Dec 02 2009

Pure Conservatives Break From America

Published by at 8:44 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

As I noted below, the President laid out to America a good case for the troop increases needed to try and break the back of the Taliban and al Qaeda. I also noted the idea of a ‘schedule’ in war is not realistic or smart- but all military plans have timelines. They have to in order to have everything where it needs to be, when its needed. We shall see if this is really a big problem or not – only time will tell.

What I cannot get behind is the right wing nitpicking of the speech. It is an egotistical exercise which makes no sense and does a lot of harm to the cause.

Look, these young men and women are going into harms way, that is now a fact. Some are not coming back, some are not coming back whole. This “Surge” is exactly what many who want to win in Afghanistan agree is needed to obtain victory. This Surge is coming against the political winds here at home. Those who support winning in Afghanistan need to stand by this policy, imperfect as it may be (all of then are) or as imperfectly explained as might have been. You go to war with the troops you have, and the leaders you have.

Support for the effort critically  important to those going to do our work for us. They need our support more than ever. They need a nation rallied behind them. What value is all this marginal moaning?

So what if there was a tone, a word, a suspicion of motive in mind when the President spoke? He made his case and is sending in more troops. Are we so petty that we cannot applaud the act we called for and rally around the troops for their sake? Are we so obsessed with politics we forget the national fabric of this great country – its people?

Apparently so, and it is pathetic. Our brave men and women are going into battle and too many on the right are too busy bickering minutiae and conspiracies to send them off in true American style. Some conservatives deserve to be in political exile.

Don’t just take it from me, follow the lead of General McChrystal who knows what this means better than all the armchair generals out there:

The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address
are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

“The NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) objective is equally clear: We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

“The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of the international community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan — a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

“We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future.”

Now that is a True American who knows when to put aside petty politics and be for the country. He knows his forces need to believe in this mission, warts and pain and all, to win (let alone survive). There are good reasons the nation is fed up with the all sides of the Political Industrial Complex.

20 responses so far

20 Responses to “Pure Conservatives Break From America”

  1. TomAnon says:

    I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. When a person makes the right decision you want them to succeed. When they make the wrong decision you want them to fail, learn from their mistakes, grow and do better next time. With the President of the United States this is even more true. At this point only time will tell if this is the right decision and more importantly if he does what he says he will do.

    I think the right is afraid that President Obama made the right decision. How crazy is that?

  2. kathie says:

    Going to war is not a political campaign.

  3. Redteam says:

    What about the ‘left wing’ nit pickers? I guess that’s ok.

    It’s only conservatives that don’t support the President, I guess.

    I’m on the right and I’m not afraid that Obama made the right decision, I’m afraid he made the wrong one. Actually, I don’t even think he ‘made’ a decision, other than to do what he felt was necessary to survive politically. The old ‘kick the can down the road’ deal.

  4. Mike M. says:

    AJ, you’re falling into the same trap that many of Bush’s supporters did in the 2002-3 timeframe.

    Disagreement over tactics, or even strategy, does not equal disloyalty. Discussion and debate CERTAINLY does not equal disloyalty…it’s how you come up with strategies that will work.

    Disloyalty is the active and deliberate subversion of the selected course of action.

    Conservatives expressing concern about Obama providing his field commander three-quarters of the requested forces is not disloyal. Liberals waving signs saying “We support our troops when they shoot their officers” IS disloyal.

    It’s a difference worth remembering.

  5. AJStrata says:

    I expect left wing opponents to still oppose. I also expect ‘true’ Americans to rally behind the CinC and troops. It seems many are true conservatives before true Americans.

    Not my choice – just an observation and disagreeing over tactics.

    See how impressed I am?

  6. ivehadit says:

    Lip service is not the same as WANTING to win. Setting a date to withdraw so you can appease those who are DAMAGING to this country is NOT leadership.

    I am really tired of this.

    And secondly, what is with just sending 34,000 and not the full amount asked? And what about talking down a general in public? What kind of political game is that? You call this leadership? I call it cowardice in the face of leftist bullies. Smallness.

    I support our military 100%. I wonder what they think…

    I’m sorry, but I do not believe this administration is in a good-faith relationship with America. If I thought otherwise based on it’s actions, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. I don’t. I know these people. And so does David Horowitz.

  7. Mike M. says:

    If you want the professional opinion, I would recommend reading

    The U.S. Naval Institute has a long record of honest scholarship.

  8. OregonGuy says:

    I was a Russian Studies guy at university.

    This was back in the ’70’s.

    It seems we have forgotten one of the premises of international politics. Nature abhors a vacuum.

    What we offered during the post-war period was a challenge to an ideology that attempted to insert itself into any region or state that lacked sufficiency in providing the fundamentals of governance.

    This is, in the words of Noah Chomsky, cowboy policy.

    Cute words. In fact, incredibly demeaning. As if the choice should have been involuntary slavery for those who were being corrupted by socialism, and our challenge to that slavery was attempted imperialism, where socialism can’t be accused, since it’s for the kids.

    Perhaps a brief review of Afghan history is in order:

    I have argued that the exigencies of the Cold War created many alliances that were attempts to balance the real military threats of the time against our national interests world-wide. Our inability or failure to provide comprehensive assistance to Afghanistan following the retreat of the Soviets was a huge policy failure for the United States. Unlike Chomsky, however, I don’t view United States involvement in an area a form of imperialism. I do believe that the view that liberty is the highest expression of human potential is a valid counter-point to any system that attempts to suppress that liberty or potential.

    Removing oneself from the field of play does not reduce the potential of harmful ideologies from attempting to fill the vacuum of insufficient states. In fact, it would seem apparent, that such a retreat would foster those harmful ideologies from gaining the field, without opposition.

    And to ensure that these harmful ideologies are opposed requires a long view of what is in our national interest.

    And that is the cause of my long sigh following last night’s speech by the President. His words sound like those of Chomsky’s. America should not oppose totalitarians. There is no modern American exceptionalism that supports liberty and the value of human potential. Our system of governance is no better and no worse than any other. Any attempt to assert the provenance of such a belief is just another example of jingoistic, cowboy foreign policy.

    The anti-American view of foreign policy is in the hands of the Left and being promulgated by our current President. He speaks of breaks from the past. He isn’t fooling.

  9. Toes192 says:

    I hope you all are putting some $$ where your mouth’s are to support our military…
    There’s lots of scammers out there putting, say 30% of funds towards projects and 70% to “overhead” and other stuff… so be careful…
    This relates to the economy as the very easiest $$ decision to make is to save $$ and not do any $$ thing to support the military personally…
    Raise you hand in embarrassment if you have not acted for the Xmas season…
    And to those who give time and effort as well… Words won’t do…WD

  10. AJ, I back the troops.

    I just question whether Obama does. He did not mention the word “victory” once. He took bunches of shots at Bush. He set out a timeline (his political base will make sure he doesn’t push that surge beyond 2011 one way or another), and he talks as if making sure our troops win is less important than passing cap-and-trade and health care rationing.

    Even now, his party’s congressional leaders are talking about a war tax – and if they don’t get it… what then? Will they decide to not fund the troops and pull them out? And will Obama stand up to them, or will he go along?

    Sadly, Democrats got my suspicion on this issue the old-fashioned way – they EARNED it:
    1980s – Democrats generally oppose Reagan’s efforts to win the Cold War.
    1990-1991 – Democrats oppose efforts to use force to eject Saddam’s thugs from Kuwait.
    1993 – Clinton Administration denies the on-scene commander in Somalia armor and AC-130 gunships prior to the firefight in Mogadishu.
    1990s – Democrats cut the B-2 program, Seawolf attack sub.
    2001-2008 – Democrats generally are NOT on board with the war on terror, including their Contract with America’s Enemies (as you have posted).

    Even Obama, as he has spent hundreds of billions on stimulus, put defense on the chopping block – including the F-22. The Navy and Marines are facing a fighter gap that could go as high as 300 airframes. Everything I have seen indicates that our troops over there will be nickel-and-dimed. General McChrystal was jerked around for three months and then shorted by 10,000 troops from his own request. McChrystal is noticeably absent from the Senate hearings today, as is General Petraeus. I wonder why.

    As Glenn Beck would say, I want my suspicions to be wrong. But I can’t just go by an Obama speech – I’m looking at how Obama has acted in the eleven months he has been in office, as well as how Democrats have acted not just since the War on Terror, but for the past two decades and change.

  11. Mike M. says:

    Harold, you’re 100% right…but it goes back a lot further than that.

    The Democrat Party has always had a blind spot when it comes to national security. In particular, they consider domestic political dogma to be more important than sound security strategy.

  12. owl says:

    After reading your post last night, I decided to just keep my mouth shut. I am glad his speech made you feel better. I will keep your son and all the troops in my prayers.

    As for myself, this man makes me ill when I listen to him. Some might say I am worried he might make a correct decision. Don’t think so, more like I DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD HE SAYS. He lies.
    That simple. I assume he will send the troops but I do not believe he wants to fight this war (or any war) and I believe he will pull them out in a second if it fits his agenda.

    He even did some lying in his speech. He can’t help himself. I am very sorry but this person does not give two cents about his troops. I would take Jimmy Carter in a heartbeat.

    I can’t trust him. This man is willing to kill grandma.

    I want our guys to WIN. I want them to stay safe. I love my country and therefore bless the troops that keep us safe.

    I do not believe he loves this country.

  13. BarbaraS says:

    I don’t trust the present incumbent of the WH with good reason. Before the elections in Hondurus he said he would abide by the results of the election and has now changed his mind. Again. This is what he does. He makes a bizarre statement, then changes his mind 180 degrees. Probably when someone points out how bizarre that statement was.

    Here he is, shorting the request number of troops after dithering for 3 months trying to find a way to appease his leftwing base and not turn off everyone else in the country. Epic fail. He probably, if the truth were known, appeased nobody. Then he says all troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2011. What is the point of sending them if they will have to turn around and come back home? His whole attitude is that he is playing with tin soldiers on a field of plywood, not with real people. AJ says there is a timeline in all things military and that is true. The timeline should be when victory is accomplished and the troops would still be needed for years in Afghanistan . They are still in Germany, South Korea and other places . They would still be in Viet Nam if we had the guts to stay and finish the job. That will forever be a blot on our record. I do not want to add Afghanistan to that record of failures that could have been won with some inner fortitude.

  14. Redteam says:

    BarbaraS, first I agree with everything you said, but let me make one correction. Obama said he would ‘start withdrawing’ troops in July 2011, not have them all out. at least, that’s what he said.

  15. Frogg1 says:

    McCain Challenges Obama in Private Meeting

    Republican sources tell CNN that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) used a private briefing to directly challenge President Obama on announcing his exit strategy for the Afghanistan war.

    Obama “responded to McCain by promising that the withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground.”

  16. Frogg1 says:

    I say again…..”It was a good decision; but a bad speech.” How does that make me un-American or not supportive of the CIC or troops?

  17. OregonGuy says:


    I would offer you one thought: there is a payback from the Left against Honduras borne of the Nicaragua debacle.

    The Left has an animus against Honduras since we–the United States–opposed Russian Communists in Honduras during the 1980’s.

    Manuel Noriega, Chavez, anyone from the Left is in ascendency under the current administration.

    Our allies–Columbia and Honduras–need to be taught a lesson. Or, don’t you remember Speaker Pelosi’s attacks against Columbia, and her opposition to a Free Trade Agreement with Columbia–during the last year of 43’s administration?

  18. Redteam says:

    Did you hear about the staff meeting at al Qaeda headquarters Wed. morning? They revised their battle plan for Afghanistan. Seems it now involves avoiding skirmishes until July, 2011. At that time, when the US troops pull out of an area or village, they move in. The idea is to build up all their equipment and lay out their deployment to the vacated areas within a week or so after the surrender of the territory to them. Recruitment is expected to be high as everyone will want to join a winning team, and casualties are expected to be very low with the newly announced surrender policy of the US.

    Well, I didn’t actually hear about the meeting either, but I’m relatively sure it happened. At least if I were in charge of al Qaeda, it would have.

    Not trying to be funny, just trying to demonstrate that announcing a surrender policy to your enemy is NOT a good battle plan.

  19. Terrye says:


    Time had a poll out in which something like 4 out of 5 people did not support the idea of the timetable. They are not all right wingers.

    I think Obama is trying to please too many people. I don’t trust him.

  20. AJStrata says:

    The time table was a myth, as has been reported. There will be a review next December to re-plan.

    Maybe some folks should listen to the news more instead of running with drama queens.