Asked about the problems Obama is facing in Afghanistan, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went to his tried and anything-but-true playbook of demagoguery, saying:
“You can’t under-resource the most important part of our War on Terror – you can’t under-resource that for five, or six, or seven years…..and hope to snap your fingers and have that turn around in a few months.”
It’s all Bush’s fault. That’s pretty much all you have to know about the Obama administration’s political strategy, in a nutshell.
Gibb’s by now completely expected demagoguery doesn’t account for why Barack Obama has already lost more troops in Afghanistan so far this year than George Bush ever lost, as the following chart shows:
I would submit another couple of theories instead, such as:
1) The White House can’t possibly win the “war on terror” that Gibbs refers to when in point of fact they deny that such a war even exists in the first place. If you pick up a copy of “The Complete Moron’s Guide To Winning A War,” you find out that the first step is to acknowledge that you are actually in a war. Too bad, Obama didn’t read the book.
I don’t know, but maybe we would be better off with a president who called a war on terror something like, oh I don’t know, a “war on terror.” Instead we have a president who was apparently appalled by such a barbaric term as ‘war’ or such a pejorative term as ‘terror’ and preferred the description, ‘Overseas Contingency Operation’ instead.
2) The president who boldly advanced and wildly succeeded in Iraq with his “Surge” deserves far more credibility than the president who campaigned demonizing the very strategy that brought us success in Iraq. On January 10, 2007 Obama said, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it’ll do the reverse.” Obama demanded a timeline that would have had us crawling out of Iraq by March 2008 with our tails behind our legs rather than winning.
Maybe a big part of the problem is that Obama is every bit as incompetent in Afghanistan as he demonstrated himself to be in Iraq.
But you just keep demonizing the president who knew who to win even while you worked to undermine him, Mister Loser-in-Chief.
3) Maybe part of the problem is that you utterly failed to rally the world behind you as you claimed you could in your deluded “I’m your messiah! Adore me!” tour. Obama claimed that he could “rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.” Not only did Obama fail to deliver the eager European cooperation in Afghanistan now that that mean, nasty evilmonger Bush was gone, but he actually got even less of a commitment than Bush got.
Conservatives predicted that Europe would talk a good talk but refuse to fight a good fight. Too bad we elected a president who lacked the wisdom and common sense to understand European cowardice and apathy. Because we elected a fool, we will struggle mightily to live up to our fools’ grandiose promises.
4) Maybe part of the problem in Afghanistan is that you’re own troops don’t trust your commitment.
Barack Obama’s efforts to undermine President Bush’s war in Iraq are so lengthy that I can only direct you to the list of the times that he tried to screw our soldiers and cause them to lose in Iraq. But it’s hard to read it and not come to the conclusion that Barack Obama has an awful lot of explaining to do about why he so unrelentingly worked against victory. Tragically, the media – which shared Obama’s liberalism – failed to hold him accountable. And now what is Obama to do when Obama’s liberal base does the same thing to Afghanistan that Obama himself did in Iraq?
And here we are, with the Pentagon doubting Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan. Such a SHOCKER! Who would have ever figured?:
By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers Nancy A. Youssef, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Mon Aug 31, 7:29 pm ET
WASHINGTON — The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama’s administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.
On Monday, McChrystal sent his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to the Pentagon , the U.S. Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO . Although the assessment didn’t include any request for more troops, senior military officials said they expect McChrystal later in September to seek between 21,000 and 45,000 more troops. There currently are 62,000 American troops in Afghanistan .
However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk to the media, said Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the U.S. can’t make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaida. Biden’s office declined to comment.
“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier,” a senior Pentagon official said. “We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”
Conservatives have been claiming for YEARS AND YEARS that Democrats lacked the courage or will to sustain a war through difficult times. That’s because again and again, with a perfect track record over the past 40 years, Democrats have been the ones undermining America’s military efforts on foreign soil. And why on earth should anyone doubt for a second that they’re going to break their streak now?
So beat me with an electric cattle prod, but I simply couldn’t be more shocked that we’re already proving to be right — AGAIN!!!
What we’re ultimately going to see in Afghanistan from Democrats is the same fair-weather friends that Bush saw in Iraq. We wont go back to “The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan” only because a Democrat is now in the White House. But the same spirit of cowardice, abandonment, and betrayal that drove the Democrats’ partisan agenda under Bush will resurface. It’s just who these people are.
Hillary Clinton – now Obama’s Secretary of State – is the epitome of the liberal weasel. After the announcement of Saddam Hussein’s capture in Iraq, we had the following moment among many other self-serving moments:
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that December, she declared, “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote” and was one that “I stand by.”
Of course her “stand” didn’t last one second longer than her partisan political self-interests.
Hillary Clinton is joined by Nany Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, John Kerry, and a whole host of Democrats who supported taking military action in Iraq before they were against it.
Some sites that list Democrats’ treachery:
Nearly 60% of Democrat Senators actually voted for the Iraq War. The 2003 Iraq War actually had better Congressional support than the 1990 Gulf War. Democrats went from embracing every essential claim that President Bush made to justify the war – including supporting the war itself – only to deceitfully degenerate into “Bush lied, people died.” But it wasn’t Bush who lied – it was Democrats.
Charles Krauthammer cites Democrat strategist and Kerry ’04 campaigner Bob Shrum’s describing Afghanistan as the “right war” as a tactic to attack Bush in Iraq while not being “anti-war.” It was an incredibly cynical strategy from an incredibly cynical political party. Frankly, anyone who thinks that the Democrat Party will do the right thing for the right reasons in Afghanistan is simply deluded.
No nation can get involved in a war because of public opinion, and then abandon that same war because of public opinion. Such a policy would make any kind of sustained foreign policy completely unsustainable, and would make us utterly unworthy of any alliances whatsoever. And that is precisely what makes what Democrats – and Barack Obama himself – so morally despicable for what they did in Iraq. They were for the war when it served their interests to be for the war, and then they turned against the war the moment the opinion polls began to show fading support in order to politically demonize Republicans who continued to stay the course. When the Senate Majority Leader of the United States of America – Democrat Harry Reid - literally declared defeat in Iraq even as our soldiers were in Iraq fighting to secure victory, it was a literal act of treason.
Frankly, given how Democrats demagogued changing American opinions about the war in Iraq, it is talionic justice that they now suffer due to the change in popular opinion over Afghanistan. The true shame now, JUST AS IT WAS IN IRAQ, is that our warriors should not be exposed to the whims of the public.
5) Look back at the table above. Barack Obama has already sustained 17.5% more American causalities in Afghanistan than George Bush did in 2008 – with a full third of the year remaining. At this point, Obama is poised to sustain more U.S. casualties in Afghanistan than George Bush did in the first five years of the war combined.
There is clearly a resurgence in the ranks of our terrorist (yes, I actually said ‘terrorist’) enemy.
I would submit that it is more than possible that the forces of jihad have understood that – as a result of American weakness – we now have a weakling of a president who can be pushed around and who will cave in. Given the fact that even Obama’s own LIBERAL BASE are increasingly worried that Obama lacks necessary courage and commitment, should the Taliban and al Qaeda not think the same thing?
They understand – even as our Pentagon fears – that America under Obama is losing its will to fight, and that America now has the kind of leadership that has already demonstrated a willingness to cut and run on a fight. All they need to do is read Barack Obama’s own surrender-rhetoric regarding Iraq to understand their current enemy. And that understanding is understandably energizing them to fight even harder.
6) I might also add that our current White House is literally “at war” with the CIA that contributes to the operational intelligence our military planners use. The CIA is suffering from bad morale which is at at a thirty year low. While I do not have the background to assess whether the Obama White House’s undermining of the CIA is responsible for fewer intelligence breakthroughs in Afghanistan and subsequently fewer successful military operations, I believe I have a prima facia reason to believe that such is the case.
President Obama, how it George Bush’s fault that you decided to target the CIA as part of your political witch hunt?
At the present rate, Barack Obama is going to sustain more than 76% more American casualties in Afghanistan than did George Bush last year. And he’s blaming what is clearly his failure on Bush?
The fact that Barack Obama has based so much of his “leadership” on demonizing and demagoguing his predecessor is actually evidence of the fact that he himself is no real leader at all.
And that failure in leadership may be the most significant reason of all for Obama’s failure in Afghanistan. As he waffles around indecisively, his troops – who don’t trust him and can’t count on him - are going to increasingly find themselves drifting helplessly along with the next approval poll.
Tags: Afghanistan, Bush, commitment, European, Harry Reid, Iraq, John Edwards, john kerry, lied, Marines, Nancy Pelosi, NATO, overseas contingency operation, Pentagon, Robert Gibbs, saddam hussein, timeline, war on terror