Obama Reducing Afghanistan Into ‘Echoes Of Vietnam’

History has an unsavory way of repeating itself.  And that is especially dangerous when Democrats are running things.

From the Wall Street Journal:

APRIL 7, 2010
The Karzai Fiasco
Echoes of Vietnam in a spat that only helps the Taliban.

President Obama isn’t faring too well at converting enemies to friends, but he does seem to have a talent for turning friends into enemies
. The latest spectacle is the all-too-public and counterproductive war of words between the White House and our putative ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The only winner so far in this spat is the Taliban.

The Obama Administration seems to have had it out for Mr. Karzai from the day it took office, amid multiple reports based on obvious U.S. leaks that Vice President Joe Biden or some other official had told the Afghan leader to shape up. The tension escalated after Mr. Karzai’s tainted but ultimately recognized re-election victory last year, and it reached the name-calling stage late last month when President Obama met Mr. Karzai on a trip to Kabul and the White House let the world know that the American had lectured the Afghan about his governing obligations.

The public rebuke was a major loss of face for Mr. Karzai, who later returned fire at the U.S., reportedly even saying at a private meeting that if the Americans kept it up, he might join the Taliban. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs kept up the schoolyard taunts yesterday by suggesting that Mr. Obama might not meet with Mr. Karzai as scheduled in Washington on May 12.

“We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes, as to whether it is constructive to have that meeting,” said Mr. Gibbs, in a show of disdain he typically reserves for House Republicans.

The kindest word for all of this is fiasco. American troops are risking their lives to implement a counterinsurgency strategy that requires winning popular support in Afghanistan, and the main message from America’s Commander in Chief to the Afghan people is that their government can’t be trusted. That ought to make it easier to win hearts and minds.

Mr. Karzai has been disappointing as a nation-builder, has tolerated corrupt officials and family members, and can be arrogant and crudely nationalistic. Presumably, however, Mr. Obama was well aware of these defects last year when he recognized the Afghan election results and then committed 20,000 more U.S. troops to the theater.

You go to war with the allies you have, and it’s contrary to any diplomatic principle to believe that continuing public humiliation will make Mr. Karzai more likely to cooperate. On the evidence of the last week, such treatment has only given the Afghan leader more incentive to make a show of his political independence from the Americans.

All the more so given that Mr. Karzai has already heard Mr. Obama promise that U.S. troops will begin leaving Afghanistan as early as July 2011. This shouting spectacle will also embolden the Taliban, who after being run out of Marjah have every reason to tell the citizens of Kandahar that even the Americans don’t like the Afghan government and are short-timers in any case.

This treatment of an ally eerily echoes the way the Kennedy Administration treated Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of South Vietnam in the early 1960s. On JFK’s orders, U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge refused to meet with Diem, and when U.S. officials got word of a coup against Diem they let it be known they would not interfere. Diem was executed, and South Vietnam never again had a stable government.

By contrast, President George W. Bush decided to support and work closely with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during the 2007 U.S. military surge in Iraq. The Maliki government was sectarian and sometimes incompetent, and some of its officials were no doubt corrupt, but Mr. Bush understood that the larger goal was to defeat al Qaeda and to stabilize the country. From FDR to Reagan, Presidents of both parties have had to tolerate allied leaders of varying talents and unsavory qualities in the wartime pursuit of more important foreign-policy goals.

Coming on the heels of the U.S. public chastisement of Israel’s government, the larger concern over the Karzai episode is what it reveals about Mr. Obama’s diplomatic frame of mind. With adversaries, he is willing to show inordinate patience, to the point of muffling his objections when opposition blood ran in the streets of Tehran. With allies, on the other hand, the President is unforgiving and insists they follow his lead or face his public wrath. The result will be that our foes fear us less, and that we have fewer friends.

I wrote an article yesterday which came out today that recognized this same (quite obvious) point: Obama commits tens of thousands of troops and spends hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, and then refuses to call the Afghani government an ally?  How is that not insane?

We won’t lose the war in Afghanistan because of our troops.  Our troops are the greatest warriors in the history of the world, and they truly deserve the word “heroes.”  If we lose, we will lose because of our failure-in-chief.

Turning Afghanistan into the next Vietnam by poisoning the national government is inherently stupid.  It is tantamount to refusing to recognize that we are fighting a war against Islamic jihadism.   The Bush Doctrine of preventative war stated, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”  Obama is now fundamentally altering that strategy into one that incredibly refuses to recognize that Islamic jihadism has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism.  Obama first refused to use the phrase “war on terror” favoring the neutered (as in “having no testicles”) phrase, “Overseas contingency operation,” and now he is leaving that “overseas contingency operation” with its feet dangling in midair.

Just who or what in the hell are we supposed to be fighting???  Every single attack we have faced – be it on foreign battlefields or right here at home – was the result of a radical Islamic worldview.  And we’re supposed to pretend that we’re too morally stupid to realize that???

The recent past is a canvass full of examples.  Following a long list of Muslim terrorists attempts to create “man-caused disasters” in the US under Obama’s watch, we had a Muslim Army psychologist with “Soldier of Allah” business cards murder a dozen soldiers at a military base while screaming “Allahu Akbar!”.  Then we had a Muslim terrorist try to explode a passenger jet on Christmas day.

So, yesterday, we had another “incident” on a passenger jet plane.  A man from the Qatari embassy named Mohammed Al-Madadi was on his way to visit a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist minion named Ali Al-Marri imprisoned in Denver when he created an international incident by mocking American security authorities by “joking” that he was attempting to light his shoe bomb.

But we’re responding by increasingly assuming that Islam has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.  Your grandma is a bigger security risk than Osama bin Laden as far as Obama is concerned.

Obama once said he didn’t like to think in terms of “victory,” in very direct opposition to every president before him (including Ronald Reagan, who summed up his Cold War goals in four words: “We win, they lose.”).  I suppose it’s good that Obama doesn’t want victory, because he will never secure one given his America-despising policies.

Obama wanted to relabel terrorism as a “man-caused disaster“; but the only “man-caused disaster” is the Obama administration.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Obama Reducing Afghanistan Into ‘Echoes Of Vietnam’”

  1. knowledge is power Says:

    obama is just paving the way for maitreya. Don’t be fooled by his usage of terminology.

  2. HL Says:

    You are so correct. Our Failure-in-Chief is insane in his foreign policies (and other policies I might add) and his administration IS a ‘man made disaster!’ Great language!

    I am convinced he is a Communist or worse if there is such a thing. He is a disaster and he is endangering Americans and the world.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    I hear Obama and many liberals mocking the notion that Obama is a socialist or a Marxist. They say, “Obama hasn’t nationalized everything.” The response is, “Not YET, you mean.” At this point, Obama has nationalized everything he could (health care, the auto industry, the banking industry, the student loan industry, the mortgage industry, etc.).

    If Joseph Stalin were elected president of the United States, the USA would not be “communist” overnight. Rather, this man who clearly WAS a communist would have begun taking as much power as he could at every opportunity. He would seek to grow government bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Just like Obama. And also just like Obama, he would say whatever he needed to say at the moment (including, “Me? Communist? That’s just laughable!!!”).

    Glenn Beck went back and looked at Obama. He was raised by a Marxist father until his father abandoned him. Then he was raised by a Marxist mother until SHE basically abandoned him. Then he was raised by Marxist grandparents. The Marxist grandparents wanted him to have a black male role model, so they turned him over to Marxist Frank Marshall Davis. When Obama went to college, Frank Marshall Davis turned Obama over to Marxist Saul Alinsky, who then turned him over to Marxist William Ayers. But communist? Obama??? Nnnnnoooooo!!!

  4. Bob Malbon Says:

    I’m a Liberal. I believe the US is nuts to pursue the war in Afganistan. I believe, its like Vietnam, which was an unwinable war. I hear you guys say that “We have to fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here”, but when you consider where the last attackers were from, that doesn’t seem to hold true. I’m afraid that five or ten years from now,
    you guys or the democrats will finally realize that we would probably have to kill everybody in the country to win the war. Until then, our soldiers and treasury will be sacrificing unnecessary. And like Vietnam, we won’t be able to leave because then we would be saying that those who have died fighting over there will have died in vain. This for me is sad, because I lived thru this same experience 45 years ago. In, reailty, those who died in either theater were (and are) heros. But we will stay, and lose because we can’t accept any failure of any kind. We are in decline becasue we’re stupid.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Bob,
    I appreciate the tone of your comment (our political and policy disagreements aside).

    First of all, I DO believe in the “We have to fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.” I mean, who would rather fight them here in the United States than “there”?

    That said, “there” does not necessarily involve Afghanistan, does it? It merely ideally involves fighting the enemy on foreign soil, where they will gather for us to fight on terrain that is to our advantage.

    Let me refer you to another article I wrote, in which I pointed out:

    George Bush selected Iraq as his central front for sound strategic reason. Iraq had a despotic tyrant who supported terrorism. Saddam Hussein needed to be removed to mount any kind of successful peace effort in the Middle East. Iraq is located in the heart of the Arab/Islamic world. It has an educated population relative to the rest of the region. It also offered precisely the type of terrain that would allow American forces to implement their massive military superiority in a way that mountainous, cave-ridden Afghanistan would not.

    Bush was determined to fight a war where he could win. Obama foolishly trapped us in a war that would bleed us. Why? For no other reason than pure political demagoguery. And he needs to be held accountable.

    I actually believe that that was what Michael Steele was trying to say, but did a poor job saying.

    Iraq was a battlefield in which our armor, our aircraft, our gunships, our artillery, could inflict maximum damage to the enemy while keeping our own causalities down. It was the perfect terrain for us to maneuver and fight our war, in a way that Vietnam and Afghanistan most certainly is not. Combine that with the fact that Iraq had an educated population that was capable of being reasoned with, and you have a huge advantage over a Vietnam or an Afghanistan.

    Bush drove the Taliban out of refuges from which they could attack us again (9/11, World Trade Center), and then kept them at bay while meeting the thousands of terrorists who flooded to fight us in Iraq. Democrats attacked him for that, saying Iraq was the wrong war (which we won), while Afghanistan was the right war (which we’re losing).

    Bush was wise. Obama was a fool. I hope you see Bush’s wisdom now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: