Administration Leaks - Obama rejects Afghanistan Option

Promises Promises. 

Completely in line with his unemotional reaction to the Ft Hood massacre. He has no sense of the urgency to protect and defend the US and the West. He "feels/thinks" that all evil done to us is in response to something we have done wrong, as if we will always do everything right or that that justifies the kind and degree of the response of Al Qada.

Oh, I forgot. Now that he is president, for sure we will do "everything right".

He will not have a second term. He may not finish his first term. The collapse of the dollar will bring hell to many, though will not be his fault entirely, and not only a bad thing.

Obama Asks for New Afghan Options
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axvDIZ5YUYA&feature=player_embedded

Analysis and Commentary:
Analysis: US low on options in Afghanistan -- AP
The US Needs to Teach Hamid Karzai a Thing or Two -- Max Boot, Los Angeles Times opinion
Vietnam, Afghanistan and Learning from History -- Gordon M. Goldstein, Los Angeles Times opinion
The Afghanis must contribute to their own security -- Herschel Smith, Captain's Journal
The conundrum of Afghanistan: It might be managed, but never solved -- Jay Bookman, AJC
Sensible caution or more dithering? -- Mark Mardell, BBC
Afghanistan: When On Earth Will Obama Make a Decision? -- Iain Martin, Wall street Journal
It's Time to Surrender in Afghanistan -- Michael Filozof, American Thinker

Thanks for these snuffy. 

We are now witnessing Washington politics at its worse, now from the White House. These war conferences that have been held over the past couple of months have been a complete waste of time. Meanwhile the troops have been left hanging for this year on what needs to be done, and they will continue to be left hanging in the weeks and months ahead.

I also think  Obama knows he has no good options. He’s figured out that the stakes aren’t as great as he may have once thought, that the commitment is potentially endless, that we have no local partner for the kind of centralized, "state-building" approach that remains at the heart of U.S. strategy, and that going all in will commit him to a war we won't win. No wonder he keeps looking for an alternative.

With respect to Afghanistan, it is either worth a prolonged and costly investment of blood and treasure or it isn't. Either we go in all in -- which in my view is a very bad idea -- or we should get out.
Trying to compromise or split the difference on this fracas is not leadership. Its a recipe for failure.

Now its time for US to get set right/ to bring the things into good shape/to bring the train in tracks...meaning, put focus on indegenous economy, create jobs, let people to get jobs, create wealth, let the money circulate in the market, to see to increase purchasing power of customer, find out root cause for recession and learn lessons from it, control inflation, take efforts to bring back dollar reputation so so so but not on the rest of the world and its issues/concerns....at least late wake up is better than never wake up!! save and let save

Recent reports suggest that each additional 10,000 troops will cost 1Billion US per year. A story yesterday at Naked Capitalisim makes the argument that increases in military spending increases unemployment and decreases economic growth.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/11/military-spending-is-increasing.html

Aside from the economic cost, what will be the additional cost in precious blood and lives of US and allied forces? And to what end?  Retired Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, US Ambassador, has expressed serious reservations about the effectiveness of additional troops. The concern seems to be that the Karzai government is so unstable and corrupt, that the effectiveness of the mission is compromised before it gets off the ground.

I would agree with ACP, that Gen. McCrystal should resign. Just remember, we don't have a complete picture of what's going on behind the scenes For all we know, McCrystal and Eickenberry may have met privately and concluded that the plan is not workable under current political conditions in Afghanistan.  

The free world does not have sufficient resources to convert a constrained midlevel society into 21st century viability. What we can do, is limit the damage or harm projected from the place on anyone else. That should be the achievable goal. The same is true for other culturally handicapped societies in that part of the world. You can't hurry Darwin.

Thanks for your comments Jim.  You speak the truth.

YJ

http://www.amazon.com/Places-Between-Rory-Stewart/dp/0156031566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258131715&sr=8-1

In this book the author recounts his experiences as he walked across Afghanistan.  He believes it will take 20-30 years to bring this country into the 21st century.  I heard him interviewed, and this is the next book about the area I am going to read. 

Resignation

Is it legal for someone to resign from a commission?  It is curious to me that a commandar can resign, but lower ranking personnel cannot unless they can fit into one of the catagories of separation. 

I found this list of Separation Codes that is interesting and extensive.  I had no idea there were so many ways to get out of the military. I am posting the link in case anyone wants to look at it. 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blcode1.htm

Here's Matthew Hoh's reaction to Ambassador Eikenberry's position:

Matthew Hoh on Eikenberry’s Afghanistan Cables: “I’m Not Surprised”

Thanks for your comments and links a4211423 and nanute:)

nanute

Thanks for the link.  It's interesting to see people like Daniel Ellsberg rise again after the pentagon papers.  Because Eikenberry has been there since 2003 and has lived their with his wife, he deserves to be heard and his messages considered credible.  

The question is "Why wasn't he heard until now?".  Surely him and McChrystal converse almost daily.  They are both operating out of Kabul.

This is not a time for hesitation by the President. The need to make some kind of a decision is of the essence. Too many young lives are at stake.

Because of Eikenberry's diplomatic office and McChrystal's military status,  these could be competing ideologies, and perhaps Eikenberry would not have been comfortable giving views he knew were contradictory to McChrystals.  Certainly, Matthew Hoh took the bold step to speak out, but it was only at his resignation.  Perhaps this gave Eikenberry the impetous to speak his mind as well.  

We will probably have to wait for their memoirs to know what was really going on in Kabul.  lol

You raise all good questions cowpoke.

he was going to follow the Taliban into the hills of Pakistan

This is just my opinion, and I am basing it on how my own perceptions have changed since January.  I believed initially in the close connection  between the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That perception has changed over the months with new information and the furthering of Al Qaeda operations internationally.  Seeking out the Taliban has little to do with fighting Al Qaeda. Now we are faced with identifying who the enemy really is, and do the civilian population want us there.  The military point of view wants a strategie to win against the Taliban with an exit plan that would include an efficient Afghanistan army to protect civilians when we leave.

Then there are the humanitarian reasons to consider.  Does the Taliban exact cruel and unusual punishments upon their population that Western democracies cannot tolerate?  Yes, they do particularly against women and girls.  Realistically, can we be successful in influencing Taliban to stop these through our military operations, or should these issues be addressed by the U.N., and even groups within Afghanistan who oppose them. 

Malalai Joya in her book A Woman Among Warlords is taking up the cause of Afghan women, and should we be supporting people like her and U.N. in their humanitarian efforts for women, instead of being an occupying force.  Her position is she wants the U.S. to leave and let Afghans deal with the Taliban.  She is considered a revolutionary, and she believes in the soveignty of her own country.