President Obama's Half-Baked Commitment Speech to the War On Terror!

[Warph]

For this we waited three months?  The President finally presented his Afghanistan plan.   He started out well, but spent the rest of his speech apologizing for the United States, kissing the posteriors of his progressive base and showcasing his lack of resolve to our terrorist enemy.  It was not a "rally the troops we are going to win this thing" speech.  It was a "I am still not committed to this war," speech.  His message was "Ok Lets try this, but if it doesn't work we are going to cut and run."

Okay.... lets rehash this thing.  Here is Obama's speech, annotated with some insight and comments (in Red):



President Obama: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here -- at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
Okay.... so far, so good.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
That would be George Bush/Iraq war Slam number one.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0 [even John Kerry voted for it] . The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Here comes the "Obama for President" speech.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

(This is Obama's version of history.  As Karl Rove said today: "Because in 2007, President Obama, then a member of the United States Senate, voted against war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If this was so vital, then why did he not speak out? He was chairman of a committee overseeing NATO. He could have easily called a hearing to say, 'I'm concerned about this issue.' He did not. The Foreign Relations committee had three hearings on Afghanistan. He bothered to show up at one, and I can find no evidence he raised a single point or asked a single question. So President Obama is not in a place to be critical of, of this. He can look back and rewrite history, whatever, but at the time, he didn't speak out on this."
Check it out... Today Show Video:

Rove: Hey Obama, Remember When You Voted Against Troop-Funding For Iraq & Afghanistan?

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
Has anyone noticed that the President still can't say we WON in Iraq.  Hey Mr President, the SURGE WORKED.  Go ahead say it, "Bush Was Right" about the surge.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq [its called victory, Mr. President], the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.
That would be Bush/Iraq Slam number 2

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
That would be Bush/Iraq Slam number 3

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.

What President Obama means: Let Me Be Clear, I have very thin skin and the complaints about the delay really hurt my feelings, I had to spend last 90+ days trying to find a way to make nice to my Progressive base.

his review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
So Hear this al Qaeda and Taliban, you just have to lay low for 18 months and then we'll be out of there so you can take over.

I do not make this decision lightly. 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. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you - a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
What he really means is "If I did not campaign saying that Afghanistan was more important than Iraq, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
Wait... REVERSE the Taliban momentum?  Don't we want to beat the Taliban?

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
ONLY 18 MONTHS?  Didn't you just say, "This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat?"  Didn't you just talk about keeping the terrorists from getting hold of Pakistan's nukes?  What if it takes 20 Months?  Two years?  Why didn't you say we are going to stay there until we get the job done?[/b]

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
The Technical Term for this is "FAT CHANCE BUSTER"

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas - such as agriculture - that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation - by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect - to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Folks, remember your old Social Studies books?  The part part about one of the causes of World War II was American isolationism?  It's Baaaaaaaaaaaaack!


Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
That would be, "keep the pressure on al Qaeda for 18 Months."

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
He is rejecting an open-ended victory based commitment and the terrorists are celebrating his rejection.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who - in discussing our national security - said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
And it was John Locke who said, "The purpose of government, the civil contract it has with its people is to PROTECT Life Liberty and Property.  Our war on terror is more important than anything else our government does."


Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
One trillion dollars, according to the Cato Institute that is about 1/6th the cost of Obamacare.


But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Transition?  What about WIN?

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold - whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere - they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
Then why aren't we working on a plan to secure our borders?  Why aren't we enforcing immigration laws?


We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons - true security will come for those who reject them.
Wait Mr. President ..... Iran is calling and they say they are building 10 more nuke plants and they know you will do nothing about it.  It's time to call Bebe and let him handle the situation.


We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. [Gordon Brown says he loves the DVDs he can't watch] And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
By renewing alliances does he mean that France thinks he's weak-kneed , or that Israeli's think he is Anti-Israel?  The Muslim nations do not get him nor do they respect him.  
As described yesterday in the WSJ: "[After his Cairo speech to the Muslim world] the crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. 'My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger,' ..... goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims.  The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703499404574558300500152682.html

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values - for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Closing Guantanamo Bay AKA Operation Screw up



And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.
A first..... He said something nice about America.


Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes.
[OOOPs.... I spoke too soon]


But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty. For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. As a country, we are not as young - and perhaps not as innocent - as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue - nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
I agree..... does that mean anyone who disagrees with you will no longer be called a racist?


It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united - bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment - they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America - we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

I have just one more comment and that is: The best part of the hour, I felt, was seeing all of those wonderful, dedicated young people, the best and brightest of our nation...... Warph





Jake Tapper of ABC News Points out what the POTUS didn't say:
"Back in March, in his first major speech on Af-Pak,

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/president-ob-21.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032700891.html?sid=ST2009032700916

President Obama did not mention a "democratic" Afghanistan as one of his goals. He did, however, say the return of Taliban rule would mean, among other things, "the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls."  The issue of rights for women and girls was not mentioned this evening. It took three months of waiting to get this strange contradictory speech. Hardly seems worth the wait. Tonight the president gave a half-baked commitment to the war on terror. The President is right when he says we did not ask for this battle, where he is wrong is having been forced into it, we should be prepared to win. The President's speech did not give an indication that he wanted to win and our enemy got the message very well."

[jerry wagner]

Warph's Half-baked blah blah blah about something

[Sarah]

Warph's Half-baked blah blah blah about something

Didn't read it did ya?  He's actually right on about most of it.  Obama was an idiot for saying what we were going to do and letting the enemy know it.  Sheesh!  Like telling the thief, "We're only going to have our security system on for 2 days and then we're shutting it off".  Makes you want to bang your head against the wall.  And everyone knows Obama wants to be the Saviour of the day so to heck if he's going to give any credit to anyone else or give any semblance to the fact that he could possibly be wrong about something? 

[frawin]

Great post  WARPH, as usual you are right on. Ignore the trash, and keep on keeping on.

[jerry wagner]

The trash.... lol

[Teresa]

Excellent post Warph....

[Warph]

LBJ is the name that comes to mind after Obama's decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.  When he inherited the Vietnam War from JFK, LBJ had a big domestic program -- the "War on Poverty" -- to push through Congress.  To LBJ, Vietnam was a "distraction," in Obama-speak.  So LBJ would not make a full-scale commitment to win or to get out: He tried to do both in little dribs and drabs that gave the enemy enough respites to regroup before each carefully deliberated "escalation." Obama says he wants to walk away in eighteen months, but right after the Democrats lose the next congressional elections, will Obama want to be the president who lost AfPak, and therefore left Pakistani nuclear weapons at the mercy of a victorious Sunni Taliban?

And then there are the Shiite "Taliban" next door, the Twelver Cult that runs Tehran.  Israeli rumors point to an imminent preemptive assault on Ahmadinejad's nuclear facilities, with the tacit but very real support of the Saudis, who are just fifty miles from the Bushehr nuclear plant and who have been the major target for Khomeinist radicals for thirty years.  Israel is the country most vociferously threatened by Ahmadinejad, along with the Great Satan.... that's you and me.... but Iran really wants to control Arabia.

Just look at the map. There are several major reasons for Iran to want Saudi Arabia.

One: Is the prestige of controlling the holiest cities of Islam.... Mecca and Medina..... which would give Tehran huge religious and political clout throughout the Muslim world.  For the first time in history, Shiite Islam would control the emotional center of Islam, which they have been claiming for almost a thousand years.

Two: It's easy to conquer Arabia from Persia.  The two countries are effectively nextdoor to each other, with only the Americans standing in the way.  The Iraqis can't defend themselves against an armored attack from Iran once the Americans retreat.  When Tehran gets nukes, nobody will be able to resist it among its neighboring nations.  Therefore, Tehran can gain control over the entire Arabian Peninsula, including the Gulf States.  That means enormous oil wealth, which Iran desperately needs.  The Saudi family has controlled Arabia for only a century or so, and they do not have a longstanding claim to it.

Three: By conquering Arabia, Iran would become by far the biggest power in the Muslim world.  They would control forty percent of the world's oil, especially the flow to Europe and China.  By collaborating with Russia, Tehran could control OPEC and have near-monopoly control over oil prices.  Russia is approaching domination of natural gas supplies to Europe.  The Europeans are chomping at the bit to surrender, having been infiltrated over the last century both by Soviet Marxism and now by Islam.  The Left-Islamist alliance that is even now controlling big European cities from Paris to London might well beget a powerful anti-American alliance.

None of this involves Israel, which is a much harder nut to crack than Arabia.  Israel has well-prepared defenses and a huge retaliatory capacity.  In another five or ten years, it may have enough anti-missile defenses to stop a mid-level nuclear attack from Iran.  Israel also has the capacity to retaliate against Iran with nuclear weapons, or perhaps with conventionally exploded electromagnetic pulse weapons.  (In theory, any kind of explosive can be used to drive an EMP. You don't have to go nuclear.).

That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad won't attack Israel, but that the military cost of doing it is much higher, and the benefit is much less.  Iran has been playing its power games like a careful chessmaster: move by move, to surround and weaken its enemies.  That is why three client states controlled by Tehran are now surrrounding Israel: Lebanon via Hezbollah, Syria, and Gaza via Hamas.  With that kind of power position, Iran would presumably try to overthrow Fatah on the West Bank in order to fully surround Israel. At some point, that will force Israel into a preemptive war.

What about America?  Good question.  Is Obama clever or stupid?  If he is stupid, he will turn into LBJ and become purely reactive to the clear and present danger of nukes in the hands of an Islamist suicide cult.  That danger arises both in AfPak (with Sunni suiciders) and in Iran (with Shiite suiciders).  If Obama is clever, his Afghanistan strategy is going to focus on limited but defensible control of the Afghan cities, and constant harassment of Taliban outside of the cities.  The real goals will be to deny the Taliban a safe haven and to turn Afghanistan into an American base in order to keep a tight leash on Pakistan, which has its own nukes, not to mention Iran and the Persian Gulf.

Look at the map of that region.  There are two hotspots of great danger: Iran and Pakistan.  There is one enormous resource that would give a hostile power control over Europe and much else: the oil fields of Arabia.

If Obama is purely reactive, with a self-destructive need to please his peacenik wing, he will lose everything in both foreign and domestic policy.  Then Obama becomes Jimmy Carter.... an embittered and vengeful wasp to sting the future administrations that take over America's direction.  If Obama is proactive, and if his small Afghan surge is designed to build protected areas in Afghanistan and keep the Taliban on the run, then the United States can exercise a great deal of power at the center of the world's worst troubles: Pakistan, the Persian Gulf, and Arabia.  That is a sensible strategy because today, American forces need to replenish their strength for the greater battle to come.

The first indication will come not in Afghanistan, but in the Israel-Iran standoff.  Israel is widely expected to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in the coming months.  That is not easy, but it is probably within the capacity of the IDF, which has had thirty years to prepare for this day.  The key question is whether American air and naval forces will support the Israeli strike, either covertly or overtly, and whether the United States will block Iranian counter-strikes.  We control the air and sea in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, though the Iranians constantly try to challenge us.  The Saudis will certainly give Israel secret permission to overfly Arabia on their way to Iran because their survival is on the line.  The Saudis are no doubt also pressuring the U.S. and Europe to defend them against the hated Persian Shiites.

The question therefore becomes, where are Obama and the United States?  We've seen three months of delay and obfuscation from Obama.  That is partly to keep his Left flank happy.  Militarily, there was no good reason for the delay, and it might well have increased the dangers to American personnel.

But Obama is not well-informed, to say the least, on military and international affairs.  Those three months might be his learning curve.  BHO is still the bright Harvard graduate student who wants to turn everything into a little seminar, to show how smart he really is.  Well, here's a chance to show if he has learned what's important.  If he is being clever, he has learned to think strategically -- not just about Afghanistan, but about the entire region.  If he is being stupid, he will allow other nations to drive his step-by-step decisions like LBJ and Jimmy Carter did.

The key in politics, including international affairs, is to anticipate events and to shape them before they become irreversible.  If that is happening today, then this very odd administration may yet pull a rabbit out of the hat in foreign policy.

[Varmit]

Warph, right on point, keep it up.

[kshillbillys]

Great Post Warph! That's the same feeling that I got.

Jerry, I'm glad you moved! I hope it was far, far away! I heard it was Pakistan.

[Jane]

 :)Great Post Warph, I really enjoy every thing you put on the forum, keep it up.