Post by Rob W. Case on Dec 3, 2009 1:07:10 GMT -6
Before I begin, I just want to clarify something important. I do not believe that America should appease the international community or should appease the Muslim political community. America should look after its own interests and focus primarily on them and them alone. But I will say let’s just get out of Afghanistan all together because there is no real purpose left for our troops being there.
Last night, I watched Barack Obama give his widely publicized speech on his way forward in Afghanistan. I thought for once, he began on the right note, and then he started doing what I knew in my heart of hearts he would do, but hoped he wouldn’t do. He botched it, and now he will literally be sending thousands of troops into harm’s way without any direction for victory, and with the continuing threat of legal protection for the enemy that will further embolden a war that has, since Obama has taken office, contradicted itself.
What do I mean, you may wonder? The war in Afghanistan is the war that virtually everybody agreed with. After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, President Bush requested a declaration of War to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and received it with overwhelming approval from Congress. In October of 2001, waves of military fighter jets began bombing. We wanted the Taliban to give up Osama Bin Laden, and they were defiant in doing that. In going to war, our strategy was simple. We went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. And so, there was resistance from the Taliban in doing that. Since then, we have been at war, and our war with Afghanistan was under control for a long time. In fact, it was rare during the rest of Bush’s presidency that you ever heard of Afghanistan. Our strategy was to win. Today, unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any solid strategy whatsoever, and our war in Afghanistan seems to be contradicting itself. It contradicts itself because we are at war with maniacs we are trying to protect through the legal process. They attack our troops and our troops have to (as if they didn’t have enough to worry about) read Miranda rights to terrorists, and treat them with kid gloves, all while our president and Congress are supplying them with constitutional rights and whose Justice Department is trying to reprimand soldiers whom terrorists claim they’ve “tortured.”
Why We Are Still in Afghanistan:
Since Barack Obama does not believe in America’s core principles, his ideology has driven him to make decisions that are designed to appease the international community, not upset Muslims, and not to withdraw from a war that a vast majority of Americans agreed with going into in the first place. Because Obama believes in bending over backwards to the global community, America can’t be too successful in winning any war because the rest of the world is uncomfortable when America successfully wins wars. Winning wars is a symbol of a moral victory, and an ideology like liberalism, which is rooted in double-mindedness in the sense that it’s trying to be all things to all people, and does not believe in moral absolutes, cannot tolerate having a single right way of doing things even if it will effectively and substantially fix the problem. Those like Obama who carry the liberal ideology do not believe in a right way and a wrong way of doing things. They believe in trying to make friends with those who do not want to be their friends. I know this sounds silly, but this is how it is.
The Obama Doctrine VS. the Troops:
I don’t know what this surge will achieve. It’s as if the walls are closing in on the troops at the hand of this administration. I don’t know if this is deliberate, or if this administration is grossly naïve in this case, but either way, the results will be catastrophic. What I mean by that is this; either our troops will get killed, or they will most likely have to face legal charges from the international community by “mishandling,” killing, or capturing terrorists who are trying to kill our troops in Afghanistan. Every time you turn around, some soldier is getting in trouble for simply doing his job and prevailing in his quest to do so. Terrorists are now even exploiting the whole “torture” thing to their benefit so that soldiers can get in trouble and have their lives ruined because they simply did their jobs correctly. Oops, I said “correctly” as if there is actually a right way of doing things. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Obama’s way is too scatterbrained wrong in every policy he conducts. His speech was scatterbrained as well. His speech was calculated and written as if it was designed to cater to those who supported the war in Afghanistan (by staying the course and approving a surge), those who are against the war in Afghanistan (by initiating a timetable for withdrawal), the international community (by saying, “I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.”) because of the fear we might God-forbid “offend” nations that already hate us, and catering to the Muslim community (not only by saying that Islam is one of the world’s greatest religions, but also saying, “ we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world.”) when we are only going after the extremists trying to kill Americans. Are you confused yet? That makes two of us. Everything Obama does is politically motivated and has no lasting direction to fix any substantiated problems. Again, he is trying to be all things to all people, and it is impossible to do that. When you are divided amongst yourself everything becomes a failure as a result because you are not establishing a solid goal, or a series of solid goals that are designed to lead to one common success. One action will contradict another action, and as a result, people will get angry, and Obama will make more enemies from the results of his policies than Bush did by mainly doing what was right and sticking to his guns. Bush did the right thing for a long time because right decisions breed right results, and Bush did essentially have Afghanistan under control for most of his presidency.
George W. Bush was hated by liberals and the international community due to his resolve to do the right thing. But even though he was hated, Bush was respected. Barack Obama is liked by liberals and the international community, but he is not respected. Respect is regarding and paying attention to somebody because they have the power to mean what they say, especially if they are focused on doing the right thing morally and in principle. Barack Obama lacks respect because he seeks the approval of everybody and he goes with the flow. You cannot do that unless you have some conditions, and a plan of action must be prepared in case those conditions are not met. Everybody disregards Obama because he believes in an ideology that is rooted in, and places so much faith in error.
Liberalism places a form of hope that evil people can be negotiated with, and that everyone shares a common good that they can extract as well as they are attentive to their needs and wants. Well let’s see how well that’s working so far.
-- Top General, Taliban Sound Off On Afghan Plan
cbs3.com/national/obama.afghanistan.strategy.2.1344740.html
Excerpt: The Taliban said in a statement that Obama's plan was "no solution for the problems of Afghanistan" and would give the insurgents an opportunity "to increase their attacks and shake the American economy which is already facing crisis."
Even on Iran, the Obama administration keeps saying that Iran needs to make a decision that will end their enrichment of uranium to make nuclear weapons. They did. They said no. They said no to the international Community, and they said no to Obama. Remember on February 2nd 2009 Obama reached out to Iran? The Headline read, “Obama has begun discreet talks with Iran, Syria” and it said that, “In an interview broadcast Monday, Obama said the United States would offer arch-foe Iran an extended hand of diplomacy if the Islamic Republic's leaders "unclenched their fist." Then, on June 4th, and many attempts to extend the hand of diplomacy, the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (whom Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to answer to), responded by saying, "Even if they give sweet and beautiful talks to the Muslim nation ... that will not create a change. Nothing will change with speeches and slogans."
And now we are going to send an additional 30,000 troops to an enemy who is salivating at crushing Obama’s ego by how many fatalities and casualties they inflict on our troops?
Taliban: Afghan surge will mean more US fatalities
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
I have a sensible solution for the president. Get a backbone, get some guts, and come up with a sound, principled strategy that will have us win. Otherwise, get them the hell out of there altogether because when you put it all into perspective, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.
Last night, I watched Barack Obama give his widely publicized speech on his way forward in Afghanistan. I thought for once, he began on the right note, and then he started doing what I knew in my heart of hearts he would do, but hoped he wouldn’t do. He botched it, and now he will literally be sending thousands of troops into harm’s way without any direction for victory, and with the continuing threat of legal protection for the enemy that will further embolden a war that has, since Obama has taken office, contradicted itself.
What do I mean, you may wonder? The war in Afghanistan is the war that virtually everybody agreed with. After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, President Bush requested a declaration of War to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and received it with overwhelming approval from Congress. In October of 2001, waves of military fighter jets began bombing. We wanted the Taliban to give up Osama Bin Laden, and they were defiant in doing that. In going to war, our strategy was simple. We went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. And so, there was resistance from the Taliban in doing that. Since then, we have been at war, and our war with Afghanistan was under control for a long time. In fact, it was rare during the rest of Bush’s presidency that you ever heard of Afghanistan. Our strategy was to win. Today, unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any solid strategy whatsoever, and our war in Afghanistan seems to be contradicting itself. It contradicts itself because we are at war with maniacs we are trying to protect through the legal process. They attack our troops and our troops have to (as if they didn’t have enough to worry about) read Miranda rights to terrorists, and treat them with kid gloves, all while our president and Congress are supplying them with constitutional rights and whose Justice Department is trying to reprimand soldiers whom terrorists claim they’ve “tortured.”
Why We Are Still in Afghanistan:
Since Barack Obama does not believe in America’s core principles, his ideology has driven him to make decisions that are designed to appease the international community, not upset Muslims, and not to withdraw from a war that a vast majority of Americans agreed with going into in the first place. Because Obama believes in bending over backwards to the global community, America can’t be too successful in winning any war because the rest of the world is uncomfortable when America successfully wins wars. Winning wars is a symbol of a moral victory, and an ideology like liberalism, which is rooted in double-mindedness in the sense that it’s trying to be all things to all people, and does not believe in moral absolutes, cannot tolerate having a single right way of doing things even if it will effectively and substantially fix the problem. Those like Obama who carry the liberal ideology do not believe in a right way and a wrong way of doing things. They believe in trying to make friends with those who do not want to be their friends. I know this sounds silly, but this is how it is.
The Obama Doctrine VS. the Troops:
I don’t know what this surge will achieve. It’s as if the walls are closing in on the troops at the hand of this administration. I don’t know if this is deliberate, or if this administration is grossly naïve in this case, but either way, the results will be catastrophic. What I mean by that is this; either our troops will get killed, or they will most likely have to face legal charges from the international community by “mishandling,” killing, or capturing terrorists who are trying to kill our troops in Afghanistan. Every time you turn around, some soldier is getting in trouble for simply doing his job and prevailing in his quest to do so. Terrorists are now even exploiting the whole “torture” thing to their benefit so that soldiers can get in trouble and have their lives ruined because they simply did their jobs correctly. Oops, I said “correctly” as if there is actually a right way of doing things. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Obama’s way is too scatterbrained wrong in every policy he conducts. His speech was scatterbrained as well. His speech was calculated and written as if it was designed to cater to those who supported the war in Afghanistan (by staying the course and approving a surge), those who are against the war in Afghanistan (by initiating a timetable for withdrawal), the international community (by saying, “I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.”) because of the fear we might God-forbid “offend” nations that already hate us, and catering to the Muslim community (not only by saying that Islam is one of the world’s greatest religions, but also saying, “ we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world.”) when we are only going after the extremists trying to kill Americans. Are you confused yet? That makes two of us. Everything Obama does is politically motivated and has no lasting direction to fix any substantiated problems. Again, he is trying to be all things to all people, and it is impossible to do that. When you are divided amongst yourself everything becomes a failure as a result because you are not establishing a solid goal, or a series of solid goals that are designed to lead to one common success. One action will contradict another action, and as a result, people will get angry, and Obama will make more enemies from the results of his policies than Bush did by mainly doing what was right and sticking to his guns. Bush did the right thing for a long time because right decisions breed right results, and Bush did essentially have Afghanistan under control for most of his presidency.
George W. Bush was hated by liberals and the international community due to his resolve to do the right thing. But even though he was hated, Bush was respected. Barack Obama is liked by liberals and the international community, but he is not respected. Respect is regarding and paying attention to somebody because they have the power to mean what they say, especially if they are focused on doing the right thing morally and in principle. Barack Obama lacks respect because he seeks the approval of everybody and he goes with the flow. You cannot do that unless you have some conditions, and a plan of action must be prepared in case those conditions are not met. Everybody disregards Obama because he believes in an ideology that is rooted in, and places so much faith in error.
Liberalism places a form of hope that evil people can be negotiated with, and that everyone shares a common good that they can extract as well as they are attentive to their needs and wants. Well let’s see how well that’s working so far.
-- Top General, Taliban Sound Off On Afghan Plan
cbs3.com/national/obama.afghanistan.strategy.2.1344740.html
Excerpt: The Taliban said in a statement that Obama's plan was "no solution for the problems of Afghanistan" and would give the insurgents an opportunity "to increase their attacks and shake the American economy which is already facing crisis."
Even on Iran, the Obama administration keeps saying that Iran needs to make a decision that will end their enrichment of uranium to make nuclear weapons. They did. They said no. They said no to the international Community, and they said no to Obama. Remember on February 2nd 2009 Obama reached out to Iran? The Headline read, “Obama has begun discreet talks with Iran, Syria” and it said that, “In an interview broadcast Monday, Obama said the United States would offer arch-foe Iran an extended hand of diplomacy if the Islamic Republic's leaders "unclenched their fist." Then, on June 4th, and many attempts to extend the hand of diplomacy, the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (whom Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to answer to), responded by saying, "Even if they give sweet and beautiful talks to the Muslim nation ... that will not create a change. Nothing will change with speeches and slogans."
And now we are going to send an additional 30,000 troops to an enemy who is salivating at crushing Obama’s ego by how many fatalities and casualties they inflict on our troops?
Taliban: Afghan surge will mean more US fatalities
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
I have a sensible solution for the president. Get a backbone, get some guts, and come up with a sound, principled strategy that will have us win. Otherwise, get them the hell out of there altogether because when you put it all into perspective, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.