Tuesday, September 01, 2009

How’s That Overseas Contingency Operation Going, Generalissimo Obama?

Since the Obama administration has taken control of the country, including the "War on Terror,” and changed the terminology to an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” it seems things have begun heating up.

While accusations continue to fly about President Bush’s mishandling and ‘bungling’ the war, violence has increased in and around Baghdad.

Many warned of such happening once withdrawal plans were announced, but fell on deaf ears it seems.

Democrats that still support fighting terror in Afghanistan seem to have a quixotic view of warfare, some calling for more American Troops sent in while others now calling for a withdrawal from there as well.

Just handing the country back over to the Taliban and giving Al Qaeda free reign once again seems to be a thought they block from their minds.

Russ Feingold (D. Wi) seems to be leading the calls now for abandoning another ally as he says,

“I think showing the people there and here that we have a sense about when it’s time to leave is going to be one of the best things we can do to succeed in Afghanistan. People in that country have to take ownership of it, everybody says that.”

Yet, in a seemingly contradictory statement in October 2008, as he was questioning sending more Troops to Afghanistan, he said,
“We must target Al Qaeda aggressively, and we cannot allow Afghanistan to be used again as a launching pad for attacks on America. It is far from clear, however, that a larger military presence there would advance these goals.”

He concluded,
“The decision to go to war in Afghanistan was the right one, but after years of misplaced priorities and muddling through, we have to do some hard thinking before asking our military to create the stability and security that are badly needed there.”

Seems that I recall nearly every Democrat complained about Afghanistan being ignored for Iraq during the Bush years and claiming that is where the real fight against terror was.

Now that they have the chance to lead the way into Afghanistan, they wish to just abandon it?

In June 2009, Gen. Stanley McChrystal shortly after taking Command issued new orders for engaging enemy forces saying,
“if there is a compound they’re taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that’s the option they should take.”

Undoubtedly, Generalissimo Obama gave his full approval of tying the hands of our Troops in such a manner.

I recall during my time in Viet Nam, we were issued a card explaining such “rules” to us.

To me, if I’m being shot at, they can’t be too friendly.

More recently, General McChrystal has come out with,
“The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort.”

In a nutshell that means NATO must step up their efforts in combating terrorists, a fact acknowledged with an admission from NATO spokesman James Appathurai when he said,
“We know we will need to provide more trainers and equipment for the Afghan security forces.”

Robert Gibbs, Obama’s Propaganda Minister took advantage of the moment to once again cast blame by saying,
“This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years. The president is focused on ensuring that we meet measurable benchmarks. ... It’s going to take some doing.”

The “some doing” might be in getting his own party to get behind and win, now that they have complete control.

It doesn’t help that in a July Fox News story we hear ‘Victory’ is not necessarily the goal in Afghanistan.

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, given the history of how Democrats have handled war since Viet Nam, when LBJ micro-managed it from the Oval Office and were given little in the news but glorifying accounts of what we faced, that now, the Generalissimo’s National Security Advisor, Gen. Jim Jones (USMC Ret.) came out saying,
“The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international.”

He added,
“we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.”

Oddest about that claim is that August 2009 has been the deadliest month in Afghanistan.

Perhaps it is Baghdad Bob now advising the current administration.

No comments: