Leaving Afghanistan isn't as easy as leaving Iraq. I am not referring to logistics, I am referring to treaties and allies. We aren't the only North American country committed to this effort. That is what is so reprehensible about the negligence of the previous administration in regard to supporting the Afghan government and the allies that see the effort as vital to their National Security.
I have listened and read the view points of my peers and they are correct. This is very painful. We have a President we love and are loyal to, yet, we disagree sincerely with his decision. The decision by the way was praised as 'contemplative' during the time he took to make it. We praised his reflection on the facts. He believed in him during that time.
When McCarther wasn't allowed to move against China, we had only one goal in mind and that was to secure South Korea. We did that. When Ford removed the troops from Vietnam it was a unilateral decision with hideous conditions. It was an easy decision to make. Vietnam was about wrongful economics and politics as well as a country without nuclear ambitions.
The decision President Obama made with a great deal of fact finding and thought wasn't as easily reached as his predecessors. He had a lot hanging in the balance and needed to believe in his General and the possibility NATO didn't carry the burden through years of neglect by the USA for no reason.
I would be more critical of President Obama if he hadn't been so transparent and forthright about the vast corruption that existed in Afghanistan as he executed his fact finding mission and made tough choices. However, this is still a very painful period of time.
The USA has been manipulated in its priorities with Iraq vs Afghanistan and we are all very suspicious of a continued war, even if both Iraq and Afghanistan engagements end in 2011. However, I understand his priorities and we are contributing to the national security of our allies as we are compelled to do under treaties. President Obama is going above and beyond with this commitment to NATO. He didn't have to do it, but, felt it necessary to uphold the integrity of our alliances. He is correct on that count. This is also not a strategy that is being touted as a 'marginal' effort. General McCrystal is stating he anticipates victory and success.
I don't look forward to the next 18 months in anticipation of a successful and rewarding war. I find nothing thought provoking about discussions of strategies and death of enemies. But, I do recognize the fact that NATO has 'stood the line' while Bush and Cheney dabbled in Iraq. They stood the line in hopes that a USA President would be elected to finish the fight and establish stability in the region. We have an obligation to them and we can't look the other way.
I hope General McCrystal is successful, he states he will be. The USA by majority is not a warring country, it is difficult for its citizens to support prolonged wars, especially when they have gone as "W"rong as this one. But, through the graces of an intelligent President, the effort has more time and more troops. I am pleased President Obama has resolved to put a limit on this effort and return economic stability to the USA over and above prolonged efforts in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan need to believe in their country and take on the responsiblity of defending it. It is time for that transition and we can only hope the Afghan people live up to their responsibility as we stand down from ours.
If I were President Obama I wouldn't pay much attention to the media, except for pundits and sincere journalists, during the next eighteen months. They are going to use it to hack away at his credibility in regard to this effort, as example, even the wayward Rove is attempting to be Advisor and Chief. I mean, who is he to say squat? I guess its a paycheck for him. Then in a completely laughable moment, Murdoch's Hannity stated, "He doesn't think the deployment is worth the effort, so why bother at all." There is no way that is ANYTHING but propaganda for the Right Wing seeking a political 'wedge' on the issue for their own priorities and outcomes.
I stand with my President. I believe he did the 'best' he could, but, I look forward to the return of our troops. These next eighteen months will give all the NATO countries time to make their own decisions and prepare for an Afghanistan yet to be realized.
More U.S. troops in Afghanistan will help Canada’s mission: minister (click here)
By Peter O’Neil and Allison Cross, Canwest News Service
Canada’s Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said Wednesday an injection of 30,000 more American troops into Afghanistan will help Canada better achieve its own objectives in the war-torn country.
Mr. Cannon made these remarks in a teleconference with media from Brussels, where he is meeting with other NATO foreign leaders.
“Canada welcomes the additional military and civilian resources the U.S. will deploy to Afghanistan, in particular to the south,” he said. “This will allow Canada to further concentrate its efforts on its . . . priorities and . . . signature projects.”...
From (L), Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (click title to entry - thank you), Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, 02 Dec 2009, before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on US strategy in Afghanistan Gerald Herbert
...The Secretary of State spend a full day in Congress Wednesday with other senior administration officials defending President Obama's decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
After another hearing Thursday, she leaves for Brussels for talks on Afghanistan Friday with fellow NATO foreign ministers, and those of other participants in the 43-nation International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, ISAF.
Clinton said she spoke with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen between Congressional hearings and said he gave an encouraging report on his efforts to generate new troop pledges among the allies....
NATO chief: Allies will provide 5,000 more troops (click here)
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 2, 2009; 2:28 PM
...In Brussels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pledged that U.S. allies would "send at least 5,000 more soldiers to this operation, and probably a few thousand on top of that." He told reporters in Brussels, "This is not just America's war. This is our fight, together."...
