Posts
President Obama may be trying to distance himself from his predecessor as he sends Secretary of State Hillary Clinton around the world apologizing for what “big, bad America” has done over the past eight years, but his Afghanistan strategy might well have been warmed-over remains of a George W. Bush repast.
Writing for TIME.com, Bobby Ghoush reports:
Like Bush, Obama plans to send more U.S. troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan. In fact, when you add them up — the additional brigade Bush announced in January, the 17,000 combat troops Obama announced a couple of weeks ago and the 4,000 trainers added Friday — you get almost exactly the same number of extra troops sent into Iraq for the "surge."
The parallels don't end there. Bush's "surge" strategy was twinned with an effort to capitalize on disputes between al-Qaeda and its Iraqi allies; eventually, the majority of Sunni insurgents were induced, with promises of money or political power, to stop attacking U.S. forces and turn their guns on the jihadists. Obama, likewise, hopes to drive a wedge between what he describes as "uncompromising" Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders on the one hand, and less implacable insurgents who may be more inclined, for the right price, to make a deal with Western forces or the Afghan government.
There are those who believe Afghanistan is a lost cause and we should cut our losses. FSM contributing editor Alan Caruba is among them:
The decision by the new Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, to move more troops into this situation ignores the reality of waging war in Afghanistan. If he had no stomach for the war in Iraq, it is doubtful he will be willing to sustain the increased casualties that will result from simply putting more of our troops in harm’s way.
Islamic militancy throughout the Middle East and extending its deadly intensions worldwide is going to be a long fight. The U.S. would do well to pick somewhere other than Afghanistan to wage that war. If the Russians with some 100,000 troops were eventually defeated by the local tribes (with weapons assistance from the U.S.) it seems clear that the current mission has little hope for success. The Russians had 14,000 casualties by the time they left.
Don’t look for Obama to withdraw anytime soon, however: he was among the anti-war crowd whose reasoning was that we should have “finished the job” in Afghanistan and should never have entered Iraq. Is Afghanistan a lost cause? We aren’t sure, but Obama’s naïveté in other areas certainly are cause for concern.
Take, for instance, his insistence upon talking and negotiating with Iran. His videotaped message for the Iranian New Year celebration was met with scorn from the real man in power in that nation – Ayatollah Ali Khameni. And the situation there is becoming more alarming by the moment. In testimony given to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 24th of this year, General Bantz J. Craddock, commander of the United States European Command, said the following (emphasis ours):
“Some threats have developed to the point where a more direct response is required. At the upper end of the technological spectrum is the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles that can be used to deliver them. Iran already possesses ballistic missiles that can reach parts of Europe and is developing missiles that can reach most of Europe. Iran also continues to threaten one of our key regional allies with its advancing missile technology. In response, the U.S. deployed an X-Band Radar to provide advanced early warning indications. Entirely defensive in nature, the radar provides additional warning time to execute defensive counter-measures. By 2015 Iran may also deploy an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the U.S.”
It’s hard to believe that sitting down to have a cozy little chat with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
will change that nation’s nuclear ambitions. But it seems that others in Congress are jumping on the “Chat with Mahmoud” bandwagon. According to a report in CQ Today from Friday, March 27, 2009, Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) urged the Obama administration to engage with Iran. “In 2001 and 2002, we should not forget that Iran provided us critical assistance in stabilizing Afghanistan. The administration is absolutely correct to explore how our interests might again coincide.”
Part of the reason Kerry lost to George W. Bush in 2004 was that voters didn’t trust him enough when it came to national security concerns. His support of Obama’s desire to negotiate with Tehran should be judged accordingly.
Then, of course, there is the fact that the Taliban has gained a solid foothold in Pakistan –a nation that already has nuclear weapons. Should we really be giving them more aid, as CQ Today reports that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) plan to propose as early as next week?
To quote the late, great Theodore Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” How big of a stick is President Obama carrying? And will he do anything with it when the situation demands?
