Afghanistan Update

As a follow-up to my earlier post about Obama's ongoing failure in Afghanistan, Charles Krauthammer nails Obama to the rhetorical wall (I apologize for the crass headings...that's about the best you can expect from Left-wing cranks like Media Matters, and I can't find the video clip anywhere else):

While he's waffling, Obama is sending all kinds of bad signals which add up to precisely the wrong thing:

Barack Obama inherited a ‘war on terror’ (along with an aspiring ‘nuclear’ Iran) that he told us during the campaign was high on his list of priorities and concerns. He assured us he would spend a lot of energy focusing on these things were he elected President. He hasn’t, other than to throw a few thousand more troops into harms way with no real strategy to back it up hoping that would shut up us security hawks and buy a little time to figure a way to get himself OUT of this mess.

Senator Obama’s voting record doesn’t square with President Obama’s rhetoric on terror, or Afghanistan…it doesn’t even square with his alleged new tough talk on Iran. Remember, the Senator offered face to face talks with Iran and the President wants to impose new sanctions…all the while STILL planning that face time with Iran’s Chief Executive Tyrant and resident lunatic he’s prattled on about for so long now.

Where I come from, the man is either a bald-faced liar or a two-faced hypocrite. Whichever it is, Barack Obama is not the least bit concerned with saving any of his faces:

“Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy, I’m not going to be sending some young man or woman over there — beyond what we already have,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” If an expanded counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan contributes to the goal of defeating al-Qaeda, “then we’ll move forward,” he said. “But, if it doesn’t, then I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or . . . sending a message that America is here for the duration.”

Well, we DON’T have the right strategy, he HAS sent in more troops, he’s being told that wasn’t enough, and we stand ready to have defeat snatched from the jaws of victory…AGAIN…because of the whims and fancies of a man and his minions who were never qualified to make National Security and life and death decisions for us…

It’s deja vu all over again…

I guess this explains why we now see this:

If you are old enough to remember the George W. Bush Administration and the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, you will recall that a favorite theme of critics of Bush’s war management was that Bush hadn’t listened to Army brass asking for more troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. ...

Well, as we so often have reason to say of Obama’s campaign rhetoric, that was then and this is now. And we are learning that listening to requests from his commanders for more troops is not Obama’s strong suit as Commander-in-Chief.

First, Obama scaled back the U.S. troop commitment. Obama during the campaign had promised more troops for Afghanistan, where the U.S. had approximately 36,000 troops and was relying heavily on training the Afghan military to supplement U.S. and NATO forces. In November 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates had indicated that some 30,000 troops would be sent to Afghanistan, and the 30,000 figure was requested by General David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan (he reports to General David Petraeus). Instead, Obama reduced the force to some 17,000 additional U.S. counterinsurgency troops - barely more than half what General McKiernan had requested - plus an additional 7,000 troops for other functions. But Obama’s national security advisor, General James Jones, bluntly warned the military brass that further requests for more troops would upset the White House:

Now suppose you’re the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel?

Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.

Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have “a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment.” Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF - which in the military and elsewhere means “What the [expletive]?”

Obama, despite overruling his commander’s request for more troops, trumpeted this as a step towards fully supporting the mission in Afghanistan:

“This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires,” Obama said.

And guess what? Gen. McKiernan told Obama he needed more troops, and was summarily fired for it. Gen. McChrystal -- the man Obama appointed as McKiernan's replacement -- is now saying the same thing, and Gen. Petraeus is backing him up. The consequences of Obama's waffling on Afghanistan:

The military commanders are reportedly distressed at this foot-dragging and wondering if Obama is really committed to victory as he claims. A split is widening between them and the civilian leadership, while John Kerry - who was so certain five years ago what had to be done in Afghanistan - now says we need time to figure out what’s going on in a war that’s now entering its ninth year.

In fact, so deep is the split that word is circulating that General McChrystal is threatening to resign if he doesn’t get the troops he feels he needs. H/T. Which, if it came to pass, would mean having to pick a third NATO commander for Afghanistan in Obama’s first year as Commander-in-Chief.

Thus, the conclusion RedState offers:

...in Barack Obama we have not only a president who came to office pledging to pay more attention to his military leaders, and not only one who keeps insisting that the mission in Afghanistan is one of urgent importance to U.S. national security, but also a man with absolutely zero prior experience as an executive, no military service record, and zero experience with national security issues. One might reasonably expect him to permit an open exchange of views by his commanders and to give very, very serious weight to their opinions, rather than telling people to withdraw recommendations and running through generals like George Steinbrenner through managers. Instead, it looks as if the only reaction a serious person can have to watching Obama’s management of the military is Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

This is not a good sign for the defense of this nation. But I'm sure you figured that out already.

There's my two cents.