Obama Must Send More Troops To Afghanistan

While Obama continues to deliberate on the future of military action in Afghanistan, our mission in the region is growing more and more perilous. The Taliban is the enemy in Afghanistan, and any effort to re-configure our mission away from that fact is not going to get us anywhere. The Taliban are a totalitarian and theocratic regime intent upon imposing their will, the most extreme form of Islamic rule, upon the people of the Muslim world, starting in the regions of Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, and the border with Pakistan, just as they did in the 1990's.

This is what the United States altered by military intervention in 2001, and in doing so they salvaged this nation from ruination under Taliban rule. But, the humanitarian motivations were always secondary. The Taliban were providing safe haven, training, and a launching ground for terrorists in the region. They were also, more importantly, existing as testament to the desired goals of Islamic fundamentalists: The Taliban implemented the strictest interpretation of Sharia law ever seen in the muslim world. As a result, it was the launch pad of attempts to not only attack the western world, but also de-stabilize less extreme muslim forces in the region.

You cannot separate Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban is not Saddam Hussein, and Afghanistan is not Iraq. The September 11th attacks were conceived in, planned, and trained for in Afghanistan:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Make no mistake, the Taliban will eventually re-take Afghanistan if we do anything other than defeat them at this moment in history. There is no comparable organization that exists in Afghanistan capable of stopping them. While concerns about being drawn into a quagmire are justified, the reality is that our decision to send more troops does nothing to change this reality. We committed to Afghanistan during the invasion in 2001, and even if we were to not send additional troops, extricating ourselves from that country is going to take many years, and in my opinion, decades, if we do not act decisively now.

The greatest military lesson of action in Iraq is that undermanning large scale missions is a recipe for disaster. To quote the Powell Doctrine that successfully guided us in the 1st gulf war, when the United States engages in war, it should use every resource and tool to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing U.S. casualties and ending the conflict by forcing the weaker force the capitulate. Skimping on man power was the principle mistake of the action in Iraq in 2003, and it cost us years of blood and treasure until General Petreaus impressively navigated a more realistic course with much larger troop levels in 2007.

General McChrystal has a good strategy for Afghanistan. He has clear objectives, a realistic outlook, an appreciation of the way the United States is perceived negatively as an occupying force, and remedies to win the hearts and minds of the people. He is committed to less bombing, less civilian casualties, and a greater emphasis on alliances and improving the economy. I cannot conceive of a more comprehensive strategy to win this war, learning from the mistakes and successes of the past in Iraq. While it is right for President Obama to listen to all points of view and weigh the commitment of our brave young and women carefully, it is more important that he pays attention to the facts. The Taliban is our enemy. The Taliban is not Saddam Hussein, or a peripheral tangent in the war on terror. The Taliban is an integral part of the apparatus that attacked the United States on September 11th and seeks, as its principle goal, not death to America, but dominance in the region. The surge worked in Iraq. A failure to surge in Afghanistan now, only makes our enemy stronger, its grip across the nation tighter, and the cost to the United States only greater in the long term.

Comment on Obama WH vs. Fox News

News organizations with a point of view: Click Here

Obama: Carter or Reagan?

I think it's fair to say that Obama's 1st year in office is not going as Democrats had hoped. The nation is struggling to recover from a deep recession. Healthcare reform is flailing. Obama is seen to be equivocating on the perilous war in Afghanistan. Politically, the Administration is going from one catastrophe to the next. The latest of which, Chicago's failed Olympic bid, demonstrates the lack of political judgment that, while perhaps principled, is eradicating Obama's political capital at an alarming pace.

While Obama is often compared to President Clinton, and his initial struggles in office, I think the more apt comparison is both Carter and Reagan. While Clinton was a political animal and resorted to those instincts to recover from his woes, ably assisted by Dick Morris, Obama does not possess that moral flexibility. He is a true believer in his vision for America, just like Carter and Reagan. Both represented ideas, leadership, and morality in their respectively different ways. As does Obama. Both suffered severe downturns in popularity at the beginning of their Administration. So has Obama. The difference is that Carter never recovered, while Reagan, benefiting from an economic upturn two years into office, was able to fully regain the confidence of the American people.

Here you can see Carter's approval rating in office, a continuous free fall into unpopularity:


Here you can see Reagan's approval rating, and the deep decline in popularity he suffered during his first two years in office before an economic recovery:
While Obama is undoubtedly struggling, it is worth pointing out that his initial experience closely mirrors that of his predecessors. The Presidency is a daunting undertaking, and in spite of the mistakes Obama has made it would be short sighted, from a purely political analysis, to not expect a significant rebound in his popularity, especially considering the lessons of history. Employment will begin to rise from 2010 to 2011. As a result, Obama will have the platform upon which to define his Presidency as he heads towards an election campaign against, in all likelihood, Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney. More often than not it's the Presidents like Carter and H.W. Bush, who experience economic downturns towards the end of their Presidency that suffer a first term election defeat. President's that inherit recessions, like Clinton and Reagan, are the ones that go on to second term victories.

More history lessons here: A look at U.S. Presidents' job approval ratings

Left & Right: It's all alike!

So much of the antagonism on the right that has recently manifested itself in town halls and tea parties across the country has its parallels on the other side of the political spectrum. It's basically the same thing in my opinion... left and right alike.

On the left, there is an inherent distrust of corporations, commercial motivations, and private enterprise. The left are deeply concerned when these are the organizing tenets of society for a variety of good reasons, including corporate corruption, greed, and the unjust disparity between rich and poor.

On the right, there is an inherent distrust of government, bureacrasies, and publicly funded institutions. The right are deeply concerned when these are the organizing tenets of society for a variety of very plausible reasons. Like the left they can cite innumerable examples of governments failures and the inefficiencies and waste of government spending.

But, neither the far left or far right recognize that neither government or corporate America exist in a vacuum. You cannot argue against the positive role government can play in society without recognizing the danger of what transpires in its absence. Likewise, you cannot rail against the free market without being fully aware of the stagnancy and corruption of socialist societies.

The free market, and government are both organic entities. They are both made up on individuals and its the collective summation of those individuals, and the parameters they operate within that define the nature of a marketplace or a government.

We are born with the inherent need to trade. Whether one individual can grow vegetables, and another can rear cattle, and another can provide clean water, and another can build homes... we cannot individually provide for all our needs. We can work so we have the means to trade, and acquire everything that we need. That is the essence of how any society functions.

You can allow trade to operate freely, with no restrictions... and in doing so, individuals will always organize themselves to control markets unfairly and profit at the expense of others with monopolies, unfair advantages, and price fixing. Likewise, you can have an authority that organizes and controls trade and goods so that everything is fairly distributed (communism), but in practice this is just as flawed, if not more so. It prohibits our essential inclinations to pursue life with freedom, and self determination. It undermines our ability to realize our full potential as individuals, constrained by an interpretation of the "greater good."

The inherent distrust of government on the right, should not exclude the recognition that markets need regulation, organization and accountability, otherwise they are as susceptible to the same type of corruption and injustice as government or publicly funded activity like Acorn. Likewise, the distrust of the marketplace, and commercial incentives, shouldn't be expressed in a vacuum. The marketplace brings a vibrancy and freedom into our society, that no socialist country, inevitably overwhelmed with corruption and social immobility, can provide.

In the United States our emphasis is rightly on the marketplace. But, for the marketplace to be guarded against its own flaws, government involvement is required. The extent of that involvement is the essential political issue of our time. Government... the free market... one is not the salvation of soceity, at the expense of the other, as political extremists suggest... but both are the salvation of each other, combined, when striking the perfect balance.

Peter Schiff For Senate

While I proudly consider myself a Democrat and cherish the majority that has been earned in both houses in congress, I can't help but feel frustrated about the systemic failures of the House and the Senate. Things need to change, and it's fair to say that some Democrats are part of the problem.

Whether you are running your household finances, or a business, you cannot sustain massive debt. The nation's debt is at unsustainable levels, and it seems that nobody is focusing on the fact that this is an integral part of the economic problems we're experiencing. I argue, that the line share of responsibility falls on the Bush Administration. As, I've written for years on this blog, you cannot recklessly cut taxes, and grow the size of government so dramatically, without their being catastrophic consequences. During the Bush Administration, we went from a budget surplus to a trillion dollar deficit. We went from 4 trillion dollars of nation debt to 11 trillion dollars. In doing so the Bush Administration created paralysis in the country, conveniently knowing that the consequences would not be theirs to confront.

We have to slash government spending and we have to do it now.

We need to focus on our deficits, and paying down our national debt, and that's what Peter Schiff stands for. He's a Republican, and I don't agree with him on everything, but his emphasis is sorely needed in a Senate full of politicians too busy doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results, and ignoring the fact that this nation is on the verge of bankruptcy. I think Chris Dodd is a two dimensional party political hack, and that was demonstrated in the run up to the election. Whether or not he intends to legislate differently, he has been part of the problem on the housing crisis, and a myriad of other affairs.

For this reason I would encourage anyone reading this blog to support Peter Schiff for Senate.

Olympia Snowe: I haven't changed, my party has

Insanity

If the protestors are so critical of government run healthcare I would like to see each and every one of them opt out of medicare.