The American Spectator

S.L. Toddard| 10.6.09 @ 2:50PM

"Call him the Undecider."

Indeed. He fears - as did LBJ and Nixon - being the president that "lost" the war. The question is, is it really "losing" when you pull out of a war you should not be fighting? If this were an actual war with clear objectives - i.e. punish and scatter the Taliban and root our Al Qaeda - we could have already legitimately declared victory. Instead, we are engaging in a massive federal social program, aiming to rehabilitate Afghans and create from their myriad warlike tribes a stable, cohesive country which - even in its remote, mountainous fastnesses - cannot harbor terrorists. That is not a war, or even an attainable objective. It is folly, pure and simple.

Tim| 10.6.09 @ 3:48PM

Nobody wants to say; "Civilizing Afghanistan will take 50 years, 20,00o American lives and 2 trillion dollars. " that would make it sound less like quitting and more like sanity.

S.L. Toddard| 10.6.09 @ 9:46PM

The reason they will not say it is because it's true, and politicians are by definition pathological liars. Americans will not elect a truth-teller, because they want to hear that they can have low taxes, a welfare-state and multiple fun wars to cheer on at the same time.

They cannot.

Tim| 10.7.09 @ 11:55AM

So it's come to this: great.

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 3:27PM

Does anyone give a damn about the troops, does anyone give a good g-d damn about them? This smells just like the feckless LBJ, democrats and their crappy war. I feel sick.

I loathe liberals more than ever.

Dixie Pixie| 10.6.09 @ 4:34PM

To: Daisy
Everybody supports the troops as they are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.
The trouble is any war is a liberal “Tar Baby”. Liberals can not give up or win. Both states of being are contrary to the liberal nature. So the bleeding will go on forever.

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 4:48PM

Sure, Dixie, liberals "SUPPORT THE TROOPS," but I remember too well how many young American boys got chewed up and spat out in the democrats' last "Tar Baby." Kind of like collateral damage, you know?

If Obama won't let our military fight, bring them the hell home!

Dixie Pixie| 10.6.09 @ 5:21PM

To: Daisy
As the last remaining “Taft Isolationist” I believe the USA should not deploy troops beyond the North-American continent. It was FDR and the Democrats that decided to use the military to secure access to raw materials in the middle-east. That is why the USA will fight wars half-way around the world but will not drill for oil off the California, Florida, or Eastern coasts.

For more information see:
>> www.independent.org/publicatio.....e.asp?a=37

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 5:47PM

I know what you're saying, but it's not the point I was trying to make. I'm just sick of all the BS and I don't want our troops sacrificed for stupid politicians anymore.

I am not in the mood for a Vietnam redo.

Mary Louise| 10.6.09 @ 7:06PM

Daisy,

McChrystal does.

He has an awful lot of young sons and daughters to care for, and he must feel the need to protect them from a Vietnam re-do, as you put it.

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 7:56PM

I know McChrystal gives a damn; I'm talking about civilians.

Pelosi said McChrystal should give fewer speeches; I can just imagine the choice words McChrystal would like to lay on ol' Nancy.

Mary Louise| 10.6.09 @ 8:16PM

I knew you weren't talking about McChrystal. Trying to cheer myself up, I guess. Obama in charge is very worrisome.

Electing this guy was folly on a historical scale.

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 8:19PM

I know, Mary Louise--I know. Anybody who is not VERY worried right now is braindead, in my opinion.

Mary Louise| 10.6.09 @ 8:02PM

Daisy,

When we went into Iraq, a Military man said that we could not win the war militarily and we could not lose it militarily.

I think he was right, and I think that's why the military's strategy of winning hearts and minds, both in Iraq and Afghanistan is the only way to create a peace that has a chance to last, if such a peace is possible at all. The strategy may not succeed, but I don't think all out warfare would either.

One last thing. It may not be able to protect them, but our Troops are loved. You're thinking of them before thinking of anything else illustrates that very nicely.

Mary Louise| 10.6.09 @ 8:08PM

You're should be your.

Mary Louise| 10.6.09 @ 8:27PM

Just want to clarify. I think winning hearts and minds (training and establishing bonds with the native population) is exactly why McChrystal needs and is asking for a whole lot more troops.

martin j smith| 10.6.09 @ 3:48PM

No, Obama if what is predicted is true Obama will have made a decision. One that could be disastrous. There is no such thing as half measures in trying to win a war. Some one or some factor led Bush to provide the surge in Iraq Obama I feel does not want to win This is the problem..

Dixie Pixie| 10.6.09 @ 4:26PM

The Afghan War can not be “won” by the way the Obama and his drones intend to fight it. The first rule of warfare is to know your enemy. The second is know who and why you are fighting for. The third is to have a military realistic objective. Obama and his drones has violated most if not all the military rule of thumbs. The Washington elite has still not figured out there is a 3 way civil war raging through out the middle-east. The civil war is ( Wahhabi / Salafi ) vs ( Sunni ) vs ( Shia ). Obama still has not realized in a civil war you have to pick a side and fight for it until the bitter end. Obama and the Washington elite has been flying blind in a rhetorical fog to a imaginary destination. Frankly, I am not surprised the war has lasted 8 years with no end in sight. Obama and the Washington elite has been sightless from the start.

Smitty| 10.6.09 @ 4:26PM

If Obama decides to cut and run from Afghanistan we'd better become real serious about securing our borders because they'll be coming for us--and a dirty bomb will be the least of our worries.

S.L. Toddard| 10.6.09 @ 7:46PM

Jesus. I can't even imagine what it would be like to sit at home, somewhere in America, worrying about mountain tribes on the other side of the globe.

Smitty| 10.6.09 @ 8:02PM

Well, maybe you won't have to, old man; maybe those "cave men" will get a chance to be up close and personal with you some day. It could be your 'come to Jesus' moment.

Pete| 10.6.09 @ 8:02PM

Lock and load. As a Vietnam Era veteran, I am tired of these "police actions" which result in no victories at all. You really want to fight terrorism? Freeze Saudi Arabia's assets, let India take over Pakistan, let Israel bomb Iran, and stop taking "advice" from the Russians and Chinese. Obama is an appeaser and coward. Bring the troops home, there is no hope of victory as long as that SOB is in office.

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 8:24PM

That's what I'm talkin' about, Pete; it's LBJ all over again.

Bring our troops home, close the friggin' borders and screw the world.

Suits me just fine.

S.L. Toddard| 10.6.09 @ 9:24PM

"Obama is an appeaser and coward. Bring the troops home, there is no hope of victory as long as that SOB is in office."

Are you unaware, perhaps, that George W. Bush waged that same war in Afghanistan for seven long years - against a primitive rabble with no air force, navy or wealth - without attaining anything remotely resembling "victory"? It's the mission that's unwinnable - and that mission (nation-building) has not changed.

We should pull all our forces out now, bring all of our troops home from anywhere overseas - to their sons and wives and mothers, who need them more than any Afghan does - and redirect the effort and wealth we now use to maintain our inter-continental empire into sealing our borders and ferreting out what jihadis remain in America. Once that's done, who cares what happens in Afghanistan? If we find they pose any threat again - and they obviously do not pose any at the moment - we shatter them.

james| 10.6.09 @ 8:31PM

Pete...as a post Cold War Veteran and having served in both Iraq and Afghanistan...I agree. We haven't "won" a war since WWII because we have forgotten how to defeat our enemies. Air Force bomb them into the stone age...grunts and marines shoot everything that moves...rebuild the county in our own image. Same should have been done to Iraq and Afghanistan. Too late now.

Red Phillips| 10.7.09 @ 9:10AM

"Air Force bomb them into the stone age...grunts and marines shoot everything that moves...rebuild the county in our own image."

That is possibly the most un-Christian comment I have ever read. Ruthless blood-thirstiness spelled out pure and simple for all to see. Exactly what country would you rebuild in our image after you destroyed it? And why on earth would they want to be rebuilt in our image after we had just killed most of them? Don't you think that might cause a tad bit of resentment?

Daisy| 10.7.09 @ 10:35AM

Red, you're so predictable: You focus on the temerity of an AmSpec poster and ignore the real dangers we face in the Middle East. Like SLT, you offer judgment and harsh criticism of your fellow commenters, but no REAL solutions.

It must be nice to sit on your lofty perch and pass judgment on the lowly Americans beneath you.

Mary Louise| 10.6.09 @ 9:16PM

Looks like General McChrystal just received reinforcements.

Click, englarge, and look at McChrystal’s eyes. This isn’t a man who is going to indulge Obama’s frippery.

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 9:33PM

Scary! I know I'd watch what I said to the good General.

I see that Obama is not returning McChrystal's glare; Obama's weak when it comes to confrontation.

S.L. Toddard| 10.6.09 @ 9:42PM

How tragic and sad. More American boys who swore to defend the Constitution will instead be sent to die on a humanitarian mission building a country for Afghans. The potential threat in Afghanistan is not a military one, and will not be negated militarily.

There's nothing quite like "conservatives" calling for "small government" and then demanding that same government rule over and police the world, and create new nations out of thin air. By its very definition, a small, Constitutional government categorically cannot perform these functions - only an imperial leviathan state can. That is why neoconservatives abandoned small government and the Constitution so long ago.

Daisy| 10.6.09 @ 10:34PM

In case you haven't noticed, SLT, life is tragic and sad and not as simple as you pretend. It's easy for you to point your finger at us as the enemy, but we're not; we don't want war any more than you.

You talk big but that's all you do--talk. You have no guarantees.

TennesseeVolunteer| 10.7.09 @ 8:37AM

I do have a question: If we follow The strategy of General McChrystal in Afghanistan and it is successful, will we then run off Al Quaeda to another country and then have to clear and hold that country with a long term nation building strategy?

S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 2:10PM

YES! That is why it's so ludicrous! First, the idea that we can create - out of thin air - a stable, cohesive nation in a country like Afghanistan in which it will be impossible for terrorists to exist is fantasy. Pure fiction. But even were that possible, there's the other 99.999% of the globe they can remove to. The only "solution" is to conquer the entire globe - which, incidentally, neoconservatives would be all too happy to do.

The alternative? Seal our borders. Surely that's a more realistic, easier to attain goal, less expensive in blood and treasure, not to mention that it's the right thing to do anyway, for countless reasons.

PS

Is this the first time you and I have ever agreed on anything? I think so.

Tim| 10.7.09 @ 8:57AM

The Taliban can't be beaten because no matter how many we kill in Afghanistan, there are fresh waves being trained up in Pakistan. The funding is pouring like a river from asshole Saudi princes who get their money-from us.
We can change the way we do business, or leave a token force to be picked off year after year or go massive and set up camp for 50 years, or we start bombing Pakistan and assasinating Saudi princes.
But what do I know, I don't have a PhD.

groupshoes| 10.21.09 @ 9:09PM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.

electgogo| 10.29.09 @ 10:45AM

The contents of article are wonderful!!!Great!
brand new discounting Laptop Batteries
brand new discounting Laptop cpu fans