In their desperation Democrats and their media cheer-leaders have revived a campaign theme from the Obama presidential campaign.  The government is running gargantuan deficits, the story goes, because President Bush started wars but didn’t “pay for” them.

To help us debunk this claim, the Congressional Research Service, (CRS) the think tank that works exclusively for Congress, brings some perspective to the issue with a new, comprehensive report on the costs of three, on-going military operations that Bush initiated in response to the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks:

• Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Afghanistan and other counter terror operations
• Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the invasion and subsequent operations over past seven years
• Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases

CRS found war costs in the Defense Department budget, and in portions of several other department budgets, and added them all together for their report.

As of the end of fiscal 2011 the combined cost of all three operations will be $1.292 Trillion, over ten fiscal years, 2002 through 2011. (The 9/11 attack was 2 weeks before the end of the 2001 fiscal year.)

The implied assumption that there is a mechanism by which a military operation can be “paid for” separately from the rest of government is of course, hokum.  Government accounting does not report some bills paid with tax revenue and others paid with borrowed money.  Obviously, any attempt to at such reporting would set off heated political debate.   In reality, all tax revenue and all borrowed money goes into one pot, and all expenses are paid out of the same pot.

The chart further demonstrates the Democrats’ deception.

• During the Bush years deficits were 2.7 times more than war costs.
• Obama’s first two deficits total almost nine times more than war costs.
• If there were no war at all Obama’s first two deficits would still total $2.4 trillion, the largest in U.S. history, after adjusting for inflation.

The Obama government spends 23% of GDP, excluding the cost of the wars.

To put that in perspective consider the Vietnam era, when three to four times as many troops were deployed.  Back then total government spending, including the cost of the war, equaled 19% of GDP.

Consider World War II when ten times as many troops were deployed.  After adjusting for inflation Obama’s deficits, excluding war expenses, are 2.3 times as much as World War II deficits, including war costs.

Such a blatant breach of military protocol by a highly regarded, over-achieving, career military officer is a symptom of serious problems that won’t be solved by the single act of replacing McChrystal.  President Obama was correct that Military officers must respect and submit to civilian control.

However the President, Vice President and high Administration officials also have an obligation.  Their obligation is to do everything in their power to help the military succeed and to avoid allowing petty politics to increase the risks of casualties and mission failure.

One obvious cause of tension was President Obama’s publicly time table for withdrawal, announced to the whole world, including the terrorist enemies in Afghanistan.

On December 1, 2009 Obama announced his Afghanistan, counter-terrorism strategy in a speech at West Point.  Some excerpts from that speech:

The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010…so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers…they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans

…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.

Apparently Obama hoped his leftist, anti-war base would be less angry about a troop surge if he set a date for withdrawal.  Vice President Biden, who opposed sending additional troops, backed up the July, 2011 “transfer out” part with this widely quoted assurance:

In July of 2011, you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out, bet on it.

On the ground in Afghanistan, the President’s rush to announce a withdrawal date just a few seconds after he disclosed the troop surge was seen as a sign that America lacked resolve and could not be depended upon for the long term. Counterinsurgency strategy depends upon forming relationships with local people who then provide critical intelligence.  But the locals risk violent retaliation from the Taliban and Al Qaeda if they help our troops.  Even if they want us to succeed they are reluctant to risk the lives of their families if they fear America might abandon the fight and leave them defenseless, facing resurgent terrorists.

Establishment commentators say that Obama’s speech was “nuanced” and wasn’t really a firm withdrawal date.  But if you’re a fearful farmer or shop keeper in Afghanistan, putting your children’s lives on the line you need clear, unambiguous language, not nuance.

On Thursday, a reporter asked President Obama about the withdrawal date and he took a step toward modifying his position by contradicting his December announcement.

What we said [last December] was we would put in additional troops to provide the time and the space for the Afghan government to build up its security capabilities…and that beginning next year we would begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government is taking more and more responsibility for its own security.

Here’s what we did not say: we did not say that starting July, 2011 there would be no more troops from the United States…we said we would begin a transition phase…

This was an improvement, but didn’t go far enough.  Obama should give American troops the benefit of a firm, unambiguous commitment to crushing the Taliban and Al Qaeda, no matter how long it takes.  He can both reassure the Afghan people and discourage potential Taliban/Al Qaeda recruits by  pointing to our recent success in Iraq to demonstrate our determination to prevail.

He should stop equivocating and replicate President Bush’s unwavering commitment to victory. When Bush ordered the Iraq surge at the beginning of 2007 he refused to set a time table for withdrawal, even though the entire political-media establishment demanded it.  As a result, our troops in Iraq were able to gain the trust of Iraqi people who then helped them exterminate Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We would be far better off if the world’s dictators, thugs and terrorists became convinced that if America chooses to fight them they will face certain defeat, because we will not give up, no matter how long it takes.  In Iraq, Bush made a good start at convincing them.  Obama can complete the job in Afghanistan if he has the will to succeed.

After Obama fired General McChrystal, Petraeus agreed to step down from his position as head of the military’s Central Command and take over command in Afghanistan.  Petraeus is one of two principle authors of the Military’s counter-insurgency strategy and tactics manual.  He was appointed by President Bush to command the Iraq operation at its darkest moment.  He changed the strategy and tactics in Iraq and led the troop surge that ultimately succeeded in subduing the violence and training Iraqi forces to take over responsibility for their own security.

To understand how fortunate Obama is, and what a true patriot and hero Petraeus is we have to go back to January, 2007 when the Iraq surge began. The political-media establishment was unanimously negative when President Bush ordered the surge.

Then-Senator and Presidential Candidate Obama could have seized the  opportunity to be an idealistic, visionary leader in the cause of Liberty, and American success.  Instead, he deferred to the cynical dogma of those in his party who wanted failure in Iraq, to vindicate their position, that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster. Then-Senator Obama fell back on the simplistic chants of the anti-war Left in a TV interview:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

A few days later he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force in Iraq, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

Obama repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in high stakes, daily combat.

Fortunately for the troops and for America, President Bush prevailed over Senator Obama and his allies in Congress and America is now positioned to withdrawal from Iraq in victory, leaving behind a new, functioning democracy and U.S. ally in the heart of the middle east.

It’s a sad injustice that must, some day be made right.  Obama, a petty politician seeking to gain the favor of the obstinately anti-Bush Left suffered no consequences for attempting to undermine the troops and the war effort.  Yet General McChrystal, an national hero loses his command for complaining about incompetent political appointees.

By the way, Vice President Biden, who was also skewered in the Rolling Stone article, is just as guilty of undermining the troops and the war effort as Obama.  Here is one of his anti-surge rants:

The surge isn’t going to work either tactically or strategically,  Tactically it isn’t going to work because … our guys go in and secure a neighborhood, but because we don’t have enough troops, we have to turn it over to the Iraqis, and they can’t hold it or won’t hold it.

As the world now knows, General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency doctrine did work by stationing American troops in Iraqi villages and city neighborhoods until the Iraqi police and military were trained and ready to take over.

If the Afghanistan operation succeeds, and Obama and Biden take bows, someone should remind them of how much they owe, and how little they have paid.

There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.

Long experience with Obama’s rhetoric makes us skeptical.  This assertion is probably based on a twisted interpretation of the lead time required to pack, load, and transport the troops and their equipment.

The fact is that on August 30 General McChrystal submitted his strategy and troop request to accomplish the mission Obama assigned to him.  Had Obama acted sooner, the logistical preparations would have begun sooner and boots would have hit the ground in Afghanistan sooner.  The 90 day decision cycle means boots will hit the ground two months later than they would have after a 30 day decision cycle.

Obama went on:

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.

For an instant the President almost sounded like a decisive leader with the resolve and passion to prevail, even though he decided to deploy fewer troops than the 40,000 to 60,000 General McChrystal requested.  But in the very next sentence Obama reverted to cynical politician, seeking to appease the blowhards in the anti-war left:

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

Its hard to overstate the damage done by such an assertion from the Commander In Chief.  The Al Qaeda enemy Obama claims to be fighting will seize upon this promise as proof that America is led by a man who has no stomach for a fight and can be defeated through attrition and simple refusal to give up.

Most wars end when one side decides, for whatever reason, it cannot continue to fight and gives up.  Al Qaeda, and the young disaffected populations they recruit from, will perceive this as a signal that they can humiliate and prevail over the world’s only super-power if they can manage to hang on until mid 2011, when the Commander In Chief has promised he will begin a withdrawal.

We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people…As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda…Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

He then took a detour to summarize the old anti-Bush, anti-war argument against deposing Saddam’s regime and establishing a new consensual government in Iraq:

The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here.  It’s enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.

What Obama insists on calling an “end” should be called victory.  In fact, there were three victories.  First, A ruthless dictator was deposed and a country was set free.  Then, Al Qaeda recruited young men from all over the Middle East to come into Iraq and terrorize the population.

After a period of miscalculation and ineffective strategies – common to every war in human history – America finally got it right with a troop surge and new strategies, scoring a the second victory, this time over terrorists and insurgents.   In a third victory, US troops trained and equipped Iraqi forces to take over responsibility for their nation’s security.

Al Qaeda, the enemy Obama claims to be fighting, suffered a crushing defeat in Iraq.   Al Qaeda leaders had vowed that Iraq would be the place they showed the world that America was “the weak horse.”  Instead Al Qaeda was humiliated and Iraq proved to be a killing field where the lives of recruits from all over the Middle East were sacrificed for a lost cause.  Thus, Iraq humiliation has become a barrier to Al Qaeda recruiting

But Obama based his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President on his claim that, from his seat in the Illinois legislature, he opposed use of military force against Saddam, while Hillary Clinton, from her seat in the U.S. Senate, had voted for it.  Therefore he had to oppose the troop surge and the change in strategies.  He made numerous public statements predicting failure, even as the troops were involved in daily, high stakes combat. Throughout the campaign he promised to “end” the Iraq operation.  He never promised success.

For Obama the success achieved by American troops in Iraq is an embarrassment to be diminished, not a victory to be celebrated.

Commander In Chief Decision Watch: Day 76

.

Why, has President Obama still not decided what to do about Afghanistan?

The President appointed General Stanley McChrystal to be commander of the Afghanistan Theater.  On August 30 Gen. McChrystal completed an assessment that Obama ordered, and submitted his 66 page report.  The exhaustive, brutally realistic review includes McChrystal’s plan for a counterinsurgency operation to:

• destroy violent Taliban and Al Qaeda elements,
• stop production and export of ilicit drugs,
• train the Afgan army and police, and
• help Afghanistan become a functioning democracy and American ally.

McChrystal’s believes 40,000 – 60,000 additional troops will be required to accomplish this mission.

Yesterday was Obama’s eight “war council meeting” and the media are buzzing with speculation as to why he won’t either approve or veto McChrystal’s strategy. The answer may be found in Obama’s own Presidential campaign tactics and his fear that others might use the same tactics against him and the Afghanistan operation.

Early in his campaign Obama exploited the fury his party’s virulent anti-war, anti-military base to make himself a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.  He became known for vitriolic attacks against America’s efforts in Iraq, especially against the “surge” that began in January, 2007, and ultimately succeeded.

The political-media establishment was almost unanimously negative when President Bush ordered the surge.  Candidate Obama could have seized the  opportunity to be an idealistic, visionary leader in the cause of Liberty, and American success.  Instead, he deferred to the cynical dogma of those in his party who wanted failure in Iraq, to vindicate their position, that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster. Then-Senator Obama fell back on the simplistic chants of the anti-war Left in a TV interview:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

A few days later he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force in Iraq, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

Obama repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in high stakes, daily combat.

Fortunately for the troops and for America, President Bush prevailed over Senator Obama and his allies in Congress and America is now positioned to withdrawal from Iraq in victory, leaving behind a new, functioning democracy and U.S. ally in the heart of the middle east.  Sadly, a continuing grudge against George W. Bush prevents Obama and most of the Democrats from celebrating, or even acknowledging the success achieved by courageous American troops in Iraq.

Today, it’s inevitable  that a “surge” in Afghanistan will generate another round of defeatist attacks from the Democrat party’s base.  We’ve already heard the all-too familiar slogans and arguments:

• “Don’t escalate,” as if there were some benefit in hanging on with insufficient resources to succeed, or the enemy might be sympathetic if we’re less effective;
• “We don’t have an exist strategy” as if accomplishing the mission was irrelevant to the “exit.”
  

A surge in Afghanistan could generate support of another upstart opportunist who, like Obama, would be eager to indulge in the easy pessimism of the anti-war left to score an upset victory in the 2012 primary.  Thus, while courageous soldiers continue to struggle in Afghanistan, wondering if they’re risking everything for nothing, President Obama and his team continue to struggle with political calculations.

The media report that President Obama is considering a “compromise” that would send fewer troops to Afghanistan than General McChrystal requested to accomplish this mission, that Obama declared in March:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

“Compromise” with what or whom?

Barack Obama Appointed General McChrystal, one of the world’s foremost counter-terrorism experts, to lead the Afghanistan operation.  On August 30 McChrystal submitted a 66 page report, describing every detail of his strategic plan to accomplish Obama’s mission.  He said the plan would require 40,000 additional troops.

Now, according to media reports, the President may settle on a “compromise” between accomplishing the mission he assigned to McChrystal and…. what?

What’s the alternative?  Failure to defeat Al Qaeda?  Allowing The Taliban to dominate Afghanistan as they did before we ran them out in 2001?

What would a compromise between success and failure look like?

The media imply but seem unwilling to openly state that the potential “compromise” would be between successful completion of Obama’s declared mission and the goal of his Leftist base that America become more humble, less powerful, less of a force for liberty in the world.

One hears echos from the politics of Vietnam and the exertions of President Johnson to compromise between the same two polar opposites.  He projected enough military force to keep the war going but never quite enough to convince enemy leaders their cause was lost.  The results were disastrous for him, for his party, for the struggling people of Vietnam, and for America.  Two generations later the anti-war left still cites the Vietnam failure they caused to justify their call for retreat and failure to defeat Islamic terrorism.

Seventy Two days ago President Obama received the assessment, strategic plan and resource request

As the troops continue to struggle in Afghanistan, the President continues to dither and avoid making a decision.

On Monday CBS reported that the President was just about to announce a decision to send the 40,000 troops Gen. McChrystal requested.  But later National Security Advisor Jim Jones issued a written statement emphatically denying any decision had been made.

One might get the impression from establishment media reports that General McChrystal is an uninvited annoyance who suddenly emerged from nowhere, to hassle the President with pleas for more troops and more resources.  Actually, the General has only done what Commander in Chief Obama ordered, to accomplish Obama’s announced mission.

On March 27 President Obama delivered a major speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Here are some excerpts:

As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries.

The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked. We have a shared responsibility to act – not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends upon it.

Obama summarized the mission in unambiguous terms:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

President Obama then appointed General McChrystal, one of the nation’s foremost experts on counter-insurgency operations, and directed him to assess the situation in Afghanistan, and develop strategies for accomplishing the mission.

On August 30 General McChrystal submitted his report.  Someone in the administration leaked the report to the media, so the whole world knows what it says.

McChrystal began his report with a statement of commitment to the mission that was assigned to him by President Obama:

NATO’s…Military Plan and Pesident Obama’s strategy to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and prevent  their return to Afghanistan have laid out a clear path of what we must do.  Stability in Afghanistan is an imperative; if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or has insufficient  capability to counter transnational terrorists – Afghanistan could again become a base for terrorism, with obvious implications for regional stability.

In his strategy recommendations, McChrystal asserted four “main pillars.”  Numbers one and two are the very issues Administration officials have recently floated as pretexts for not accepting McChrystal’s plan and denying his request for additional troops:

1. Improve effectiveness through greater partnering with the Afghanistan National Security Forces. We will increase the size and accelerate the growth of the ANSF, with a radically improved partnership at every level, to improve effectivenes and prepare them to take the lead in security operations.
   
2. Prioritize responsive and accountable governance. We must assist in improving governance at all levels through both formal and traditional mechanisms.
3. Gain the initiative .  Our first impreative, in a series of operational statges, ist to gain the initiative and reverse the insurgency’s momentum.
4. Focus Resources. We will prioritize available resources to those critical areas where vulnerble populations are most threatened.

In 66 pages McChrystal lays out detailed strategies and tactics for each of his four pillars, including training Afghan security forces and making the government more responsive and accountable.  He explains why all four must be pursued in order to ensure success.

In his report of  August 30, General McChrystal did his best to convey a sense of urgency:

Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.

Two of those near-term, twelve months have now been dissipated by the President, who appears to be afraid to commit to the mission and strategies he announced back in March.  While the President has turned his desire for a government take-over of health care into an urgent crisis, he appears to see no urgency in General McChrystal’s report.

Obama closed his March speech with these words:

The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.

We can only hope that, for the sake of the troops who struggle today in Afghanistan with insufficient resources, that the President believed what he said in March, and that he finally gives the order to deploy the those additional elements of national power requested by McChrystal.

Monday, the 57th day since Gen. McChrystal submitted his Afghanistan assessment, recommendations, and urgent  troop request, President Obama and his advisers held yet another “high level” meeting (#6) to consider the matter.

While officials insist there is no possibility of  abandoning the effort there seems to be a real possibility of an extended, Vietnam style stalemate and lack of commitment to success.

In the meantime, the usual suspects appeared in the media with the usual rhetoric.

Presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett appeared on MSNBC to chant the Administration’s talking points in defense of unconscionable delay.  Ms. Jarrett tried to portray what is now 58 days of indecision as “prudence.” She began with a tedious string of bromides that added up to nothing.

The issue of what’s going to happen in Afghanistan is a very serious issue…It’s not something to be light about. What President Obama is going to do is make a decision prudently and expeditiously  but also very thoughtfully.  He’s had a series of meeting with his foreign policy team he’s pushed back on them.  Any time we’re talking abut putting our men and women in harms way he’s going to make absolutely sure its the right decision.

Obviously, after two months of unexplained delay, it’s way too late for the decision to be “expeditious.”  Ms. Jarrett continued:

But it isn’t as simple as the number of troops.  It’s far more complicated than that.  It’s whats gong on with the Afghan people, what are they doing to help in this process….

Nobody ever said it was as simple as the number of troops.  In fact Gen. McChrystal’s 66 page report discusses the Afghan people, their needs and their probable reactions to various scenarios. Ms. Jarrett finished up with this assurance:

The President is going to be absolutely sure he’s making the right decision and hes going to do it according to his time table that he thinks is appropriate because he’s the commander in chief

Well, the troops waiting in Afghanistan, wondering why they are risking everything, may not appreciate such arrogance from a commander in chief who promised them in August:

I will give you a clear mission, defined goals, and all the equipment and support you need to get the job done.

Senator Carl Levin appearing of Fox News Sunday did his best to put a positive spin on Obama’s appalling indecision:

President bush waited three months in considering whether or not to surge troops in Iraq….I think history will show that Pres bush reached the right decision, it wasn’t the only cause for the improved situation in Iraq, to the extent it has improved, but none the less he took the three months.

Wait a minute!  Are Democrats so desperate to excuse Obama they’ll even admit George W. Bush did something right?

Even as Levin grudgingly acknowledges success, we should not forget that he was a vocal opponent of the Iraq surge, who constantly predicted failure, in public, as the troops were engaged in high stakes, daily combat.  He certainly has not shown wisdom as a military strategist that would qualify him to second guess General McChrystal.

The White House announced there was nothing to announce after Monday’s meeting except that later in the week Obama would meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  The first six meetings on the most important military strategy decision of his Presidency were with political strategists.

In his report of  August 30, General McChrystal did his best to convey a sense of urgency:

Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.

Two of those near-term, twelve months have now been dissipated by the President, who is afraid to decide to commit to the counterinsurgency strategy he announced was his decision back in March.

On 8/30 General Stanley McChrystal submitted his comprehensive plan to accomplish the Afghanistan mission President Obama declared.  He and the troops continue to struggle, and continue to wait for their Commander in Chief to make a decision.

On October 20, White House Press Secretary Gibbs told reporters that consideration of General McChrystal’s report and resource request continues, with no sense of urgency:

I have continued to say a decision will be made in the coming weeks as the president goes through an examination of our policy.’

Administration officials have suggested that President Obama may not approve McChrystal’s strategy and instead order something less than a fully resourced commitment to success in Afghanistan because the Afghan government is less than ideal, with apparent corruption at high levels.  Some officials have said the strategy should focus training Afghan forces instead of continuing to fight back against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

In his strategy recommendation, McChrystal asserted four “main pillars.”  Numbers one and two are the very issues Administration officials have recently floated as pretexts for not accepting McChrystal’s plan and denying his request for additional troops:

1. Improve effectiveness through greater partnering with the Afghanistan National Security Forces. We will increase the size and accelerate the growth of the ANSF, with a radically improved partnership at every level, to improve effectivenes and prepare them to take the lead in security operations.
   
2. Prioritize responsive and accountable governance. We must assist in improving governance at all levels through both formal and traditional mechanisms.
3. Gain the initiative.  Our first impreative, in a series of operational statges, ist to gain the initiative and reverse the insurgency’s momentum.
4. Focus Resources. We will prioritize available resources to those critical areas where vulnerble populations are most threatened.

In 66 pages McChrystal lays out detailed strategies and tactics for each of his four pillars, including training Afghan security forces and making the government more responsive and accountable.  He explains why all four must be pursued in order to ensure success.

Yet the Vice President and the Political-media establishment, utterly bereft of competence, have tried to plant the impression in the public mind that General McChrystal failed to consider, or was unaware of the need to improve the Afghan government and security forces.

One wonders if the President and his people have even read the report.  McChrystal begins with a statement of his commitment to the mission that was assigned to him by President Obama:

NATO’s…Military Plan and Pesident Obama’s strategy to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and prevent  their return to Afghanistan have laid out a clear path of what we must do.  Stability in Afghanistan is an imperative; if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or has insufficient  capability to counter transnational terrorists – Afghanistan could again become a base for terrorism, with obvious implications for regional stability.

Contrary  to the impression left by media reports, McChrystal did not simply emerge from nowhere to start harassing the Administration for more troops and resources.  McChrystal, who was appointed by Obama to command the Afghanistan operation, did exactly what the Commander in Chief ordered.  He exhaustively assessed the situation and developed strategies and tactics to achieve Obama’s stated goals.

More from McChrystal’s report:

The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted…many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating…there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans — in both their government and the international community — that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents.

Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.

Obama’s response has been nearly two months of public dithering and vacillation.  High-profile administration officials, including the Vice President, have publicly proposed ill-considered half-measures.  This public display of angst and incompetency and has only made things worse by confirming the Afghan perception that America lacks resolve.

General McChrystal did his best to convey a sense of urgency:

Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.

So far, nearly two of those near term 12 months have been lost to Presidential temporizing.

In a March speech the President announced:

“a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan…this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office…

On August 30, General  McChrystal completed an exhaustive assessment and submitted his confidential report, including his recommended mission, strategies and tactics.

Someone in the administration leaked McChrystal’s report to the Washington Post, so we can all see what it says.  In a separate communication he requested more resources, including 40,000 additional troops.

So far, the Obama Administration has not responded to the report or to McChrystal’s request for more resources.  Various officials have indicated  they don’t necessarily accept the Theater Commander as the final authority.  They ‘re also seeking advice from a bunch of politicians with no military expertise, including Vice President Biden whose judgment in such matters has proved consistently wrong for decades.

There are interesting similarities between Obama’s March speech and McChrystal’s report.

Obama’s speech:

This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe-haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.

McChrystal’s report is all about a comprehensive strategy that Obama called for including:

…to accomplish the mission and defeat the insurgency we also require a properly resourced strategy built on four main pillars:

1. improve effectiveness through greater partnering with Afghan National Security Forces;
2. Priortize responsive and accountable governance;
3. Gain the initiative… reverse the insurgncey’s momentum;
4. prioritize available resources to those critical areas where vulnerable populations are most threatened.

.

Obama’s Speech:

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

McChrystal’s Report:

Our campaign in Afghanistan has been historically under-resourced and remains so today.  Almost every aspect of our collective effort and associated resourcing has lagged a growing insurgency – historically a recipe for failure in COIN [counterinsurgency.]  Success will require a discrete “jump” to gain the initiative, demonstrate progress in the short term, and secure long-term support.

.

In his speech Obama noted:

Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, have seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

In his report McChrystal noted:

…progress is hindered by the dual threat of a resilient insurgency and a crisis of confidence in the government and the international coalition.  to win their support we must protect the people from both of these threats.

Later in his report McChrystal presents detailed strategies for dealing with the narcotics trade and criminality.

McChrystal’s sixty-six page report details every aspect of his “classic counterinsurgency” plan, including this ominous warning:

…protecting the poplation from insurgent coercion and intimidation demands a persistent presence and focus that cannot be interrupted without risking serious setback…failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.

Why hasn’t Obama approved McChrystal’s plan and his request for more resources?

Obama has a political problem, one he apparently didn’t anticipate when he made the speech in March.  His far-left, anti-war base, represented by roughly 1/4 of the House and Senate, wants to abandon Afghanistan, not undertake a renewed effort to prevail over Al Qaeda and The Taliban.

Thus, General McChrystal and tens of thousands of American troops are stuck in limbo, as the situation in Afghanistan gradually deteriorates.

when the news is good. But we will.

The Services just released their recruiting statistics for July and all of them met or exceeded their quotas.

In addition, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps have met or exceeded cumulative retention goals for the Federal fiscal year that ends September 30.

Marine recruiters exceeded their July quota by 17%, even though joining the Marines virtually guarantees a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan immediately after training.

These are amazing recruiting statistics considering the cultural influences that daily bombard the nation’s youth. Leftist college professors, high profile politicians like John Kerry, the news media, and the entertainment media all strive to convince young people that the troops are victims and military service is for losers or maniacs.

But in July, almost thirty eight thousand of America’s finest young men and women defied the professors, the politicians and Hollywood.

The media herd finds good recruiting news unworthy of publication because it contradicts a core media doctrine: The volunteer military is “broken.” The media are unable to, and don’t try to explain how a broken military could have pulled off such stunning success in Iraq over the past year.

For nearly a year, Barack Obama promised, emphatically, that he would abandon the Iraq operation, even though success was finally a realistic probability, no matter how horrendous the consequences. Recently he grudgingly acknowledged the obvious success of the military strategies called “the surge,” but says he still believes the surge was the wrong thing to do. He doesn’t go so far as to claim the Military is “broken, but he does cite “strain on the military” as a reason why the surge should not have been undertaken, even though it has been spectacularly successful.

He now says that whether or not the Iraqis are fully prepared to repel Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed terrorists, he will withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, even though such a schedule is logistically impossible. Yet he also says there will be a “residual force” large enough to repel Al Qaeda. And all this comes under what he calls “the mission” he will assign the military on Day One of his administration: “End the war,” a campaign slogan beneath the dignity of the military, and in view of his various contradictory promises, a meaningless phrase.

Military volunteers deserve a leader who can think clearly, in terms of actionable goals that can become valid military missions. They do not deserve a leader like Obama, who tries to find a precarious political balance between what’s obviously best for America, a successful Iraqi democracy, and the demands of his fanatic Left base for failure in Iraq to vindicate their virulent enmity toward George W. Bush.

The all volunteer military is America’s most precious asset. We voters owe the men and women who voluntarily serve us a competent Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-In-Chief need not be a military veteran, but he/she should have learned enough about military operations, strategies and tactics to earn their respect.