Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Foreign Affairs

Success Against al-Qaeda

This Washington Post story is interesting both because of what it says and when it appeared (today).  There is not much meat on the point of the story: "U.S. and international intelligence officials say that improved recruitment of spies inside the al-Qaeda network, along with increased use of targeted airstrikes and enhanced assistance from cooperative governments, has significantly reduced the terrorist organization's effectiveness."  Yet, one can't help feeling that the reason it's a story is to support the claim of those who say that improved counterterrorism efforts are proof that no more troops are needed in Afghanistan.  That is, it is a way for Obama to get out of the box he has found himself in: Afghanistan is the necessary (and good war), yet he does not want to send more troops: The Afghan campaign is no longer necessary. This will get rather interesting.

Categories > Foreign Affairs

Discussions - 4 Comments

Fair comment about the point of the article. Even so, it's no mean achievement for US intelligence to have have succeeded in placing people within al-Qaeda.

Of course, not as mean as al Qaeda's new mode of delivering suicide bombs, as mentioned in the last paragraph.

The problem is that Obama utterly lacks principle. Who knows what this guy wants or believes? He said during the general campaign that Afghanistan was the right war since the Taliban harbored the terrorists and were terrorists themselves. It just wasn't being prosecuted enough because Bush took his eye off the ball with Iraq. But, now, we have won in Iraq because of the surge, and need another surge in Afghanistan. His pacifist progressive buddies will flip if he sends more troops (I can't fathom why.) And, I think he's inclined to agree. I wonder if he thinks that another surge will be like admitting Bush was right in Iraq? But, there's no way the American people will stand for him standing down in Afghanistan or losing the war ~ he's smart enough to know that that will be political suicide. So, he'll probably try to win without committing more troops like sending in more drones or such. Winning without any casualties. The problem is it won't work, and he probably knows it.

I wish we could get a principle here with all of his great rhetoric.

"This war is wrong and unwinnable, and we are not committing more troops to an immoral war. We will try to fight Al-Qaeda other ways."

"Let's just stay the course and try to win this thing with
what we have. I disagree with the generals and will
not commit more troops."

"I'm sending more troops to take the fight to the enemy
the way we did in Iraq. Some people may not like this,
but I want to win the war, not focus on getting re-elected."

This is why his ratings are in the pits and no one supports his health care plan. Just like slick Willie,
tell us, Mr. President what you stand for, please! Is
there a principled bone in your body? This is the
right war, we need more troops to win, so do the
right thing.

It's also important to note the specific language in the rhetoric he's taken to using the past week: our goal in Afghanistan is to "defeat Al-Qaeda", not to win a counter-insurgency (everything that entails).

How about President Obama sends more troops from III MEF to Afghanistan. I'll be the first to volunteer. Why should the other MEFs get all the action?

I think you all get my point. We troops want to go. The men who wear stars on their collars think more troops should go. Perhaps it's time President Obama starts listening to the men who fight and plan the wars. This man who can't make up his mind about our strategy in Afghanistan, who never served in the military, doesn't want to do what his top military advisers are telling him to do? This doesn't make sense to me.

On the other hand, I suppose it's not my place to question.

*salute* Aye, sir.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14415