« Another ACORN video drops tomorrow at 930am EST (Updated) | Main | On Obama's Fox News Diversion (Updated) »

October 21, 2009

Victor Davis Hanson: Voting Present Is Not an Option

Topics: Political News and commentaries

In a previous post we wrote that just as he did 129 times when he was a senator, Barack Obama has once again chosen to be nothing more than "present," this time choosing to sit back and wait on a decision to sent much needed troops and resources to Afghanistan. Today Victor Davis Hanson provides a detailed list of reasons that make it hard to figure out why Obama can not make a simple decision to send troops requested by commanders on the ground.

Hanson writes:

While our Narcissus-in-Chief is frozen gazing at his perfect image in his private pool, choices have to be made in Afghanistan. Consider the following:

(a) We have a Democratically-controlled Congress that by and large has supported, since 2004, the Kerry-Obama-Hillary Clinton narrative of a "good" war in Afghanistan, supposedly shamefully neglected by George Bush's neo-con adventure in Iraq, but absolutely vital to the security of the United States, and one entirely winnable--if only we allot sufficient resources.
(b) We have a proven command in Gens. McChrystal and Petraeus and their circle of subordinates, who crafted a winning counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq that defeated the terrorists, ensured stability for the fragile constitutional government, and took a tremendous toll on the human and material resources of al-Qaeda, as well as the reputation of radical Islam among the Middle East street.

(c) We have thousands of battle-hardened, experienced veteran soldiers and their officers, who know far more about the Middle East in general, and counter-insurgency in particular, than was true than when we first deployed to either to Afghanistan in 2001, or Iraq in March 2003.

(d) The Islamic world is much less in thrall (polls tell us that) to Bin Laden and his advocacy of suicide bombing and terrorism than it was five years ago; Pakistan in general, the victim of numerous terrorist attacks, is far more willing to take concerted action that aids our cause than at any time in the last eight years. And we have a president who by his own admission resonates abroad in a way not true of the past, and will be given a level of international support not usually accorded to American efforts in the Muslim world.

Read reasons (e) through (h) ...

Meanwhile, as Obama fiddles, the Toronto Sun reports that Obama's indecision on Afghanistan is frustrating the generals:

Soldiers -- or at least generals -- usually do what the commander-in-chief ordains. But Afghanistan is presently in a state of flux, and Obama's indecision bodes ill for the future, especially when critical recommendations of his hand-chosen commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are put on hold.

Not only that, McChrystal and other generals are being muzzled -- shut up, and don't air concerns to the public. Be "candid but private," is how Defence Secretary Robert Gates puts it, and this resonates through the chain of command.

"'Wait and see,' is not a good war strategy," the echo comes back.

And both approaches are correct in different ways.

McChrystal has put a cork in it for the time being, but in a series of earlier interviews he made it plain that if his plea for 40,000 more troops ("boots on the ground") to secure villages, be a presence to deter the Taliban, and to reinforce locals, is rejected, well, McChrystal may resign his command. Or be fired. That would truly be the "Chaos-istan," that McChrystal warns is the fate of the war in Afghanistan if enough troops aren't forthcoming.

Related:
Chaos-istan
McChrystal Mistakenly Reveals Secret CIA Report
Obama's political posturing highlighted by Afghanistan indecision

Posted by Richard at October 21, 2009 7:20 AM

Articles Related to Political News and commentaries:

• Victor Davis Hanson: Voting Present Is Not an Option - Oct 21, 2009