Posted by
Crescen7(Regis Matejcik) on Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:36:22 AM
All the great ones can do it. Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, and now Obama. It's a quick move to the right, when the opponent "bites" on the move, accelerate to the left and leave your defender looking helpless as he's "posterized" by a thunderous slam dunk.
In Obama's case, talk up the Afghanistan conflict, cite it as the "real war" on terror. Escalate troop levels, request international help, increase unmanned drone attacks, and continue the strong rhetoric of Afghanistan being the central front on terror - while Iraq was a distraction. Many who are skeptical of Obama's proposed policies and actions have already taken the bait and applauded this "aggressive, muscular, foreign policy" with respect to Afghanistan. The response has be become almost automatic, "Yes, but I support his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan."
But ... Is this really good policy ?
Why did the Bush administration avoid a larger Afghan conflict ?
Why are there even fewer nations willing to join the Afghan "coalition of the willing" ?
Could it be because it is wrong headed and destined to fail ?
Further, could another grand U.S. Military failure, after having collected the support of all the potential "Iraq" heroes, be exactly the domestic political goal of this administration ?
Admittedly, the final premise in the above argument borders on being hyper - cynical. Keep in mind, however, that this is the same administration that fired the CEO of GM, publicly stated it's intent to back GM warranties with the full faith and credit of the US Government, place new directors on it's board, and then proclaim, "we have no interest in running General Motors." To that end, please forgive the cynical point of view when evaluating this administrations stated goals in Afghanistan.
Consider, the previous administration routed the Taliban, secured the Capital, and supported a democratically elected government based in Kabul. They elected to not attempt to fight the tribal guerilla
forces that were able to coalesce in the mountainous hinterlands along the Afghan / Pakistan border. The rationale - the unlikely probability of success. This region has been in an almost continual state of conflict for about 160 years. It was first a territorial dispute in which England and Russia battled for the bragging rights to to this land of questionable worth. Later it was the USSR that eventually left in an embarrasing defeat at the hands of the Mujahadeen, (yes the Mujahadeen was supported by the US and OBL)
Now it is Barack Obama, wearing his military hawk hat; charging headlong into the hinterlands of the Afghan / Pakistan border; claiming the offensive in the real war on America's enemies and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin. A realistic evaluation of this strategy struggles to find a way that it can succeed. It is hard to visualize a scenario in which conventional forces can defeat an non-uniformed nomadic guerilla force that is irregularly dispersed throughout some of the most treacherous terrain on earth. Is it not more likely that this advance into Afghanistan be an advance into the very "quagmire" that the left has been lamenting since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003?
It is far easier to imagine the Afghan war in terms of domestic politics. The military increase helps keep the right wing in check, and offers some level of cover for the media idiots who continue to call this President a "moderate." It allows for a slow but steady rumbling by the anti-war left; which also adds to the "moderate" credentials of this Statist President. Then after two plus years of increasingly damaging losses of troops in Afghanistan, all with little or no impact on the marauding tribal fighters - Obama announces the withdrawl of US forces from Afghanistan. The military humiliation becomes Obama's "proof" that even with his "uniquely qualified superior judgment" - military action is simply ineffective in today's world. His newly found "superior judgment" will be heralded by the world as virtual omniscience, the anti-war left will re-embrace it's returning prodigal leader, re-united families will praise the great wisdom of Obama on nightly news clips of returning troops, and money will flow like never before into the coffers of the OBAMA 2012 campaign fund.
Surely, this cannot be the possible. No President could want a US military defeat for political expediency. No human could be that brazenly duplicitous. Really .... remember:
"we have no interest in running General Motors."
Meanwhile, the military will be humiliated, demoralized, depleted in funding and supplies, and soon to be relegated to a second class status among the worlds military elite. The US will no longer be a superpower. For Barack Obama:
Mission Accomplished