Disagreements with Obama’s Afghanistan plan

U.S. presence is a necessity, but the plan needs amendments Read more

Where are we going with the war in Afghanistan?

Eight years later, there is still no concrete mission

It has been called an important war by many, but lately, it seems like it has become the forgotten war.
It has been more than eight years since our brave men and women launched an attack on Afghanistan after the devastating events of Sept. 11, 2001.

President Barack Obama has remained forceful yet cautious on the issue of this war. The Iraqi military strategy has been portrayed as an unnecessary distraction from the main issue at hand: Afghanistan.
As we mark the eighth anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, more Americans are beginning to wonder whether this is even a war that should continue to be fought.

A renegade militia’s recent tragic attack on our troops, which killed eight American soldiers, has prompted more attention to the debate on the pros and cons of adding more troops to the already heated conflict.

Obama appeared skeptical during his most recent media round-up, on morning talk shows, when he was asked if he supported an additional buildup of troops given the current political climate in the U.S.
“The job picture is not going to improve considerably and we’re probably not going to start seeing enough job creation to deal with a rising population until sometime next year.”

Obama is aware of the national discontent with the current state of affairs. But the bottom line is that we cannot choose to be internationally active when it appears convenient.

The Afghanistan conflict has several implications. A complete withdrawal at such a critical time would be disastrous for regional allies like Pakistan and India. The probable resurgence of the Taliban in the region, if we withdraw, can cause severe problems for our allies.

The economic debate will continue to be centerfold, as will the health care debacle, but the conflict in Afghanistan cannot be forgotten. It would be a costly decision by this administration.

It is already apparent that this administration has chosen to abandon, at least temporarily, campaign promises like immigration reform in exchange for other, loftier goals.

It has set itself up to very high standards.

The Obama administration will face an uphill battle, as it attempts to either bring the Afghanistan conflict to an end or disengage in a politically friendly manner.

Republicans like Senator John McCain, who can be considered the top GOP members on the Armed Services Committee, have affirmed the need to increase troops to retain control.

Obama commented that “the great danger now is not an American pullout. The great danger is a half-measure” that tries to “please all ends of the political spectrum.”

General Stanly McChrystal has expressed a desire to increase the number of troops or risk the possible failure of strategy.

But some leading U.S. legislators have suggested that the only rise in troops needs to come from within the country, meaning Afghanis need to increase their numbers to counter domestic terrorism.

For veterans across the U.S., this is beginning to seem more like the Vietnam conflict. Our brave men and women are being asked to serve multiple tours in Afghanistan, and until recently, in Iraq. Many are returning to a country where some feel that our presence is unneeded and that it detracts from the real problems.

The strategy debate is coming amidst allegations of fraud in the recent Afghani elections, which are currently being assessed by the United Nations.

The Obama Administration now has to decide on the future of military strategy in Afghanistan and how best to sway public opinion to favor an ongoing military intervention.

Perhaps the most daunting task is how to define victory. What does victory look like to the U.S.? It is a blind path until certain goals are set to define it. No, American military strategist or politician has been able to set a concrete definition of victory.

There is a difficult road ahead for our troops, but it seems that until American leadership can get their act together, our troops will continue to serve bravely toward an unidentified goal.

Foreign policy flops

Obama fails to deliver on most basic diplomacy

Last Friday, President Barack Obama suffered one of the most damaging setbacks to his foreign policy goals — he failed to get the International Olympic Committee to hold the 2016 Olympic games in his hometown of Chicago. This certainly was at the top of Obama’s foreign policy priorities list. In fact, it was so important that he traveled to Copenhagen and brought Oprah Winfrey along for the ride.

I’m beginning to see a pattern starting to develop with the commander-in-chief — Obama is totally inept when it comes to anything foreign, unless we’re talking about applying failed foreign concepts to our own society and government.
Don’t believe me? Simply examine the foreign policy moments of Obama’s presidency so far.

During his campaign for president, Obama stood in solidarity with his far-left base by bashing every foreign policy move made by then-President George W. Bush. He promised he would regain respect for the U.S. in the eyes of the world, reminding me of a high school student who sells himself out to score points with the popular crowd.

During his inauguration, Obama said he would extend an open hand to our enemies’ clenched fists. He essentially meant that we should be the better person and hope our enemies stop plotting our destruction and grow to love us.

Obama started off great by disappointing his supporters, failing to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, where apparently innocent terrorists were tortured.

Obama also made a very important trip to Europe to further beef up his thinning foreign policy résumé. During the G-8 summit, Obama politely asked the Europeans to send more troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He succeeded in only securing about four helicopters for NATO. Off to a great a start, right?

In addition, Obama felt it necessary to apologize for virtually everything the U.S. has done — securing nothing but respect for us in the eyes of the world.

During the Summit of the Americas, Obama had the chance to invigorate Latin American countries and ask them to follow our example of economic success, but instead, he chose again to apologize on the U.S.’s behalf.

Obama also thought it wise to listen to the “other” perspective and sat in on a 90-minute diatribe against the U.S. by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. He also chose to sit around and listen to the Venezuelan president’s thoughts on the U.S.

As the summer started to ease its way in, Obama found himself faced with two major foreign policy crises.
The first was with North Korea, where two American journalists were captured and imprisoned. Obama’s initial response was to do nothing, followed by nothing.

Then North Korea started testing medium- and long-range missiles capable of delivering possible nuclear warheads to the U.S. and threatening our allies as well. Obama, by now the whiz kid of foreign affairs, chose to go with what he knew best — do nothing.

Then came the real shocker — the presidential elections held in Iran were rigged. Millions of young Iranians took to the streets around the country to protest the outcome of the election that claimed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president, had won a landslide re-election.

At the direction of the Iranian mullahs, the police brutally cracked down on the protesters and killed many in the process. It appeared for a moment that there was an actual revolution in Iran. All the Iranians needed was support from the country that represented freedom and liberty the most — the U.S.

Obama saw no need to support young Iranians filled with hope that could create real change — more than Obama’s bumper stickers could ever hope for.

What could have been Obama’s greatest foreign policy achievement became one of his greatest foreign policy failures. It wasn’t the result of a poor diplomatic decision, but simply the result of no diplomatic decision — the recipe for worse-than-poor leadership.

There was also another trip to the Middle East where Obama addressed the Muslim world, but he again reverted back to his strategy: He apologized on our behalf.

Some months later came Obama’s first address to the United Nations. Instead of talking about real issues like the War on Terror, Obama talked about solutions to global warming – which will further destroy this country by handicapping economic growth.

His failures didn’t stop there. He decided that because the U.S. was at fault for using atomic weapons to end a war against Japan, he would announced to our enemies that we would be disarming ourselves of nuclear weapons — just when everyone else is nuking up.

This brings us to today. Iran has completely disregarded the U.S and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. In the last couple weeks, Iran has tested several medium- and long-range missiles.

The U.S.’s involvement in Afghanistan seems like it has been tossed by the wayside, which Obama claimed was a foreign policy priority.

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, demanded more troops from Obama, saying otherwise we risk losing there. Obama has continued to do what he does best in these matters: He has remained silent and done nothing.
The most important thing for Obama seemed to be getting the 2016 Olympics to Chicago instead of getting badly needed troops to Afghanistan. Too bad he failed at that too.

As our soldiers are dying, we should be comforted in knowing that our president has his priorities straight.

Don’t leave Afghanistan behind again

As in the past, withdrawing early will be a mistake Read more