Sunday, October 18, 2009

White House Says No Troop Decision Until Afghan Election is Resolved

Here we go again the Obama administration is now using a disputed election in Afghanistan to deny an American general additional troops in the field. Troops he evidently needs or they would have not been requested. Politics-politics and more politics are coming into play as a reluctant president who obviously has do desire to send more troops into a country that a few months ago he called vital to American security---the war that we needed to fight! Some misguided people say Obama is using this disputed election as an excuse to cave-in to his base. I contend this is not the case. Obama would have American forces withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan if he could see a way to justify that move. The man simply doesn't believe that troops are needed in those areas and that the war on terror should be a matter of police action and not military involvement. This position by Obama has a long, long history on the American left and Barack is certainly a member of that group. So for now the generals will have to wait, the soldiers in the field will have to make do without the help of additional support and the enemy will have more room to maneuver in the mountains of Afghanistan and position themselves so as to inflict greater causalities on American forces. Barack Himself Obama is not being indecisive but doing exactly what he always intended to do. In the end this man will leave both Iraq and Afghanistan if he is able to stay in office for two terms and America will the the weaker for it.

One last thing, no one wants to see American combat troops stay in Iraq or Afghanistan for years to come, but to totally withdraw would create a vacuum that a nation such as Iran or others would quickly fill. Too much blood and treasure has been lost not to maintain some type of American presence in this strategic part of the world.
It would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan until a legitimate and credible government is in place, the White House and top Democrats said Sunday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region.

"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing," Emanuel said in an interview Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Emanuel stressed that the central question is "not how much troops you have but whether in fact there's an Afghan partner."

As the White House faces mounting pressure in implementing a viable strategy in the 8-year-old war, the outcome of Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election remains in question because of reported ballot fraud. Afghan President Hamid Karzai declared victory, but a runoff election with his closest challenger is now a possibility. read more at FOX News


Debbie said...

Our troops are dying while he piddles around and makes no decision. He's going to keep putting this off until he can find some reason NOT to send the troops and equipment.

Deborah F. Hamilton
Right Truth

Ron Russell said...

I think you have it competely right Debbie.

LD Jackson said...

Personally, I am not all that happy to see troops in Afghanistan, although I do understand why they are there. However, if they are going to be there, they need to have all of the support we can muster. I truly hate to see the reinforcements they need delayed because of politics.

TexasFred said...

It would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan until a legitimate and credible government is in place, the White House and top Democrats said Sunday.
When Karzai and Company took over the 1st time, there was NO credible government in Afghanistan. There was a War Lord that got elected and he ruled over Kabul, and that was about it.

Rural Afghanistan is riled by war lords, some allied to Karzai, some to al-Qaida and the Taliban, but what bit of credibility there was got blown to hell and back when WE lost OUR focus and took the war to Iraq and basically let Afghanistan return to what it was initially.

We trained the Taliban, and supplied them too. That is a fact that many either forget or overlook.

Ron Russell said...

You make some great point Fred, but thing are what they are and the past is just that and the question is what to do now. Granted there are no easy answers, get out or jump in with both feet the middle ground is full of quicksand as is always the case with the middle.

The Right Look said...

Like you said, this is not something N-Obama is dragging his feet on. This is his intention no doubt!

I hope the men and women in the military know how much we support them back here.

I try to tell them thanks we I meet them out in public.

God bless them all!


Mr Pink Eyes said...

I think that Debbie has this right, he is just delaying while looking for an excuse to deny the general the troops that he needs.
If he won't give the general the troop than he should begin withdrawing, it is no use fighting a battle that the general has already admitted we cannot win without additional troops.