Mr President, two months you have now delayed making a decision.  Two months since your hand-picked general first gave you his frank assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. You obviously valued his opinion or you would not have placed him in that most difficult of command positions.  He has asked you for an increase of 40,00 more troops and he has explained why.  Yet you have still not made a decision.  Perhaps you have taken that time to reflect on the difference between skillful utterance of campaign rhetoric and actually being Commander in Chief.  Perhaps you are really struggling with this terribly difficult choice.  I hope so – it’s not supposed to be easy.

Mr. President, I suggest you look down at your hands, do you see the blood there?  It is the blood of brave soldiers who have died on your watch.  Don’t bother washing your hands, the stain will never go away – just ask any other President who has faced the extremely difficult choice of sending troops into harm’s way.  I’m sure they will tell you how many times they washed their hands… to no avail.  I’m not saying the deaths of those 97 soldiers could have been avoided had you decided on a course of action sooner – it is impossible to say,  But I am saying that you can no longer claim to be “mopping up someone else’s mess”.  It is now your mess.  It is now time for you to understand and embrace what is meant by the phrase, “The buck stops here”.

It is my most fervent prayer that you will make the best possible decision – not the most expedient or the most politically calculated, not the one that might endear you to the most people, or shine the best light on you – but the one that is best – best for our troops, best for their families, best for the people of Afghanistan, best for the people of The United Sates of America, best for the cause of those who hold freedom and liberty dear.  But I do know this – decide you must, and no matter what you decide that stain will still be there on your hands, long after you leave office.  It comes with the job.

Here is yet another response, from a man who knows a great deal about the history of the region, Michael Brandon McClellan, guest posting on the blog of Steven Pressfield, another expert on the region.

The correct questions to ask are these:

If we leave Afghanistan before it is reasonably stable, with a not-completely-corrupt government, what will happen next?  Who will move into the power vacuum?  What will be their motivations?  Will Afghanistan be used again as a staging and training area for terrorists acts against the West, and the US in particular?   What can we expect to be the opinion of those whom we want to believe that we keep our promises, and carry out military actions we’ve begun?  What will Joe Jihadi think about the resolve of the West, and the US in particular?

It’s expensive for the US to be in Afghanistan.  It costs some US lives.  It gets harder and harder to sell back home, where the Sept. 10, 2001 mindset is on full display, and spreading fast.  But the alternative is not peace and joy in the middle east, and a USA that is left unmolested by terrorists.  There are forces at work in this who take a LONG view, and are willing to plan attacks on the US, or US interests and allies, attacks that may not happen for a decade, but are made possible by a US withdrawal after we’ve failed to end significant Taliban and Al Qaeda influence in Afghanistan.  And, of course, Pakistan’s nuclear arms are much less of a threat to the world if they are in the hands of a Pakistan government that is not constantly challenged by the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  Pakistan’s stability is undermined by an unstable Afghanistan.

It is not good to be there.  But it’s probably far worse to leave before it’s done.  In the nature of things, this cannot be absolutely proved, and even if and when it works, there will be those who insist it wasn’t necessary.  Of course, there are those who insist to this day that the US should have stayed out of WW II.

Which proves that hindsight ISN’T always 20/20, let alone foresight.

Sometimes you just have to muddle through and do your best, and not quit because things get hard.

UPDATE:  George Will has posted another column, this one comparing the difficulty of creating a stable regime in Bosnia to doing the same for Afghanistan.   He may be right.  If he is, perhaps we should immediately withdraw our resources from Bosnia, and put it all in Afghanistan.

It’s those Pakistani nukes.  It’s those guys who intend to kill as many of us as they can, when they can.  Bosnia is no particular danger to us… yet, anyway.  I suppose that some Islamist crazies there could also be plotting revenge on the US, for saving Muslims from the Serbs, after the manner of Saudi anger at the US for saving Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.  But we know, for a fact, what the intentions of the Taliban and Al Qaeda are.  And we can be pretty sure of the outcome if they ever succeed in destabilizing Pakistan enough to get their hands on those nukes.

It seems to me that Will is correct in pointing out the difficulties, but that his solution (pull out, hope, and bomb occasionally) is just feckless.  We already know where that leads.

An ad hoc group of bloggers has come together for the purpose of opposing a U.S.-led escalation in Afghanistan that is slated to double the number of American troops there.

Sure. Let’s let the Taliban take over Afghanistan again. Let’s go back to the situation that created the 9/11 attack, and supported its training and operational phases. After all, surely they’ve learned not to mess with the USA, don’t you think?

I wish we could send the entire Daily Kos crowd on a little vacation to Waziristan. Maybe a nice bus ride in the mountains, a chance to make new friends, show them that all Americans aren’t war-mongering degenerates, you know? We could equip them with satellite phones and live video feeds, just in case they need to call us or something.

On second thought, I’m hoping this is Obama’s left flank…. if he has one.

At a moment when much of the Islamic world is suspicious of the U.S., publicizing the positive changes that Western nations have provided is essential. The enemy advertises cutting off heads, or attacking innocent civilians in India, or blowing up a train in Spain. They smile when blowing up tourists in Bali, and dance as buildings fall. We smile when babies recover and the children of illiterate shepherds and subsistence farmers learn to read. You have to be willfully blind not to know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys in this place.

What would you guess is the literacy rate in Afghanistan? Click the link above, read the article, and try to reconnect your jaw to the rest of your face.  Understand that we are in this for the long haul, and if Obama will fight that war, and invest in that society, you’d better support that aspect his policy, whether or not you voted for him.

And whenever you get a chance, put a stake through the heart of moral equivalence argumentation.  Most of the time, we ARE the good guys in the world (which is what makes our occasional failures so remarkable, and so attention getting), and if we give that ambition up, we die, first by abdication, and later, by national assassination, which will be all we deserve.

If the Afghan war isn’t won, or clearly about to be, in the next two years, and he isn’t deep into pulling out, the “quagmire” will be his, and only die-hard supporters will buy that it’s still Bush’s war.  On the other hand, if he’s pulling out by then, even with a loss, he can probably salvage the good opinion of many of his supporters, those who don’t think much about the future of terrorist attacks on the USA, and are happy to lose any old way, as proof of American inferiority, which excites them.

NATO’s impatience with the Afghan war, and the failure of non-English speaking NATO members to really fight in it (as opposed to just providing logistical support, etc.), is probably not going to be curable by Obamian rhetorical style, regardless of cheering throngs on his grand tour of Europe.  Obama will discover the exact limits of being “well regarded by the world”, which does not produce much actual action, but merely a lessening in bilious criticism.

Does Obama have the stomach to WIN the war?  I don’t know.  I hope so.  Anything else is bound to kill LOTS more Americans, sooner or later.

Michael Yon, the single best war correspondent we have » Afghan Quicksand Awaits Obama

The Iraq war is over. Barring the unforeseen, the darkest days are behind, though we are still losing soldiers to low-level fighting with enemies that are true “dead-enders.” Last month we lost seven Americans in combat in Iraq. Peace, however, is not upon us. Another thirty or so Iraqis died today in suicide attacks. Nobody suffers more at the hands of Islamic terrorists than other Muslims.

A new president will soon begin to make critical decisions about Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic crisis at home, and countless other matters. While the Iraq war began, then boiled, and finally cooled before President-elect Obama will be sworn into office on January 20, 2009, the Afghanistan-Pakistan spectacle is just getting started. He was always a fierce opponent of our involvement in Iraq. And, as with so many Democrats in the Senate, he argued frequently, during the campaign, that we should have been focused on Afghanistan all along, because it is the real incubator of the international terrorist threat. Timing being everything, our new president will get his wish. Afghanistan now moves to center stage. The conflicts in Afghanistan and between Afghanistan and Pakistan have the simmering potential to overshadow anything we’ve seen in Iraq. Here are a few things I hope he understands:

Our enemies are winning. The enemies know it. We know it. Who are they? The Taliban, with its deep local roots, is enemy number one. Al-Qaeda is hanging around to make trouble. Some Paks, who don’t want to see a thriving Pushtun state on their border, are our enemies. They fund and shelter the Taliban even though we rely on them to help us defeat it. Nothing is straightforward in this part of the world. We have other enemies in Afghanistan who hate the Taliban.

Most of our allies are not very helpful. With the exception of the British, Canadians, Dutch, and a few others such as the Aussies, we are not fighting this with an “A-team” of international allies. With a few exceptions, our allies on the ground are comprised of several dozen countries that mostly refuse to fight. The bulk of NATO amounts to little more than a “Taliban piñata.” The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is proving nearly worthless and provides no credible threat to armed opposition groups (AOGs) in Afghanistan. Most of the NATO member countries seem to break out in a cold sweat at the mere mention of “Taliban.” They piled in when the war looked easy and largely humanitarian. But now that it’s getting harder and more dangerous, they would like to pile out.

Success or failure in Afghanistan depends on the handful of countries that step up — and a multi-pronged, combat/political/nation-building strategy. The Brits field excellent soldiers but are short of enabling equipment, such as helicopters, armor, and UAVs, which could greatly enhance their combat effectiveness. Nevertheless, an outstanding British-led operation to deliver a 200-ton hydroelectric turbine to the Kajaki Dam could eventually deliver electricity to 1.8 million people. This dam, with its potential to bring light, heat, and the ability to begin industrializing, is a true and serious victory for the good guys.

So, let me stipulate that it’s still a real fight. While the AOGs are making progress on some fronts, success is no more assured for them than for us. Mostly they destroy things that their countrymen want — including peace and the prospect of increased prosperity. They cut off lips and noses and douse women with gasoline and burn them alive. Just recently, a group of enemies apparently tried to bait us into killing a wedding party. If we are going to get groups to the negotiating table, we must pose a credible threat against enemies and a credible promise to the rest. What we don’t want is the current situation, where it’s actually the AOGs that are forcing us to the table, largely due to NATO’s general apathy and unwillingness to fight.

To ensure that we have influence over the outcome, we need more soldiers in Afghanistan, and fast. They need to be U.S. forces, British, Canadian, and Aussie; we cannot depend on NATO in general and they don’t know how to fight anyway. Unless President-elect Obama knows some kind of magic spell, he will not be able to persuade most NATO countries to do the right thing. Springtime 2009 will likely bring very heavy fighting in Afghanistan. We will not have credible negotiating positions while we remain outgunned by a bunch of old rifles and dinged-up RPGs.

While security in Iraq continues to improve, Afghanistan is drowning in a frothing quicksand. While most of the 2008 fighting season is over, we can be assured that the Afghan national sport — guerrilla warfare — will become the 2009 Taliban Olympics by April. They know this is a marathon.

Whatever else, Mr. President-elect, this is no time to go wobbly. It is important to note that some top British and U.S. commanders believe that we can make a “success” out of Afghanistan. We’ve learned a few things over the past seven years. We’ve truly got a “dream team” of military commanders with great in-theater experience to advise and guide the next phase. They saved Iraq. Use them well, Sir.

President-elect Obama says he is serious about Afghanistan. (Just don’t fumble Iraq, please.) As he must be learning in intelligence briefings, it’s going to be tough stuff. It will be like solving a human Rubik’s Cube during a firefight while the media screams every time you make a wrong move — or what is perceived as a wrong move — and there is a clock ticking and at some unknown point the Cube self-destructs.

Maybe his recent training in the combat of a two-year election cycle will have toughened him up for the international challenges ahead.

Today I am in Kuwait, heading back into Iraq for an end-of-year round-up. Then it’s back to the war in Afghanistan for one heck of a fight. Please stay tuned. Your soldiers are locked in a deadly struggle tonight.

Pray for Obama, our soldiers, and our nation.

we have to be very careful, and we are with respect to Anbar. We know [the insurgents are] trying to come back in … and we have picked up a number of those individuals who have tried to come back in. And of course they attacked and killed several of our marines and sheiks in the attack [June 26 in Karmah, near Fallujah]. But the fact is that the level of violence in Anbar is the lowest in our recorded history, literally, the lowest of any of our data.

Read it all. Hope he enters politics someday. He seems to tell the unvarnished truth.

h/t: Michael Yon

Walker and two other wounded soldiers distributed their ammo and grenades and passed messages.

The whole FOB was covered in dust and smoke, looking like something out of an old Western movie.

“I’ve never seen the enemy do anything like that,” said Walker, who was medically evacuated off the FOB in one of the first helicopters to arrive. “It’s usually three RPGs, some sporadic fire and then they’re gone … I don’t where they got all those RPGs. That was crazy.”

Two hours after the first shots were fired, Stafford made his way — with help — to the medevac helicopter that arrived.

“It was some of the bravest stuff I’ve ever seen in my life, and I will never see it again because those guys,” Stafford said, then paused. “Normal humans wouldn’t do that. You’re not supposed to do that — getting up and firing back when everything around you is popping and whizzing and trees, branches coming down and sandbags exploding and RPGs coming in over your head … It was a fistfight then, and those guys held ’ em off.”

Stafford offered a guess as to why his fellow soldiers fought so hard.

“Just hardcoreness I guess,” he said. “Just guys kicking ass, basically. Just making sure that we look scary enough that you don’t want to come in and try to get us.”

You need to click the link at the top, and read this whole thing. And you need to show respect to our fighting men. These men are not victims, they are heroes who choose to serve us, and they deserve the best we can give them, including the leadership we elect for them.

hat tip: blackfive

Dear George,

Barack’s school theater troup is on a field trip. Isn’t he cute? Don’t you just LOVE the way he delivers speeches? Doesn’t he look GREAT up there? He sounds just like one of the grown-ups when he talks, as long as he stays on script.

He looked so adorable playing with the real soldiers. He could so totally play the role of president in a movie.

It’s pretty clear that improvisational theater will never be his thing, but hey, lots of fine actors just learn their lines and deliver them well, with suitable feeling and gesture.

Uncle Charlie, Uncle Brian and Aunt Katie are SO good with the video cameras: we’re all going to have some great home movies. Wasn’t it sweet of them to come along and video Barack’s trip for the rest of the family, and provide helpful narration of his better work? They’re so good at just getting his best performances on tape, and shooting from the best angles, and downplaying the awkward spots, or even just editing them out. We’ll have to have them over for dinner soon. It’s wonderful to have such fine people in the family.

Isn’t it cool how many of Barack’s friends came with him, and how much they help him get ready for each performance? It really is true that an actor isn’t much by himself, without all the little people backstage helping him out, doing his makeup, selecting wardrobe, helping him study his lines, and all that.

Not every kid gets to take an international tour at school expense, and only meet with the most famous people. I’m sure he’ll always cherish these moments, when he got to rub elbows with the real stars.

Maybe it’s my imagination, but I think our precocious Barack is having a kind of spiritual experience, feeling a oneness with the people he’s meeting, knowing that he’s really one of THEM, not so much a representative of his own family and school. That feeling of connecting with the audience and getting them to clap and cheer is what he lives for, and he knows he has the gift of making people laugh and cry. I have personally seen laughter turn to tears, in the audience at Barack’s more moving performances. It must really be wonderful to feel so good about yourself, and to know you have such power.

I think he’s probably going to INSIST that people back home treat him the same way from now on, and I’m sure his aunts and uncles will try to help him with that. They know lots of people in the business, and they’re obviously committed to helping him break in.

Barack has really learned how to deal with the critics, who just don’t have his talent. The critics keep blaming him for occasional bad scripts (as if they’re his fault!), even though he performs them flawlessly. And they keep confusing the real performances with his minor little improvisations along the side, and in interviews (when he gives one… He’s really too young to be put under such pressure). People can be so unkind. How can he possibly be expected to think of everything at once when people keep asking him hard questions, questions that other people have spent years thinking about and still aren’t totally sure of the answers? He needs time to think about it, just like anybody else. Trust is in such short supply these days.

After he gets back, once he’s got the audience in the palm of his hand, I think he’s going to raise ticket prices to something a lot more reasonable. He’ll probably give some free performances to the less fortunate, but those people who can afford it at all are really going to have to pony up to keep their season tickets. Or, I suppose, they could just give up and be poor… Then Barack will give them free performances, too. He says he has a way to make people pay for tickets even if they don’t want to attend the theater. I think that’s a good thing; people should support the arts, even if they don’t like them personally.

Also, his friends say (I suspect correctly) that he plans to see what he can do to keep less talented actors and critics from getting so much attention from the public. How can the public be expected to develop any real sense of taste when they’re constantly getting bombarded with unreasonable critics attacking the real stars? Barack plans to do something about that when he has a large enough audience and is in control of a lot more theatrical budgets. Some people just really shouldn’t be allowed on the stage at all. Or even in the theater.

Due to his popularity, I think he’s going to get to appoint the judges for the next talent contest. I’m sure he’ll pick judges with good taste, just like him. And that should help him shut up the unreasonable critics, too.

I hope this update finds you in good health and ready to fund the arts group that is supporting Barack’s next theatrical engagements.

Your friend,

Marko

marko@dailykossack.com