChrystal (selected by President Obama), Gen. David Petraeus (retained by President Obama), Adm. Michael Mullen (retained by President Obama), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (retained by President Obama), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (selected by President Obama; voted for war in Iraq), Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (selected by President Obama), nor Director of the CIA Leon Panetta (selected by President Obama but completely emasculated by President Obama as well) brief me. I presume all the above do brief President Obama.
In the spring, President Obama told the Cadets at the Naval Academy that he would only send them into harm’s way when it was “absolutely necessary”. Knowing the shameless way Democrats operate, I always thought Obama would take no responsibility for the Troops already in Afghanistan because he and his kool-aid drinking supporters have convinced themselves that those Troops are President Bush’s responsibility; you see, Bush sent them into harm’s way, not Obama. Keeping them in harm’s way if not “absolutely necessary” is outside Obama’s promise to the Cadets.
However, shortly after the chest-beating promise to the Cadets, the Commander-in-Chief announced a new strategy in Afghanistan that required 21,000 more Troops. Again, I assume a Defense Secretary, who had already been on the job for 2.5 years and was fully knowledgeable about the situation in Afghanistan and who was retained by President Obama, supported the new strategy. Matter of fact, to underscore the commitment to Obama's strategy, a new Afghan commander, Gen. McChrstal, was brought in to execute the new strategy. The war in Afghanistan was now Obama's; how could logic dictate otherwise?
It then became obvious that part of the McChrystal appointment was to buy some time for Obama. The dithering begins. McChrystal, you see, would need !sixty days! to review the status on the ground in order to prepare his assessment of whether more Troops would be required to effectively implement Obama’s strategy. Meanwhile, UNDER-RESOURCED TROOPS would be asked to continue the fight. As the end of the sixty day review period approached, the White House, Gates and Mullen started to chirp that the war in Afghanistan had been “under-resourced” for years. Pay no mind that Gates had been on the job for three years now and that Mullen had been on the job for two. Pay no mind that Obama retained both of these under-resourcers. The attacks on President Bush under-scored that the Obama-Biden Administration is more about “all-politics-all-the-time” than it is in acting responsibly on behalf of the United States and for the US Troops already deployed in Afghanistan.
This week, General McChrystal’s much anticipated request for as many as 40,000 more Troops to execute Obama’s new strategy finally hit Gates’ desk; Gates stuck the request in a drawer.
So, today, September 27, 2009, the Ditherer-in-Chief is knowingly under-resourcing Troops he has sent into a war he says is a “war of necessity” (his words not mine; recall, I’m not briefed by people who would know). And there is no outrage.
The letter that went to the Boston Globe today:
Editor,
What objective did President Obama give Gen. Stanley McChrystal (Obama receives conflicting advice on troop increases, September 27, A14)?
Does anyone besides me think the answer to this simple question is important before there is ANY assessment of Gen. McChrystal's request for as many as 40,000 more troops in Afghanstan?
Recall, four months ago President Obama changed the Afghan strategy and it was President Obama who labeled the war in Afghanistan a "war of necessity". (End of letter.)
(For those interested, my September 7, 2009 post is also directly related.)
Obama’s Dithering Continues
As I’ve written her too many times to count, the single most important responsibility of the President of the United States is the security of the United States and her citizens, whether here or abroad.
And, whether it’s been here, in unpublished letters to the intellectually corrupt Editorial Board of the Boston Globe, or the discussion boards where I occasionally traffic, my position on America’s involvement in Afghanistan has been perfectly consistent: if the President of the United States says winning the war in Afghanistan is instrumental to the security of the United States, then I support the war effort in Afghanistan.
Let me also underscore that Gen. Stanley McChrystal (selected by President Obama), Gen. David Petraeus (retained by President Obama), Adm. Michael Mullen (retained by President Obama), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (retained by President Obama), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (selected by President Obama; voted for war in Iraq), Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (selected by President Obama), nor Director of the CIA Leon Panetta (selected by President Obama but completely emasculated by President Obama as well) brief me. I presume all the above do brief President Obama.
In the spring, President Obama told the Cadets at the Naval Academy that he would only send them into harm’s way when it was “absolutely necessary”. Knowing the shameless way Democrats operate, I always thought Obama would take no responsibility for the Troops already in Afghanistan because he and his kool-aid drinking supporters have convinced themselves that those Troops are President Bush’s responsibility; you see, Bush sent them into harm’s way, not Obama. Keeping them in harm’s way if not “absolutely necessary” is outside Obama’s promise to the Cadets.
However, shortly after the chest-beating promise to the Cadets, the Commander-in-Chief announced a new strategy in Afghanistan that required 21,000 more Troops. Again, I assume a Defense Secretary, who had already been on the job for 2.5 years and was fully knowledgeable about the situation in Afghanistan and who was retained by President Obama, supported the new strategy. Matter of fact, to underscore the commitment to Obama's strategy, a new Afghan commander, Gen. McChrstal, was brought in to execute the new strategy. The war in Afghanistan was now Obama's; how could logic dictate otherwise?
It then became obvious that part of the McChrystal appointment was to buy some time for Obama. The dithering begins. McChrystal, you see, would need !sixty days! to review the status on the ground in order to prepare his assessment of whether more Troops would be required to effectively implement Obama’s strategy. Meanwhile, UNDER-RESOURCED TROOPS would be asked to continue the fight. As the end of the sixty day review period approached, the White House, Gates and Mullen started to chirp that the war in Afghanistan had been “under-resourced” for years. Pay no mind that Gates had been on the job for three years now and that Mullen had been on the job for two. Pay no mind that Obama retained both of these under-resourcers. The attacks on President Bush under-scored that the Obama-Biden Administration is more about “all-politics-all-the-time” than it is in acting responsibly on behalf of the United States and for the US Troops already deployed in Afghanistan.
This week, General McChrystal’s much anticipated request for as many as 40,000 more Troops to execute Obama’s new strategy finally hit Gates’ desk; Gates stuck the request in a drawer.
So, today, September 27, 2009, the Ditherer-in-Chief is knowingly under-resourcing Troops he has sent into a war he says is a “war of necessity” (his words not mine; recall, I’m not briefed by people who would know). And there is no outrage.
The letter that went to the Boston Globe today:
Editor,
What objective did President Obama give Gen. Stanley McChrystal (Obama receives conflicting advice on troop increases, September 27, A14)?
Does anyone besides me think the answer to this simple question is important before there is ANY assessment of Gen. McChrystal's request for as many as 40,000 more troops in Afghanstan?
Recall, four months ago President Obama changed the Afghan strategy and it was President Obama who labeled the war in Afghanistan a "war of necessity". (End of letter.)
(For those interested, my September 7, 2009 post is also directly related.)
posted by Zack at 11:40 AM
1 Comments:
ZR: Very thoughtful post. You're not the only one that thinks the answer to the simple question is important. You may, however, be the only one who thinks engagement with the Boston Globe is time well spent.
I believe students at the United States Naval Academy are Midshipmen, not Cadets. That moniker is reserved for students at the United States Military Academy.
Post a Comment
<< Home