Skip to content

Obama Wavers on Afghanistan

September 23, 2009

taliban fighters

There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm’s way. I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border—President Barack Obama, February 2009

Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy, I’m not going to be sending some young man or woman over there, beyond what we already have. I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration—President Barack Obama, September 2009

What a difference a few months make.

We all remember Barack Obama’s statements criticizing former President George Bush’s actions when it came to Afghanistan. Obama accused him of “indecision,” of not acting quickly enough in removing troops from Iraq so they could be deployed against the Taliban in Afghanistan, where “the real conflict” was. Claiming that Bush was only “tinkering around the edges and kicking the can down the road to the next president,” Obama appeared to be portraying himself as a true hawk against terrorism, at least when it came to Afghanistan.

In light of the statements he made back then, it would seem self-evident that an urgent request today for more troops because of the deteriorating situation on the ground — a request made by the man in charge of the operation — would be met by the president with two questions: “how many troops do you need?” and “when do you need them?”

In the topsy-turvy world of the Obama administration, however, things are rarely self-evident.

And yet, that exact request was made of the president just last week by U.S. and NATO Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of forces on the ground in Afghanistan. In a grim assessment that was leaked to the press, the General warned that a

failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term…risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.

Remarkably, according to a report by Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!, McChrystal’s request is being “reviewed” by the president, who “remains skeptical about the need for more US troops in Afghanistan.”


The General’s assessment is quite clear. Without those additional troops:

we will be defeated in Afghanistan.

He goes on to say that:

Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure

The president, now showing the same indecision he accused Bush of succumbing to, says that while he is “considering” McChrystal’s assessment of the situation, he will be “very deliberate” in deciding whether to send more troops to Afghanistan because “my determination is to get this right.”

Obama said he wants to hear not only from the military, but also from civilian and diplomatic quarters:

One of the things that I’m absolutely clear about is, you have to get the strategy right and then make determinations about resources. You don’t make determinations about resources — certainly you don’t make determinations about sending your men and women into battle — without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.

Has the president forgotten why we are there, or what the ramifications of our failure in Afghanistan would be?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for one, has not:

For the sake of our long-term security, we should support the McChrystal Plan. Anything less would confirm Al Qaeda’s view that America lacks the strength and the resolve to endure a long war.

McConnell is quite right. This is not a time for dithering. Failure in Afghanistan is not an option.

  1. carterthewriter permalink
    September 23, 2009 7:34 am

    Throughout our history, the Democrats have teetered relentless and only act once the bombs explode. Re: Pearl Harbor.

    President Obama is following party protocol.

    Read your history books if they still exist in the classrooms I attented fifty years ago.

  2. Judy permalink
    September 24, 2009 1:30 pm

    The one truth that is self-evident regarding Mr. Obama is that his lack of real world business experience is showing in his inability to demonstrate decision and resolve. Instead, he retreats to a game of over-intellectualized discussion and indecision. He has been presented with the problem. The solution is simple. Give those that know and understand the problem the resources they need to combat the problem.

  3. sprinklerman permalink
    September 25, 2009 6:46 am

    When the war in Iraq was raging I saw this in a local paper:

    “Time for debate over:
    Those who served in the Korean or Vietnam Wars will fully understand what I write. There is an unstated, but clearly understood promise that our government will send out armed forces to war only if it wants us to win. That promise to allow the end result to be victory is sealed in blood the moment the first American combatant is killed. From that instant the promise is irrevocable, regardless of the miscalculations of the government, the resources spent, the casualties suffered, or the strudent dissent of those who want their five minutes of fame.
    The time for debate is before the first tank crosses the line, not after. The moment for public dissent is before the first casualty is incurred, not after. The time for Congress to oppose a war is before it starts, not while it is being waged.
    No words now spoken in Congress can erase the fact that those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan were promised they would be allowed to win. The trust we place in our government demands that that promise is not smothered by empty rhetoric and party demagoguery. This time Congress either owes them a chance to win, or it owes us an apology.
    John J. Kauza

    At the time, President Bush was in the Oval Office, and howls of protest and slander were being thrown at our President and our brave men and women of the armed services by our elected leaders (Murtha comments – you owe them an apology sir!). If President Obama committed to Afghanistan in February, he should be asking the military how many and when.


  1. Steynian 385 « Free Canuckistan!

Comments are closed.