For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Are Islamic Radical Sensing Political Weakness
Written By : McQ

It is all fine and good to have a discussion and even a debate about future strategy in Afghanistan. But probably not 6 months after you’ve announced your former strategy. For some reason, dithering has a tendency to be interpreted as a weakness, not a strength. In war, weaknesses are attacked and exploited. And that may be exactly what we’re beginning to see:

Several thousand foreign fighters have poured into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban insurgency, the country’s defense minister said yesterday as he called for more international troops.

The remarks come as the United States debates whether to substantially increase its forces in Afghanistan or to conduct a more limited campaign focused on targeting al-Qaeda figures – most of whom are believed to be in neighboring Pakistan.

The minister’s comments hit on a key worry of the United States – that not sending enough troops to Afghanistan will open the door again to al-Qaeda. They also suggest that the Afghan government is nervous about the U.S. commitment amid talk of changing the strategy and a surge in violence in recent months.

This isn’t a Senate debate where you can take whatever time you need and if it’s not finished by the nearest recess, you put it off until you come back. Wars can’t be tabled. A war continues with or without a decision made by either side. And, in many cases in history, wars have been lost because decisions were delayed or not made in a timely manner.

The fact that foreign fighters are pouring in now has to be viewed in a particular context. You can’t snap your finger and produce “foreign fighters” in Afghanistan. They have to be recruited, transported, trained and then gotten to A’stan. So for the enemy to have these fighters showing up now would indicate, at least to me, that they have sensed some form of weakness in the American committment (and make no mistake – there is no NATO Afghanistan mission without the US) and they have been able to sell recruits on the idea that they’re about to turn everything around there and win. And note this: the Taliban won’t have any esoteric conversations about whether or not running us off is a “victory” or just “success”. They’ll trumpet to the world that they kicked our butt while they then barbarically subdue, punish and seek revenge on anyone who worked with us. They don’t care how it happens – force of arms or us just pulling out – it is still a victory. And everyone likes to be on the winning side:

“The enemy has changed. Their number has increased,” the defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, told lawmakers in a speech. He said that about 4,000 fighters, mostly from Chechnya, North Africa, and Pakistan, “have joined with them and they are involved in the fighting in Afghanistan.”

The longer the administration continues to dither, the easier it is for the radicals to sell their cause and claim the indecision by the administration indicates that, as they’ve always said, the US hasn’t the political will to finish much of anything that extends over a year or two. Bush would actually be seen as the exception.

Unless and until a decision is made and made rather quickly, recruiting should be good for the radicals.

And of course, good recruiting for them means more losses among our troops. Sure we usually have a high ratio of Taliban kills to every soldier we lose, but that’s not the point. The point is indecision emboldens the enemy and that ends up killing our soldiers.

There is absolutely no reason that a decision could not be reached within a week or two. One of President Obama’s primary jobs is that Commander in Chief. It’s time he started acting like one.

[Crossposted at QandO]

0
  • http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

    In one word, Yes.

  • Rickvid_in_Seattle

    Given the history of whom we fight, looking at all the "truces" and "bombing lulls" during which each side is to stay put and not work for military advantage, given the nature of thugs and tyrants, it is no surprise that Taliban and the like move into the little vacumns left when decisions are not made.

    Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Haig, Patton all know that fighting a gentleman's war is the best way to get many more people killed. Obama has ZERO to say on the subject.

  • http://wastingtimewithalex.com/ AlexinCT

    They are finally going to capitalize on their calls for Obama to be elected president. after all, the wrold loves a weak US president that puts their interests ahead of that of America. And what's more rewarding than one that will let you fianlly make a real comeback in a war you were losing, huh?

  • tblrk2006

    "War is a cruel thing, it cannot be refined. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

  • Realpolitik

    No.

  • Mike_M

    Cave dwelling terrorists are executing their battle stragegy. What is Obama doing? Oh right. Having his Nobel Peace Prize speech fed into the teleprompter.

  • BIG

    President Obama is not going to prosecute a war against a cause he believes in. I expect him to dither on a decision and come up with a half measure that will insure our enemies are strengthened. And when we pull out with our tails between our legs, the Dems and media will just balme it on Bush and not themselves.

  • MediumHeadBoy

    Well, gee whiz, I was going to post in the affirmative here, but Realidiot says no, so obviously I was wrong.

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info