As anticipated, there is a lot of political push-back to the President's announcement regarding Afghanistan. Just to be clear, I am not a liberal and I am no fan of the President. But, because I look at the issue as one of national security, rather than politics, I have no significant problems with his announcement on Afghanistan/Pakistan, the goals/objectives that he laid out for Afghanistan/Pakistan, and I have no problem with the July 2011 date for beginning withdrawal.

We do not need a repeat of the previous eight years of politicizing national security by the opposition. But if it is politicized, at least make some rational arguments. I am amazed at how dumbed-down the opposition arguments are in regard to the President’s handling of Afghanistan. I expect stupidity from anti-war protestors, Code Pink, and other assorted loons. But those are the fringe elements of the left. What I am seeing is the entire right wing – not just the fringe – buying into blatant stupidity. The big issues, thus far, have been “dithering,” not rubber stamping what McChrystal asked for, and then announcing a July 2011 withdrawal date. There is also the issue of “restrictive” rules of engagement (ROE) that many are angry about for reasons that make no sense. There is not a clear consensus on whether to blame the President for the ROE or to blame some unnamed, shadowy set of Generals and/or lawyers who are deliberately tying our troops’ hands (because that’s highly likely, right?).

Dithering

I understand why Cheney threw this into the mix. This administration was going to be forward-looking and not dwell upon the past. But there have been a whole lot of instances where we are reminded that the current administration inherited its problems. It does not take a sophisticated listener to read between the lines and see that these are attempts to frame policy decisions and arguments in the same terms that President’s candidacy was sold to us: “nobody likes GW and I’m not GW.” An attack from the administration invites a response. Cheney is responding. There is strength in numbers, so he responds with dumbed-down statements such as “dithering” because it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

So, I am not frustrated with Cheney so much as I am with the lowest common denominator (LCD) of folks who refuse to educate themselves. The “dithering” comment was effective because the LCD target audience is dumb enough for it to work. The LCD (left and right) seeks out information from an ideological echo chamber of cable news and fringe political message boards that never challenge the views of their faithful viewers/readers. Those viewers and readers refuse (or are perhaps too stupid) to ask why the apparent “delay” in making a decision was such a bad thing. When was the next available Brigade going to be ready to deploy? Could that Brigade not prepare for deployment while waiting for a decision? I never heard those questions asked or the answers pondered. Just to be fair here, I also never heard the left raise those issues in defense of the decision-making process, either, but that is no excuse for the right.

This is the same nonsense that the left ate up when Bush was President. Damn your feeble brains, majority of Americans. The left wing was stuck on stupid for 8 years. Now it’s the right wing’s turn. You all suck. All of you. Left and right. You. All. Suck.

Not Giving the General What He Asked For

We have also heard that the President is somehow shirking his duties by not giving McChrystal everything on his wish list. Hold on a second here, folks. McChrystal’s primary focus is Afghanistan. He is also probably very interested in Pakistan, and perhaps stays informed of happenings in other surrounding countries. But he is not focused on our commitments elsewhere. The President needs to factor in our commitments around the globe, as well as the sustainability of the force. There is no reason to expect that the President should rubber stamp McChrystal’s request, unless we have a huge excess of troops sitting around idle.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to some, but our military is stretched a tad thin at the moment. It is not a basket case of downtrodden, exploited serfs on the verge of suicide and suffering from PTSD, like many on the left apparently think, but it is a bit more stretched and strained than many on the right seem to realize. I heard radio talk show hosts yesterday saying that the original request was 80,000 troops and they were flabbergasted that the President approved any number less than this. Where do the 80,000 come from? But nobody asks that question. They just eat up the criticism.

Telegraphing our Withdrawal Date

Oh no, we are telling the Taliban that we will withdraw in July 2011! Apparently, as the non-thinking goes, the Taliban are going to chill out in a cave and wait for us to leave. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that were realistic. That would be sweet. If they did that, we could easily recruit, train, equip, and employ an enormous Afghan National Army and Police force. Alas, that will not happen. The Taliban are not going to chill out in a cave and wait for us to leave. Why? Because they do not want us to stand up a viable ANSF that can whoop their asses. Thus, the Taliban are going to fight hard for the next 20 months.

Here is a very simple test of the fears associated with the July 2011 withdrawal date. As the non-thinking goes, the Taliban need only wait us out, right? So they’re just going to chill, right? So that means that we should have very few casualties over the next 20 months, right? Hey, I’d love to be wrong, but I’m bracing for a ton of casualties.

There is also the minor quibble about how realistic the July 2011 withdrawal date is. If you think that any “withdrawal” beginning in that time frame is going to be the beginning of the end of our heavy involvement in Afghanistan, then you are probably smoking crack or recently recovered from a crack addiction. Like the promise to close down Gitmo by next month, the promise to begin withdrawal in July 2011 is an empty promise that will either be apologized for or spun and equivocated as the date approaches. Just like the Gitmo Executive Order that we all knew was an empty promise, the July 2011 date is a promise made as a concession to the ant-war nuts who make up (a hopefully small) part of the President’s political base.

Untie Their Hands! Restrictive ROE!

I wish that I could do a Vulcan mind meld with people who freak out about the ROE, just to understand how they envision firefights unfolding in Afghanistan. Do they think that our Soldiers get shot at and are denied the right to fight back with whatever means is necessary to eliminate the threat, if they feel that their lives are in danger? Let’s be clear. There is no such restriction.

I will grant that many troops with combat experience in Afghanistan also gripe about ROE. This is nothing new. I heard it from my Soldiers in Iraq. I did not share their view.

If a guerrilla takes up a fighting position in an orphanage and starts shooting at you, then I think withdrawing is perfectly reasonable. If you can fire a well aimed shot and eliminate him, fine. If you can make your way into the building without endangering civilians, seal off the room that he is in, and then frag it, then great. But if you want to call in an airstrike on the building, then you are clueless. If you complain about ROE that forbids you from doing that, then you are a clueless loudmouth.

If a guerrilla force fires at you from a distance, and you return fire and begin to maneuver upon him, and then he retreats into a populated area, then your work may be done. Some gripe that they are not allowed to fire artillery, call in an Air-Weapons Team (helicopter gunships), or bring some other indiscriminate, highly destructive type of ordnance to bear upon the area where the gunmen seek refuge. Stupid. When you bombard a populated area, you kill civilians. That is counterproductive. Your commander is right to deny you this fire support. In fact, after he denies it to you, he should probably slap you because you are clueless.

If anyone out there has a legitimate gripe about how ROE has resulted in dead Americans, unaccomplished missions, or some other evil, then please give me a heads up in the comment section. Thus far, I have heard of zero instances where ROE has harmed troops or the mission.

Let’s be clear

I hate politics, loathe politicians and political junkies, and this is not a political blog. Politics features prominently in this thread because I see most of the push-back to the President as being purely political. I only laid out my biases at the start to head off assumptions that I am some leftist or Democrat defending the President. For some reason, that seems to matter to some people. Outside of this thread, political banter will continue to not feature prominently on this site.