American Policy and Afghanistan - an Anchor

We opined in the Oct/6 blog that we hoped Obama would learn a thing or two about the role of commander-in-chief, that he would at least pick up a history book as an assist. There is no evidence, past weeks, that he has done so.

My son-in-law leaves Friday for Afghanistan. How long can his morale and that of his associates remain vibrant with an inexperienced individual in charge, whose track record shows he cannot make tough decisions, who by all indications has learned nothing since he has taken office?

Let’s back up just a tad. We’ve accused this guy of dithering, past blogs. His supporters have argued that he’s just being prudent. That’s a stretch. Recall that BO ran on the theme of Afg as the "necessary war" and Iraq as the "optional" war. He assumed (and this is key) that the then quiet front in Afg would stay that way. He assumed that we would withdraw from a hopeless Iraqi conflict. He got both wrong, as usual. The surge worked, but Afg heated up. Poor BO, now trapped by his own campaign rhetoric.

Now BO is in a state of perpetual hand wringing. The adm claims that the delay does not effect our prospects there. THIS IS FALSE. BO’s primary character weakness is now protracting and complicating the campaign in Afg; it has severely corroded McChrystal’s ability to conduct an effective operation.

For those interested in the key dynamics of the Afg/Pak situation, turn off the TV and read or re-read our blog "Moments of Truth". We have vital interests in Afg. Pakistan’s operations against its own internal foes have shown yet again how important it is for the US to succeed on the Afg side of the Durand Line.

We have followed the changing Afg conflict since the beginning, since the brilliant initial US victory there over the Taliban in ‘01, then the period of relative stability into ‘07, a period during which no more than 100 American soldiers were killed. Since then to the present, we have lost 553 soldiers, or less that 1% of Americans killed in Vietnam. As one observer put it, "What is astounding is the ability of the U.S. military to inflict damage on the enemy, protect the constitutional government, and keep our losses to a minimum."

Now, with Iraq relatively stabilized, muslim thugs have no choice but to commit their resources to Afg, or suffer a second defeat. We can beat the pants off these swine. There’s nothing there to stop us. Oh, but CNN has told you that no one has ever conquered Afg? Really?

Don’t tell that to Alexander the Great. This guy conquered most of Bactria and its environs (which included present-day Afghanistan). After his death, the area that is now Afghanistan became part of the Seleucid Empire. Later, the Brits nailed the locals in the wars of 1878 and 1919. Sure, the Soviets quit in 1989 but only because the US, Pakistan, China and others combined to provide the resistance with plenty of $ and weapons.

These are the folk who are going to stop the US military? Come on! They have never in their history defeated invaders, not for long, and not without outside assistance. This is a joke.

Oh, but in supporting BO’s difficulty, a just too, too complex situation, you lefties say that the country’s ungovernable, that it’s no use. Once again, if you’re not posted in history you’re vulnerable. After the 1919 founding Afg enjoyed a stable succession of const. monarchs until 1973. Fifty-four years is pretty good, right? When I was a young adult the country was considered secure, tolerant and hospitable to foreigners. And it might be again, and soon if only so many of our fellow Americans, misguided, naive or phonies, whatever, had not made that grave mistake in the voter’s booth, just a few months ago. Most will live to regret it. Those of us who are wiser, grounded, centered, must suffer for their foolishness. We will certainly live to regret it.

Robert Craven