Obama's War Strategy: An Incredible Leap of Reality

By Allen J Duffis
Published:December 16, 2009

Dangerous Déjà Vu

"I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was ..."She said it was nuclear proliferation and the control of nuclear arms."

President Jimmy Carter during his final reelection debate

October 28, 1980

"As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.....This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

President Barack Obama’s Address on the War in Afghanistan

December 9, 2009

President Obama's speech outlining his long awaited plan for America's longest war contained one surprise many did not anticipate: he appears to be following in the footsteps of President Jimmy Carter's descriptive folly, and President George W. Bush's war strategy - to the letter.

The sole wartime success of Bush's administration was the now famous - military surge - initiated in Iraq. We must also remember that in 2007, then Senator Obama during a senate hearing referred to the untried tactic as - risky.

To his credit, however, in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway, he did bring two very important time relevant points to the foreground of modern world diplomacy.

"Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. "

"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

Unfortunately, at this juncture in his presidency those revelations change nothing for him. He has already achieved 'change' - but not the change he wanted or promised. He now owns both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars by default, even though at the moment, public sentiment appears to be shifting in his favor.

In a recent poll 57 percent of American voters said fighting the war in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, while 35 percent were opposed. However, when July 2011 comes around and 6 or 60 rather than 6,000 U.S. troops are sent home, those winds could shift radically in the other direction.

Dollar Deaths & Decisions....

An easy calculation of the 30,000 troop deployment to Afghanistan by President Obama, works out to 5 American soldiers to 1 Afghanistan soldier. This ratio is not only ridiculous, but more representative of an 'occupation' scenario than a temporary 'surge.' Moreover the surge plan is already flawed because the Iraq conflict differs from the Afghan War by a universe, as described in an excerpted editorial by Robert Parry:

The Rising Cost of the Iraq 'Surge'

By Robert Parry - consortiumnews.com
September 9, 2008

In reality, the “surge” of about 30,000 additional troops sent to Iraq appears to have been only one factor and – according to military officials interviewed for Bob Woodward’s new book, The War Within – possibly a secondary one in explaining the drop-off in the violence that had made Iraq a living hell.

As Woodward writes, “In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge.”

Woodward, whose book draws heavily from Pentagon insiders, reported that the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province (which preceded the surge) and the surprise decision of radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr to order a unilateral cease-fire by his militia were two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders.

None of the factors so stated are available for exploitation in Afghanistan. But the question that should weigh most on our 'Near Depression Era' panicked minds is - where the hell are we going to find the funds to finance this war?

From President Obama's speech on Afghanistan at the West Point military academy on December 1, 2009:

" ... And I must weigh all ... new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military ..."

Military analysts have already placed the price tag of the surge at nearer to - $54 billion per year.

It Only Fails if  We Admit Failure...

Even more troubling than the rising cost of the Afghan War, is the stated intention of the Obama administration to continue backing the military's disastrous Predator Drone program - in the wake of its many failures.

The following news article is a perfect example of how the military under Obama leadership, has managed to turn a losing initiative into an evolving victorious strategy:

White House OK's expanding CIA drone program in Pakistan
From Pam Benson CNN

Washington (CNN) -- The White House has authorized an expansion of the CIA's program to attack suspected al Qaeda and Taliban operatives and strongholds in Pakistan and along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border with missiles shot from pilotless planes, a U.S. official confirms.

The covert effort is part of the Obama administration's plan to increase the number of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and crack down on suspected terrorists in the region.

Since President Obama took office, there have been reports of more than 40 attacks by Hellfire missiles fired from drones, an increase over the approximately 30 missile strikes launched in 2008 during the Bush administration.

The U.S. official took exception to reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in the Predator attacks. The official said the strikes are "extremely precise" against terrorist targets and that only a "small fraction" of those killed have been civilians.

Last May, CIA director Leon Panetta would not discuss the specifics of the air strikes, but he did say they were - "very effective" and resulted in - few civilian deaths.

.....................................................

Really! Are these people simply deluding themselves, or is the manifestation of self imposed denial deliberate? These Predator Drones are killing innocent bystander Pakistani civilians, men, women and children left and right - with questionable Taliban and al Qaeda targeted hits. Yet the military continues to give out these highly suspicious 'enemy body counts' that hark back to the practice of the Vietnam War.

So where is the promised success of this program to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people, and to stabilize their already shaky 'nuclear armed' government? If anything, the drone attacks have rendered the Pakistan government even less stable and weak in the eyes of their people.

Are We Really Fighting - Camel Jockeys?

On September 1961 Swedish diplomat and Secretary General of the United Nations, Dag Hjalmar Hammarskjöld, died in a mysterious plane crash in Africa At the time of Hammarskjöld's death, western intelligence agencies were actively interfering in the political situation in the Congo, which culminated in Belgian support for the secession of Katanga and the assassination of former prime minister Patrice Lumumba.

One of the conspiracy theories briefly bandied about - and quickly dismissed - was that Hammarskjöld's plane was shot down by a jet flown by - a Black African?

The implied Bigotry of Thought within the investigation, on all levels, dictated overlooking a possible clue to an important event of the time. What, an African flying a jet warplane? Preposterous! And that same bigotry dictates much of our view of Arabs in general.

One would have thought this type of Bigotry of Thought died with the American Indian defeat of General George Armstrong Custer and his Calvary forces in 1876 at the Little Big Horn. Apparently it did not, for in 1961 most of the country had difficulty entertaining the possibility of a Black African at the controls of a sophisticated military jet.

Therefore, it was not surprising that most Americans who woke up to the news of Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat's, brilliant military route of the Israelis in the Yom Kipper War of 1973 were shocked. What! Arabs successfully employing advanced military strategy to out maneuver the Israelis? Impossible!

Well there is every indication that even with a Black American at the helm of their country, there are still many of the American public (both Black and White) who have difficulty imaging an Arab being capable of fighting a sophisticated modern technological war. Clearly, as 9-11 evidence indicates - they are absolutely wrong!

In order to defeat an enemy - whoever they may be - one must first learn to respect them, their dedication to a cause and their motivations - regardless of any conflict with our base political or religious beliefs.

Taliban-al Qaeda Intelligence Capability

The late comic genius, George Carlin, once had a part of his standup act he called "The Indian Sergeant." Carlin postulated that the American Indian must have had a battlefield rank and reporting system in some way equivalent to that of the horse soldiers of the American cavalry. No matter how you look at it that theory makes sense.

The motion picture industry by having us constantly view massive American Indian attacks led by only a tribe's chief, or enemy soldiers unable to hit an American soldier with a volley of machine-gun fire have stereo typed our view of the world. And so with the Arabs who have been portrayed as dirty bearded men dressed in Bishts (traditional Middle Eastern outerwear) and sandals, are made to appear incapable of beating an egg for an omelet, much less defeating a western soldier. This Hollywood generated cinematic delusion has dangerously influenced our view of the Muslim world. Well good people, - it ain't that way! So wake up America and smell the reality - they can beat us.

The intelligence systems of the Arab world are as effective as that of the western world - even without access to hi-tech satellite technology. And based upon the intake from those sources data, worked out in their strategy meetings and on their computers (yes, they do have computers), they plan, plot, deploy and attack their enemies as they see them.

Al Qaeda has deployed its forces and resources in a multitude of countries and foreign banks. And they have set up shop and offices in Pakistan to such a degree, that even the Pakistani government is afraid to 'seriously' go after them. Al Qaeda does not need or desire to go back to Afghanistan. In fact, they have become part of the Taliban strategic planning council.

This highly successful joint venture between the two organizations has allowed the Taliban to mask the actual strength of its forces, making them virtually invisible to American intelligence. We have to go virtually face to face with them to get an accurate count of the enemy forces we are facing - which gives them a major advantage on the battlefield they know so well. Ask the Russians who fielded a little more than 500,000 heavily armed and equipped troops against them - and lost.

So if the Taliban are really taking such a beating as our military constantly claim, I ask again - where are the bodies?

Where Are the Great Leaders?

So we must ask ourselves in these trying times, where are the great leaders that built this country and carried us through the perilous times of early American nation building? Have we outgrown the production of such 'hard as nails' leadership and decision making giants like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald W. Reagan, George H. Bush Sr. and William J. 'Bill' Clinton?

Like these men or not for whatever political or moral reasons one may hold, only the truly dishonest can deny that - successful or not - when met with a challenge or a crisis - they did make timely decisions.

This entire country and possibly the world, on many fronts, is now in a permanent state of - crisis. And with a daily demonstrated and pronounced tendency to 'talk or discuss a problem to death or submission' being their mainstay of governing strategy, decision making is clearly one aspect of the Obama administration that is - dangerously lacking.

Therefore, on what factor can we blame the lack of homegrown leadership in America? Or it is it not a matter of America having outgrown such leaders and their methods, but that what we are suffering is simply a shortage of them. In essence, have the former dynamic firebrands of American leadership simply become an - endangered species? Only the time we don't have will tell.