BIDEN THEIR TIME

The Obama administration is saying that they will have a decision on troop levels in Afghanistan in 'coming weeks'. Let's hope the casualties are kept to a minimum until Dear Leader makes up his mind on who to cater to - the Norwegians, or his own countrymen.

I understand that this is a very important decision, and something that shouldn't be rushed into, but when Obama let McChrystal's report languish on his desk for 5 weeks with no consultation or consideration, there was simply no excuse for the delay. Now that Obama is finally talking to his generals and military advisers, taking a little time (weeks, not months) to make an informed decision is a necessary evil. At least progress is being made in understanding the situation on the ground, which will hopefully translate into a thoughtful, successful approach to winning the war in Afghanistan.

Senator Inouye D-HI has done an about-face on supporting the war in Afghanistan. His recent trip to the region and discussions with Gen. McChrystal have garnered his full support of McChrystal's plan, and he is now pressuring the administration to implement the plan. He is joined in his support by none other than Sen. Diane Feinstein.

These two democrats actually listened to McChrystal's plan and saw the sense of it. They know the Taliban, as well as Al-Qaeda, are the enemy, and they see that McChrystal's plan is more than just bombing, it's building, too. Building a democracy, building a country, and building hope for the future for Afghans. With any luck, our esteemed leader will see the wisdom of this and follow through.

Unfortunately, there are rumors that VP Joe Biden still has his ear, even after Obama reportedly rejected his proposal of withdrawal and surgical strikes of terrorist strongholds.

Don't get me wrong - surgical strikes are something I support. But if surgical strikes are the only thing we would be doing, it would cause more harm than good, turning the Afghan people against us and potentially leaving a power vacuum that would be filled by the Taliban, just as it was when the USSR finally pulled out of the region in the late 1980's. The key here is not just eliminating the enemy, it's empowering the Afghan people to resist oppressive groups like the Taliban even after we leave. Even the radicals over at Code Pink see the truth in this.

The biggest question about all of this is, why in God's name would they listen to Joe Biden over generals in the field?

At this point, given his track record, the administration would be wise to consider whatever Biden proposes, and then do the exact opposite.

Success would be practically guaranteed.

MCCHRYSTAL vs OBAMA

General Stanley McChrystal, the head of NATO forces in the Afghan theater, has thrown down the gauntlet, and President Obama is rather peeved. In a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a British international security think tank, McChrystal once again made the case for a surge of upwards of 40,000 troops. He also went on Sunday's 60 Minutes to promote his plan.


Critics are attacking McChrystal for circumventing the usual political channels and going to the public to force his will on the administration.


I wonder, could his more strident pleas for reinforcements and his tactic of turning to the public for help against a beta-male administration be more about saving our troops and winning a war than 'forcing his will'?


The men and women under his command are much more than just boots on the ground for General McChrystal. A good general is like a good father, looking out for the welfare of his children, working to keep them safe but still allowing them to take the risks that often bring success. They are his troops, and it is his job to use them wisely, keep deaths and injuries to an absolute minimum and make as much progress towards victory as possible, not just for prestige, but because those men and women are under his care. They are his responsibility, and people are dying.

I'd say that's reason enough to make waves, wouldn't you?

He wrote a report after a few months in the field, assessing the situation and making recommendations on how to proceed. What he saw did not make him happy, and he was blunt in his assessment to the President. That report then sat on Obama's desk for a month as he flitted around the country, pushing for health care reform. Contact between the president and general have been minimal - never a good idea during a hot war.

Hey, Mr. President, if you really want to save some lives, how about doing some of that 'multitasking' you are so big on and pay attention to the plight our troops are in.


Obama himself hired McChrystal, and one would assume he made sure to put someone in position who reflected his views. But as with many other aspects of this administration, that assumption of common sense seems to have been completely unfounded. But ignoring the issue is not the way to go, and I think that McChrystal was doing what he needed to do to protect his troops.


What other alternative did he have, faced with a Commander in Chief who is more interested in winning the Olympics for his hometown than winning a war for his country?


Let's face it, the past nine months have shown us that the only way to get Obama's chin out of the air and actually listen to others' opinions is to forcefully demand his attention, and that is what McChrystal did. When people are dying, you do what has to be done to get the mission accomplished.


There are those who say that Obama is favoring VP Joe Biden's plan to rely on Predator strikes, special forces missions and training the Afghans. Those are good ideas, but it's just not enough. And, quite frankly, I have yet to understand why Biden is considered such a foreign policy wonk, but Obama's poor judgement of people has reached epic proportions, so I can't really say I'm surprised. Apparently our self-righteous 'representatives' in Washington believe that 36 years on the Foreign Relations Committee has far more weight than 30+ years in the field.

McChrystal is advocating a counter-insurgency plan, along the lines of the surge in Iraq. We need more boots on the ground because, just like Iraq, the politicians under staffed, under estimated and under funded. Which is why wars are usually lost when politicians wage them instead of generals. They are unwilling to spend the necessary amounts of blood and treasure, for fear of losing re-election. Generals just want to win the war, and good ones want to do it with as little loss of life as possible. And, as any good general knows, winning the hearts and minds of the people is vital to success - pushing forward relies heavily on being sure you will not be attacked from the rear. Building a strong relationship with local leaders' support and protection is essential - something a community organizer should know.

The problem here, as in Iraq, is foreign insurgents. It's one thing to estimate the number of locals willing to fight, but how do you estimate foreign fighters? All you can do is compensate as it happens.

Which is what McChrystal is doing.

So let him do it.

The surge won Iraq, whether the left wants to acknowledge it or not, and it can win Afghanistan, too.

But if Obama wants to 'cut and run', he needs to make the decision soon, before more American lives are lost.

SHOULD WE STAY OR SHOULD WE GO?

Well, all those warm fuzzies I had from Mr. Obama's shrewd playing of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are going...going...gone.

Our Marshmallow-in-Chief is showing his squishy side again, but this time our fine men and women in uniform will pay the price. He has 'back burnered' a troop request, stating that:

""You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be." "

So let me get this straight: he's been in office for nine months, increased troop levels by more than 17,000 back in February, launched a new offensive and replaced generals on the ground, but still doesn't have a plan yet?!

Seriously?

Maybe he is unaware of the unprecedented level of casualties our troops have been suffering. Perhaps he thinks that leaving them in the field, under funded, under manned, and under estimated is a viable option while he flits from city to city speechifying about everything from health care to inspiring our youth to a nuclear-free utopia, not to mention his whirlwind Sunday chatfest marathon of saying the exact same thing five different ways.

There's no rush, after all.

Did you know that as soon as he decides to increase levels, all our Anointed One has to do is snap his oh so nimble fingers and - voila! - the troops are in the field and ready to go. No recruiting, training, transporting or staging required! It's not like a request made now wouldn't be delivered until, say, January or February.

No rush, though, no rush.

It's obvious you have weightier issues on your mind.

Take your time. It's not like lives depend on your decision....

Choose your position, sir, and stand by it. If you choose withdrawal, do it quickly, so no more lives are lost.

But if victory is your goal, then man them, fully fund them, and let the generals do their jobs. McChrystal knows that it's not just about winning battles - it's about winning the hearts and minds of the civilians, showing them what freedom can bring. Talk to your generals.

We are America - if we set our minds to winning, we will win.

Of all the enemies that deserved to be beaten, the Taliban is second only to the Third Reich.

How did we beat the Reich? Determination, sacrifice, support and the deep-seated belief that we were doing what was right and good. We were not left or right, we were Americans. We did not start the fight, but we sure did finish it, didn't we?

We can do it again. Just give us the chance.