Patterico notices a bit of a nomenclature ploy coming out of the White House.
As you all know, Gen. McChrystal is asking for more troops in Afghanistan. And this clearly shows that Gen. McChrystal is a selfish jerk who only thinks of his country and not how this might inconvenience The One during his push to take over healthcare.
You see, General McChrystal’s request puts Obama in a pickle because throughout the campaign he acted all tough and said that we needed to win in Afghanistan and that’s why he was so upset about the War in Iraq, because it was turning our heads from this crucial must win war in Afghanistan. But if he goes out now and asks Congress for more troops the left will absolutely flip and he needs their support right now for Obamacare.
So he has to push ObamaCare through before he can deal with terrorism. Man! Maybe if the terrorists understood that this wasn’t a good time for Obama they might pull back on their activities for a while.
But anyway, you’ve got to check out how demeaning the White House is to General McChrystal’s request making it like it’s no big deal.
Patterico writes:
Indications are that Gen. McChrystal will resign if he does not get the additional troops he says he needs to win in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, note well this quote from an anonymous Obama administration official, from the Wall Street Journal:
“Stan McChrystal is not responsible for assessing how we’re doing against al Qaeda,” said the senior administration official. “He’s not assessing how the Pakistani military is doing in its counterinsurgency campaign. That’s not his job. So Stan’s report is a very important input into this overall strategy, but it’s not the only input.”
Note how the “official” omits the title “General” for the familiar “Stan.” It’s a subtle way of discounting the general’s message. Stanny-boy may have his opinion, but we don’t have to listen to ol’ Stanerino.
Wasn’t it Obama’s liberal ally Barbara Boxer who demanded to be called “Senator” and not “mam?” She said she’d worked hard for the title and had earned it. Well, I’m pretty sure General McChrystal did too.
September 23, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Don't let anyone with first-hand experience or facts interfere with the vision of Hope and Change.
Why does this remind me of Hitler and his General Staff?
September 23, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Do you think the General would prefer some cute little pet name like turdblossom?
Someone in the Pentagon deliberately leaked this report to try and garner support for more troops since the report was redacted to ensure that classified information was not revealed.
The only relevant fact is, we have been in Afghanistan for eight friggin' years and are nowhere closer to success than when we started. If anything, we are worse off than when we started, despite all of the helpful advice from the Pentagon.
September 23, 2009 at 6:51 pm
But Craig, if we weren't there, al-qaeda would have a safe haven to do what they do. This is a continuous war on terror. We are deluding ourselves if we believe that al-qaeda will not strike again. At least with the troops in Afghanistan, there is more of a deterrent.
I say this knowing my husband is deploying to Afghanistan in a couple of months. He will be gone for 12 months. Freedom is not free.
September 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I would take the word of someone who is disciplined and patriotic, and on the front lines willing to lay down his life, over anyone who got where he is by lying, cheating and denigrating our great country.
September 23, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Craig,
I seem to have heard that familiar whine before about another troop surge that "wasn't going to work"… Hmm…
September 23, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I don't know who is putting these scenarios together, but just what is the qualification to "win in Afghanistan"? These are an incomprehensibly uncivilized people, to put it absolutely mildly. Their value for human life is so miniscule, which is why they have no problem with sacrificing their own children as canon fodder or suicide bombers. If a nation as powerful as the Soviet Union couldn't "win in Afghanistan", and the US couldn't "win in Vietnam", I really don't see where this wishful thinking is coming from.
IMHO the only way any nation can "win in Afghanistan" is to completely colonize it, raise the standard of living, make it dependent on the US/West for goods and of course Christianize the populace. But the US has little stomach for colonization, so my guess is surge or not Afghanistan will be exactly where it was 10 years ago come the end of Obama's term.
September 24, 2009 at 1:16 am
Anon 5:44,
The strategy is not to colonize or convert a population — that is hardly needed to win in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, there are much clearer goals — namely, the defeat of the Taliban and the support they provide to al-Qaida. There is no comparison to what the Soviet Union was attempting to do (i.e., make it a satellite state).
Furthermore, both examples cited (the USSR's experience in Afghanistan and the US's experience in Vietnam) neglect the fact that both were Cold War proxy wars in which a strong military foe was arming the enemy. In the case of Afghanistan circa 1979, the mujahadeen probably wouldn't have had nearly as much success against the USSR if not for the US providing sophisticated air-to-air weapons like Stinger missiles.
I'm afraid that many Americans confuse Iraq and Afghanistan, forgetting the much clearer links between the Taliban and al-Qaida. It's worth considering what the alternative strategy to a troop surge might be: more air strikes, perhaps, and fewer ground forces? Sounds like Clinton all over again — not exactly a winning strategy.
September 24, 2009 at 3:13 am
KC,
Al-qaeda is in Somalia and Yemen. Are we going to invade them next?
Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, are we going to topple their government as punishment?
LBJ and Nixon played politics while people died, its time to truly assess Afghanistan and determine if its worth staying and trying to "win".
Freedom is not free and neither is endless war.