Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Obama’s win for losing strategy?
What the president might be trying to accomplish


KABUL, AFGHANISTANAccepting General Stanley McChrystal's resignation was the right thing for the president to do, technically speaking. But looking past his tepid comment (the explosive comments came from the general's aides) and putting the mission before the man may have been a mistake of historical proportions—as McChrystal was had-picked for his expertise—this is not to say Petraeus isn't up to the challenge, but if he must abide by the same politically correct ROE's, including a hard withdrawal date, failure could be imminent. 

Petraeus is certainly competent and his successful Iraq surge strategy amidst a deteriorating situation on the ground coupled with being told by a senate panel they weren't prepared to believe a single word of his report shows his fortitude as well as stern dedication. Yet with current conditions, including a civilian command with a misguided strategy and an enemy embolden redeployment date could undermine the good general's military mission. 

But there is another consideration here, a larger question about the hard withdrawal date and its consequences—it is possible Mr. Obama is committing to it simply to sabotage the mission and marginalize the military? Think of it this way, if we pull out and utter chaos erupts like in Vietnam, would Obama’s predecessor if he isn’t reelected in 2012 really redeploy troops to an already failed conflict theater? Besides, Obama has perfect scapegoats, the notoriously crooked Hamid Karzai and George Bush, who took us into war in the first place against a country the left says didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.

No comments:

Post a Comment