Obama Looks Ready to Reject All Afghanistan Proposals in Favor of New Strategy: He’s Looking For an End to the War

President Obama appears to be ready to reject all of the current proposals on what to do next in the Afghan War in favor of a new strategy. It’s hard to predict which way he might go next.

He will probably reject General McChrystal’s request, and others put forth by the Defense Department. McChrystal got himself into some trouble when he went off the reservation and launched a PR campaign aimed at pressuring the Administration into accepting his battle plan, but there are other factors in play that weren’t present when McChrystal presented his proposal. General McChrystal’s decision was regrettable and probably contributed to the current state of affairs in the White House Afghanistan strategy.

Another factor is that the current government of Afghanistan is highly dubious. A run-off election was cancelled when President Karzai’s opponent dropped out of the running as he was unconvinced that the fraud that took place in the first election wouldn’t be repeated in the run-off election. International monitors reported ballot boxes being stuffed and voter intimidation happening across the country, to the point that Karzai lost votes during the supervised recount and didn’t have enough to win outright, as was originally projected.

The Taliban has been gaining ground in several provinces, and they won’t be dislodged without a major ground offensive to retake those provinces. Sustained battles with the Taliban means there will be more American casualties, something that the war-weary American public may not accept, and something that Obama will take the blame for, as Commander-in-Chief.

He wants the Afghan government to shoulder more of the responsibility so that the war can be wound down, but I wonder if the current Administration will repeat the mistakes of the 1980’s and 1990’s, when the U.S. left Afghanistan to it’s own devices following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Taliban came to power with their al-Qaeda allies.

We cannot leave the Taliban intact, but our government needs to decide what it’s going to do, and soon. The last thing we need is for al-Qaeda to rebuild in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, because we’ll eventually be back over there dealing with them again. Given the national treasure that we’ve spent freeing Afghanistan—and I’m talking more about lives than money—would we have the national will to do so again, as well as the strength of arms?

The other question is one of anti-government factions (non-Taliban) that are currently fighting against the Afghan government and against NATO forces. Given the success of getting Iraqis to switch sides and fight alongside the American military, can something similar happen in Afghanistan?

Where is this Administration taking us?

General McChrystal Goes Off the Reservation: His Afghanistan Speech Was Unfortunate

I've been watching and waiting for the axe to fall on the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and it looks like it's started.

General McChrystal sent his troop request to the Pentagon, then took his plan and his views to the media, which I didn't think was a very good idea. And sure enough, instead of motivating the Obama Administration to send more troops, all it's done is infuriate the Commander-in-Chief.

It's very unfortunate that General McChrystal didn't bide his time and speak privately with his boss.

I'm no fan of the Obama Administration, but there are written and unwritten rules between the military brass and the President, and it appears that a few lines were crossed. This is very unfortunate, and I hope that he and President Obama are able to get through this and move on to addressing what needs to be done to destroy the enemy.

Army Battallion Spends Two Weeks in Iraq, Then Receives Orders to Go to Afghanistan

Wow.

An entire Army battallion that arrived in Iraq in the last few weeks just got orders to head directly to Afghanistan, where their skills set is badly needed.

This doesn't happen too often, where a unit is deployed to one war zone, then gets orders to go to another. The Army logistics people say that it will take between 40-60 flights to get the soldiers, vehicles, and equipment from the 4th Engineering Battallion from Baghdad to southern Afghanistan.

I'm surprised that it actually hasn't happened more, but it appears more likely now that the U.S. military is carrying out their orders to bump up the force in Afghanistan while reducing the size of their force in Iraq.

I think this is a good move as the mine-clearing capability of the 4th Engineers is needed to reduce the number of IED attacks on coalition forces. 60% of coalition losses are now from IED and mine attacks in Afghanistan, and they need to turn that around.

Woodward Makes Brief Mention of New Technique for Tracking Terror Leaders: Media Should STAY OFF This Part of the Story

Bob Woodward's new book makes mention of a new system of tracking and targeting terrorist leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan that the military is taking great advantage of. But when questioned about it in an interview, Woodward declined to explain further.

Smart move, Bob. I hope the media follows his example and leaves this part of the story alone. Whatever the military is doing, it's working.

The last time that the press revealed that the military was able to track al-Qaeda's use of particular electronic devices, the group stopped using them, which made the system useless and lead to more American lives being lost on the battlefield. We don't want a repeat of that experience.

If there are any reporters out there who already know the details about this "system" that Woodward mentions, ZIP IT. Don't take another tool out of the hands of the military.

Prince Harry's Time in Afghanistan May Be Cut Short Thanks to Some Web Sites That Couldn't Keep Their Traps Closed

The U.K.'s Prince Harry has been deployed to Afghanistan since before Christmas. The deployment happened under a veil of secrecy that was broken by a couple of foreign magazines and then plastered all over the Drudge Report in the last couple of days.

Now the prince's time in Afghanistan may be cut short thanks to all the unwanted publicity.

Normally I support Drudge, but not in this instance.

All Harry wanted to do was serve in a combat area as a soldier of the United Kingdom. He was denied permission to deploy with his unit when it headed to Iraq last year out of fear that the prince would be kidnapped by al-Qaeda or some other group, which threatened to cut his ears off. So when the British Ministry of Defense decided it would be all right for him to deploy to Afghanistan, it was under the understanding that the media wouldn't reveal where Prince Harry was or what he was doing.

Major news outlets had agreed to the news blackout to protect the prince from al-Qaeda and the Taliban and give him a chance to prove his mettle in a combat area as he had wanted.

It's true that the Drudge Report is not a news organization and was probably unaware of the news blackout agreement, but still, this is the Prince's life that is being messed around with. Other American news organizations, such as CNN, knew it and decided to abide by it until it was splashed all over Drudge's web site.

This is very unfortunate. Hopefully the prince stays safe. But now that the cat's out of the bag, how long can it be before the inevitable question is asked by his commanding officers: can Harry stay in Afghanistan, or will he become the bullet magnet that he's joked about previously?

Democrats Are Using Back Door to De-Fund Iraq War: $50 Billion Funding Bill Stalls in Senate Until January

It appears that the anticipated de-funding of the Iraq War by the Democrats is currently underway. But they're not taking the direct approach as was predicted by analysts.

Instead, they're guaranteeing that their legislation on war funding either doesn't make it to the President's desk, or if it does that he is certain to veto it. All the Democrats have to do is insert a clause that calls for withdrawal from Iraq to doom the legislation.

They have effectively de-funded the war, without drawing attention to the fact that this is/was their goal. They can publicly claim that they won't de-fund the Iraq War and will continue to put forth bills with terms and conditions that the Republicans find indigestible and will move to block.

The other tactic being employed is that the Democrats are ignoring the President's war funding requests for months at a time. Congress has already passed the Pentagon's $471 billion budget but stripped war funding from that bill. President Bush asked for $192 billion more in supplemental spending for the wars since mid-February; Congress is getting around to that request now, in mid-November.

The war bill passed by the House and rejected by the Senate would have provided $50 billion for the wars, and set the end of 2008 as a withdrawal date of troops from Iraq.

There's a time-crunch in play here; the current war funding will run out in February, and the military will have to divert money out of it's new $471 billion budget--money needed for repairing battle-damaged equipment or replacing it, beefing up V.A. hospitals, building mine-resistant vehicles, providing care for our wounded warriors, and purchasing new weapons platforms--to pay for the wars.

They've already signaled that they're diverting $4 billion immediately.

And the military is planning to make deep cuts when the designated war-fighting funding runs out in February. And it probably will; the only war funding bill on the table and on the horizon has been KO'ed.

Another mess.

Soldiers Want Politicians to Embed With Them in Iraq: Now That's a GREAT Idea

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the beginning of something new inside U.S. military units who are engaged in combat: reporters embedded with the troops. They traveled with the troops, ate and slept next to them in the dirt, ate the dirt when the troops did, and shared the danger. And they reported as combat was ongoing.

Now some soldiers want Congress to spend some time in the dirt with them, too. Having members of Congress embed with the U.S. military??! That's a GREAT idea. This should be put into effect immediately with a six-month rotation (with no going home for Thanksgiving or Christmas either--their units will be overseas--they should be too.)

A firmer understanding of what the military is going through would be beneficial to Congress. Of course, this will NEVER happen. But it's an interesting idea.

Practice of Extending Tours of Duty in War Zones Must End: It's Not Helping Military Families That Are on Verge of Breaking Apart

Every time a military unit is sent into a war zone, there is a spike in the number of divorces in the unit, or problems at home involving children get worse. Extensions of these tours of duty make bad situations even worse and push borderline families over the edge. It has to stop.

Military families are suffering already; some of these soldiers need to get home immediately and get their kids and families back on an even keel. And they need to see to their own physical and mental health too.

Extending tours is not good policy; and while some of the soldiers may not mind it, their families certainly do.

If we are sending these troops to Iraq or Afghanistan for one year, then they should go for one year and then come back, regardless of the security situation. If anything, we should be shortening their stays---sending them over for one year, then bringing them back ahead of schedule.

That plan wouldn't work with the current rotation plan and troop levels, but it's something they really ought to look at and make alterations to accommodate it. And if that means pulling out 60,000 troops this year to increase the size of the soldier pool available for future rotations, then they should do it.

Something has to change, and soon.