I Can Hardly Spell Afghanistan

Well, tonight’s the night.

President Obama will use the backdrop of West Point to outline his plans for the war in Afghanistan. In a sea of horrible choices, he will make one that will likely please no one (not even the generals who requested extra troops). His challenge, without a doubt—is to define what SUCCESS means for this war and to articulate an end game.

Good luck, Mr. President.

It’s true that this is not a mess that Obama got us into. That said, the President’s campaign rhetoric focused on Afghanistan as being the true focal point for the war, not Iraq. It’s likely this was a political move to be able to simultaneously be critical of the Bush war strategy without appearing soft on terrorism. At the time, Obama proposed 8,000 to 10,000 additional troops.

Since the election, we have sent about 20,000 more troops in—and the advances on tonight’s plan indicate the President will send another 30 to 35 thousand American soldiers into the country, a nation that is led by a corrupt government.

Watch this outstanding report on Afghanistan, produced for “60 Minutes” earlier this year—and you’ll get a better sense of what we are up against:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDonqtAf-8


FDR had to fight isolationist sentiment at the start of WWII. After the first World War-and still suffering the effects of the Depression with unemployment exceedingly high (sound familiar?), the nation was in no mood to send American boys overseas-again. Roosevelt’s wildly inventive “Lend-Lease” strategy to supply Great Britain and Russia with war materiel (avoiding the restrictions of the Neutrality Act) gained American support SOLELY because assisting the British and Russians in fighting the war against Hitler was far superior to the U.S. getting involved ourselves.

At some point, we have got to realize that the United States cannot impose its will on other countries without having it bite us in the rear. We should have learned this with the Shah of Iran. We did not. Numerous examples of meddling in the affairs of other nations have done nothing but plant the seeds of hatred that have caused extremists to export their “jihad” to our shores.

We need to get out—and soon.

Is it “isolationist” to engage politically and economically, but NOT militarily? As the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” depicted, supplying the forces we support with arms and cash is a far cry from landing in their backyard with American ground troops.

Security starts at home—and it is my belief that terrorists plotting against the United States are likely ALREADY HERE and making their plans with biochemical weapons, investigating our water supplies, our electrical grids and other mass destruction avenues that have little to do with desert training in the mountains of Afghanistan.

The rationale for staying the course revolves around the notion that our exit will allow the Taliban to flourish.

Guess what? They will anyway, unless the PEOPLE of Afghanistan rise up against that type of oppression. If the people can organize and fight the Taliban, the U.S. can be there with the implements of war and the training—but NOT the troops. It is widely believed that Afghanistan’s tribal in-fighting prevents a unified attack. OK, but how is that now OUR problem?

We simply cannot be the world’s policeman—and our selective outrage at certain countries for “crimes against humanity” are neutralized by our indifference to similar offenses committed by other countries (like China) with whom we have a stronger economic relationship (read “dependency”)

It’s hypocritical to feign indignation at one country and ignorance for another when both are engaging in similar behavior.

The security we seek is for AMERICAN targets on AMERICAN soil. As this past week’s sad breach at the White House demonstrated, all a willing terrorist needs to assassinate our President at his own party is a tuxedo or evening gown.

We are missing the true threat. It is HERE, not THERE.

Get out—responsibly, but rapidly. Bring the troops home. Employ the National Guard in ways they were meant to be used—protecting OUR borders, protecting OUR facilities and guarding OUR people.

Work diplomatically and economically to alleviate the woes of the world, but stop short of doing it militarily.

Much has changed since WWII, so references to FDR are perhaps irrelevant, but on this day, the 54th anniversary of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, the United States has a black man as President.

Much progress has been made-and Obama embodies that progress.

This man, our Commander-In-Chief, needs to define a new era of what we are to do in a hostile country thousands of miles away—and what the future role of the United States should be in the world community going forward.


If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com