November 26th, 2009 • 8:58 amThat’s Just Great

Wednesday, I wrote this post questioning whether President Obama was committed to winning. I didn’t have to wait long for the answer:

The President may announce he’s sending tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan, but in doing so, he’ll emphasize how he’ll eventually bring them home.

“The president does not see this as an open ended engagement,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. “Our time there will be limited. And I think that is important for people to understand.”

Simply put, President Obama isn’t giving us proof that he’s in it to win it. More importantly, he’s telling the Afghani people that they’ll be sticking their necks out for an ally that won’t be there when they’re needed.

I’m betting that this decision won’t sit well with British Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth, either. The British are looking for a realiable ally. Having this administration as an ally will make for a difficult sell to the British, especially with skepticism running high in Britain.

It’s time President Obama stopped making decisions like his title is Triangulator-In-Chief. He’s supposedly the Commander-In-Chief, though there’s no proof that he fits that description. Mr. President, it’s time you did the right thing for our troops and the right thing for our national security. It’s time you took a page from President Bush’s surge playbook and went on the offensive militarily.

Under President Bush, the terrorists lived in fear every day. Under President Bush, the military put pressure on the terrorists in the tiny villages in Afghanistan. Under President Obama, not so much.

Mr. President, it’s time you divorced your national security decisions from political considerations. The maxim of “good policy makes for good politics” is still valid. Who cares if part of your base has a problem with you preventing another terrorist attack? The American people will appreciate it.

Do the right thing. Forget the timetables. WIN THE DAMN WAR!!! That’s the only right way of dealing with this challenge.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Post Comments RSS Feed Post Comments RSSTrackBack URI 2 Responses

  1. Glad you think it is “winnable.”

    What’s your definition of “winning.”

    Forcing Karzi backed national police into control around the nation?

    Lessening the poppy crops?

    What?

    How do you win, unless you know the objective?

    Comment by eric z • 27Nov2009 @ 8:10 am

  2. Winning = defeating the Taliban & al-Qa’ida, pressuring the Karzai government into reforms, including the destruction of their poppy crops.

    The simplest definition is we win, AQ & the Taliban lose. Is that clear enough an objective for you?

    Comment by Gary Gross • 28Nov2009 @ 3:05 am





Categories