View Full Version : PETERS: Obama Setting Us up to Fail
Warrior-Mentor
12-02-2009, 06:50
Setting up our military to fail
By RALPH PETERS
December 2, 2009
Just plain nuts: That's the only possible characterization for last night's presidential declaration of surrender in advance of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan.
President Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but he'll "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Then why send them?
If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?
Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?
Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?
And what did this "new strategy" come down to, otherwise? More of the same, but more: More troops, more civilians, more partnership.
Well, the troops will go, the civilians won't -- and the partnerships are a fantasy.
Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.
He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam.
Obama's right about one thing, though: The Afghans "will ultimately be responsible for their own country." So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn't begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?
Does the 2012 election ring a bell?
What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?
To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.
To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.
To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.
To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.
To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).
This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.
On the other hand, the stage lighting and the camera angles at West Point were terrific. Our president looked good. Jaw jutting high (in his "hope" pose), he decried political partisanship -- but spent more time blaming Bush and Iraq for our Afghan problems than he spent blaming the Taliban (check it with a stop-watch).
Nor did Obama miss a single chance to praise himself, insisting that he's already transformed our relationship with the Middle East (please notify the Iranians, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas) and that all of his dithering demonstrated wisdom.
This guy loves to hear himself talk. The last quarter of the speech was boiler-plate rhetoric that wandered off into the clouds. And that human-rights stuff? Where was that during his visits to China and Saudi Arabia? Hypocrisy, thy name is Barack.
Above all, where was the strategy? And where are the four-star resignations over a policy designed to squander American lives just to give an administration political cover?
After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?
"Target the insurgency"? Does that mean our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them? Nope. Those troops are going to "secure population centers." We'll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike.
When fighting insurgents and terrorists, if you're not slamming them up against the wall and breaking their bones, you're losing. Obama isn't sending more troops -- he's sending more targets.
How do the Marines and soldiers slated to go to Afghanistan feel today, knowing that their commander-in-chief has already declared defeat?
By the time Obama finally got to Pakistan -- the refuge of evil -- he was spouting pure nonsense: "We are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust." But our interests diverge, we don't respect each other and we certainly don't trust each other.
Sounded good, though.
Mr. President, how can you send our troops to war without backing them all the way? How could you pull the strategic rug out from under them in advance? Why did you reassure the Taliban that we've already fixed a sell-by date? What's the bloody point?
At West Point last night, President Obama's delivery was superb. But what he was delivering was a funeral oration for his promised strategy.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."
SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/setting_up_our_military_to_fail_lBlTIHm69SM02Lly5J bNaO
This may just be the current plan - one designed to force the Afghani's to internally get their colloquial s**t together re govt corruption or we're outta there - and may be modified at some point to support them longer if they do come around to meeting a few of the necessary parameters outlined in GEN McChrystal's evaluation/recommendation of the situation.
Guess we'll find out eventually...even as everyone with access to the blogosphere and the MSM begin Monday morning quarterbacking the issue to death. :rolleyes:
MOO - Afghanistan is the tar baby, America is Brer Rabbit, Islamic fundamentalists are Brer Fox...and we're looking for a Brer Bear to throw us back into that ol' briar patch.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02
Dozer523
12-02-2009, 07:11
. . . The Taliban may be the deadliest threat the U.S. faces in Afghanistan, but it is by no means the only enemy. Almost as dangerous is the corruption and incompetence of Hamid Karzai's government, which has alienated Afghans and allowed the Taliban to stage a resurgence. A third threat is the waning support of the American people. In the face of all those opponents, time is not on the American side.
The president's speech aimed to address all three of those problems at once -- and make time an ally instead of an enemy. Obama's hope is that setting a timetable for withdrawal is the best way to compel his balky partner Karzai to clean up his government and train bigger and better Afghan forces to take over most of the battle.
In some ways, Obama's new tack borrows directly from the "surge" that his predecessor, George W. Bush, launched in Iraq in 2007: a quick increase in U.S. troop strength, more training for local forces and an offer of reconciliation for insurgents who want to change sides. Obama opposed Bush's "surge" at the time, but on Tuesday he used the word without apology, calling his strategy "an extended surge."
But where Bush's escalation came wrapped in promises that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq until victory was achieved, no matter what the cost, Obama's troop buildup is all about exit strategies -- and, more fundamentally, about the limits of U.S. power in a time of economic crisis.
"As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests," he said at West Point. "We simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars."
From the article http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-analysis2-2009dec02,0,591124.story
I had a Mech Battalion Commander for whom EVERYTHING was about "A sense of Urgency".
Afghanistan is the tar baby, America is Brer Rabbit, Islamic fundamentalists are Brer Fox...and we're looking for a Brer Bear to throw us back into that ol' briar patch
I'm sure the Russians are watching how this unfolds very closely. Putin loves to be in the spotlight...almost as much as Obama!
New deployments to Cuba & South America.
Long Range Bomber flights to North America.
Advanced Weapons sales to Iran, India, and Venezuela
Pending purchase of French Amphib ship
etc...
I do wonder if the President really does want to win this one. I saw this OPED by David Ignatius in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120103957_pf.html) this morn:
The most important question about Obama's strategy isn't political but pragmatic: Will it succeed? He has defined success downward, by focusing on the ability to transfer control to the Afghans. He shows little interest in the big ideas of counterinsurgency and insists he will avoid "a nation-building commitment in Afghanistan." That will make it easier to declare a "good enough" outcome in July 2011, if not victory.
When I asked Obama if the Taliban wouldn't simply wait us out, he was dismissive: "This is an argument that I don't give a lot of credence to, because if you follow the logic of this argument, then you would never leave. Right? Essentially you'd be signing on to have Afghanistan as a protectorate of the United States indefinitely." (Lindy's comment: well, unless you did not plan to win! Defeat the enemy then there's no reason to stay!)
Obama thinks that setting deadlines will force the Afghans to get their act together at last. That strikes me as the most dubious premise of his strategy. He is telling his adversary that he will start leaving on a certain date, and telling his ally to be ready to take over then, or else. That's the weak link in an otherwise admirable decision -- the idea that we strengthen our hand by announcing in advance that we plan to fold it.
Warrior-Mentor
12-02-2009, 09:50
I do wonder if the President really does want to win this one. I saw this OPED by David Ignatius in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120103957_pf.html) this morn:
FULL OP-ED:
Surge, then leave
By David Ignatius
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
President Obama has been deliberating for months over his Afghanistan strategy. But when it came time to explain that decision Tuesday, he was cool and analytical -- and seemed almost serene about a policy that he knows will be attacked from both sides of the aisle.
"I am painfully clear that this is politically unpopular," Obama told a small group of columnists. "Not only is this not popular, but it's least popular in my own party. But that's not how I make decisions."
Obama spoke during a lunch in the White House library. Shelved on the walls around him were books recording the trials and triumphs of his predecessors, who waged wars with sometimes agonizing consequences. But this president doesn't do agony -- at least not in public.
His lunchtime presentation of the details of the new strategy was focused and precise. He didn't talk about victory, and he didn't raise his voice. He did not attempt to convey the blood and tears of the battlefield, or the punishing loneliness of command. Even in this most intense and consequential decision of his presidency, he remains "no-drama Obama."
The president made his case on a grand stage Tuesday night at West Point, facing the Corps of Cadets. But it was less a call to battle than, as he put it in his speech, to "end this war successfully."
Obama has made the right decision: The only viable "exit strategy" from Afghanistan is one that starts with a bang -- by adding 30,000 more U.S. troops to secure the major population centers, so that control can be transferred to the Afghan army and police. This transfer process, starting in July 2011, is the heart of his strategy.
Military commanders appear comfortable with Obama's decision, although they wish it hadn't taken so long. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is said to be especially pleased that Obama decided to rush the additional troops to Afghanistan in just six months, sooner than Gen. Stanley McChrystal had requested. The speedy deployment "gets McChrystal the most U.S. force in the fight as fast as possible and enough to help him gain the initiative," said one senior military officer.
But politically, it's an Afghanistan strategy with something to make everyone unhappy: Democrats will be angry that the president is escalating a costly war at a time when the struggling economy should be his top priority. Republicans will protest that by setting a short, 18-month deadline to begin withdrawing those forces, he's signaling to the Taliban that they can win if they just are patient.
Obama insisted Tuesday afternoon that "given the circumstances, this is the best option available to us." At another point, he conceded: "None of this is easy. I mean, we are choosing from a menu of options that are less than ideal."
There has been much talk about how this war is Obama's Vietnam, but the president rejected the analogy. The Vietnamese never killed 3,000 people in America, as al-Qaeda did; we aren't fighting a nationalist movement in Afghanistan; and he isn't making an open-ended commitment.
"To pretend that somehow this is a distant country that has nothing to do with us is just factually incorrect," he told the columnists. I agree with him -- Afghanistan is vital to U.S. security interests. But I don't think he will convince many House Democrats.
The most important question about Obama's strategy isn't political but pragmatic: Will it succeed? He has defined success downward, by focusing on the ability to transfer control to the Afghans. He shows little interest in the big ideas of counterinsurgency and insists he will avoid "a nation-building commitment in Afghanistan." That will make it easier to declare a "good enough" outcome in July 2011, if not victory.
When I asked Obama if the Taliban wouldn't simply wait us out, he was dismissive: "This is an argument that I don't give a lot of credence to, because if you follow the logic of this argument, then you would never leave. Right? Essentially you'd be signing on to have Afghanistan as a protectorate of the United States indefinitely."
Obama thinks that setting deadlines will force the Afghans to get their act together at last. That strikes me as the most dubious premise of his strategy. He is telling his adversary that he will start leaving on a certain date, and telling his ally to be ready to take over then, or else. That's the weak link in an otherwise admirable decision -- the idea that we strengthen our hand by announcing in advance that we plan to fold it.
davidignatius@washpost.com
olhamada
12-02-2009, 09:57
I'm sure the Russians are watching how this unfolds very closely. Putin loves to be in the spotlight...almost as much as Obama!
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/01/afghanistan.soviet.lessons/index.html
A former commander of Soviet forces in Afghanistan has warned history is being repeated in the war-ravaged country as the United States and its allies become increasingly mired in an "unwinnable war."
Gen. Victor Yermakov commanded the Soviet Union's 40th army in Afghanistan from May 1982 to November 1983, one of six commanders to preside over the Soviet task force after its 1979 invasion.
The Kremlin's bloody nine-year campaign to support the Marxist government in Kabul cost the lives of more than 15,000 troops and brought the Soviet economy to its knees before its 100,000-strong army was forced into a humiliating withdrawal.
The strategy of imposing its will on Afghanistan militarily had failed in the face of an unyielding guerilla insurgency, backed ironically by U.S. money and weapons. Afghanistan had become Moscow's "Vietnam War."
Fast forward 20 years and President Obama has authorized a troop surge that will take the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan to around 100,000, bolstered by around 45,000 NATO service personnel.
"We too entered Afghanistan with a large force," says Yermakov. "We came there not to conquer Afghanistan but to render international assistance to stabilize the situation there.
Obama outlines troop buildup
"But you cannot impose democracy by using force. An Afghan has agreed with you today, at gunpoint, that American democracy is the best thing in the world, just as he was once saying that the Soviet system was the best.
"But as soon as you turn around, he'll shoot you in the back and immediately forget what he was just saying.
"I would like to remind you what the first man to unite the Afghan tribes, Czar Babur, said: 'Afghanistan has not been and never will be conquered, and will never surrender to anyone.' Afghans are a very freedom-loving and proud people."
Babur was a descendent of Genghis Khan who founded the Mughal dynasty which conquered much of central Asia in the 1500s.
Asked what difference the latest troop surge will make, the 74-year-old former deputy defense minister says, "I can see only one: Obama will be more often going to the airport to pay his last respects to the [airlifted U.S.] soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
"That's the only difference that I can see, whatever the size of the task force."
The U.S.-led coalition first invaded Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon by al Qaeda. The invasion overthrew the ruling Taliban, which had allowed al Qaeda to operate from its territory -- but most of the top al Qaeda and Taliban leadership escaped the onslaught.
As it had been with the Soviets, the mission is now to stabilize the country with a government it favors. But Taliban fighters have since regrouped in the mountainous region along Afghanistan's border, taking advantage of ethnic ties with sympathetic local tribes to fight against another foreign invader.
More than 900 Americans and nearly 600 allied troops have died in the ensuing conflict, with many of these casualties coming from roadside bombs, known as IEDs (improvised explosive devices), planted by Taliban fighters employing the same guerilla tactics as Mujahideen fighters used against the Soviets.
Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam?
But even when the U.S.-led forces achieve their objective of re-taking a village or town from the Taliban, Yermakov claims they repeat Soviet mistakes.
"Whether it's Tora Bora or Kandahar we would deploy troops, establish order, place a popular government there and render our assistance to it. But when we leave that government or leadership runs away.
"After all who is the leader of a province? If he's not part of the local tribe then nobody's going to pay attention to him."
He then pointed out how much of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation was under government control during the day but at night the power shifted to the Mujahideen. "A similar thing is happening presently with the Taliban," he says.
Asked what lessons the coalition can learn from the bitter Soviet experience, the retired general advised western governments to transfer the money being spent on financing troops to the restoration of Afghanistan itself.
"Restoring Afghanistan's economy, its industrial enterprises, its education system, schools and mosques will increase your authority. War can only evoke resistance. Afghans regard war only as an attempt to enslave them."
According to White House estimates, it costs about $1 million per year to send just one soldier to Afghanistan. That figure includes the cost of the equipment the soldier would need, the fuel to transport the soldier to the theater and move him/her around during their deployment, and food, housing, combat pay, ammunition and other miscellaneous costs.
With a hint of defiance, Yermakov claimed the Soviet Army did enjoy some success.
"We didn't leave [Afghanistan] as a defeated force, he says. "We didn't leave with disgrace. It was our government who decided that we should withdraw, and we accepted that decision -- that the Afghan people should develop independently.
"If we are to speak about what we needed badly, it was fence-mending with the local population. We were expanding those ties, we had met with their religious leaders, mullahs and so on.
"We tried to assist, to persuade -- and it yielded results. And I should tell you that we understood this after about four years of our presence there."
Michael Yon's opinion.
Richard
Local Man Reports On Troop Morale In Afghanistan
Bay News, 6 Dec 2009
For the past five years Winter Haven native and former Green Beret Michael Yon has been covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an independent journalist.
A couple of days ago Bay News 9 spoke with him on a Skype connection to Afghanistan.
Yon has been reporting for years that the U.S. risked losing the war there.
And until last week's announcement from President Barack Obama, he was concerned the president was ready to give up on the Afghan war.
"And frankly I thought he was ready to tap out. I thought he might be ready to quit, and it's clear some of the soldiers thought the same thing. He really just spent some political capital," Yon said. "It took moral courage to do that."
Yon says morale among British and U.S. troops had stayed pretty high, and now the troops there are really ready to take the fight to the enemy.
"Just in the past couple of days since I have gotten back, I have talked with quite a few," he said. "It's clear they see this troop commitment is very important. And it's clear it's bolstered their morale."
Yon says the commitment of additional troops is a signal to Afghan tribes in troubled areas they should fight on the U.S. side.
"Because the people do have to make sensible choices on whose side they are going to pick. They have to know," Yon said. "They have to think they are picking the side of the winner."
Yon says the next 18 months will be a make or break time for the war.
He believes the American people and the U.S. allies will run out of patience with the war if they don't believe victory is possible
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/12/6/555908.html?title=Local%20man%20reports%20on%20tro op%20morale%20in%20Afghanistan&cid=rss