Political Analysis: Obama's Revealing Afghanistan Strategy

Solomon may have been wise, but he probably would have made a terrible executive. Obama tried to do the right thing by cutting the proverbial baby in half with Afghanistan. But early reports suggest he is losing support everywhere as a result.

Peggy Noonan recently pointed out that any president must keep his core 25 or so percent of support to manage through difficult times. By trying to please everybody, Obama has pleased no one and has begun to erode his core support at the same time.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn was one of the only members of the Democratic leadership in either chamber to tell CNN "I'm very supportive of it."

Even Durbin, one of the president's closest allies, told CNN he is withholding judgment. "The president took some time to reach his decision, I'm going to need some time to reach mine," Durbin said.

These people wanted a Democrat president more than anything for eight long years. Now that they have one, they aren't even willing to stand up strongly beside him only a year in. And they say Republicans have their problems. Geez.

As the above link also points out, Republicans aren't pleased. McCain even challenged Obama directly in a meeting. And still there's the question, does he honestly have a plan he intends to stick to, or not?

These sources said the president responded to McCain by promising that the withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground.

As I pointed out late last night, the troops and their families already have mixed reactions. By and large, many probably weren't in Obama's camp that much to start. And from a comment on that post, confirmed by a news search, will they like it any better after learning of the Rules of Engagement? I doubt it.

*No night or surprise searches.

*Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

*ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

*U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to
fire first.

*U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

*Only women can search women.

*Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if
insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

We already know where Michael Moore speaking for the hard Left stands. And while an AP Fact Check isn't scathing, it suggests his plan simply won't work. In trying to give everyone something, Obama has made the Carter-esque mistake of taking something away from everyone in the process. If things get tough in Afghanistan, as they easily could, Obama will not have a solid core of support to fall back on to get him through the kind of tough times to which Noonan referred - the kind Afghanistan, among other issues like the economy, could easily provide.

As ultimately unpopular and even reviled by some President Bush became, because Iraq and terrorism were the central issues of the day, he never let down his base and they stood loyally beside him right till the end.

Carter thought too much and tried to please everybody only to end up the least popular president America has had in a very long time. With even more significant problems in the world today than when Carter held office, even if Obama could out think and out glad hand Carter, unfortunately his presidency seems headed the same way, if not worse.

Comments

[unseen]

the ROE make me wonder if these people even understand what a military is for. It sounds more like they want a big police force in Afgan instead of an army. So I guess liberals really want to be the world's policeman

[Rob Waterson]

This President's understanding of the military and military doctrine is not even up to a good game of Risk.

It is also quite clear that (like most liberals) he has no loved ones serving in the military.

[x11b1p]

These rules of engagement are pc. the last time we tried to "protect a population" with these types of pc rules of engagement was in Somolia, and it was a fact that everything we were not allowed to do, AQ used it as a tactic - like standing behind women and shooting at troops. The unintended consequence of this is that the troops become hostile to the civilian population (b/c of trust and a view that they are harboring potential threats) and it eliminates/reduces "goodwill" from the troops to population, thus seeming more like an "occupying force" instead of a liberator and ally. By eliminating our night time ability, we are taking away our advantage of being able to operate effectively at night. These rules of engagemnet are not new to Afghanistan, and I think most of this has been in place, it could account for why we have lost more soldiers this year than in the past. for those who have never served here are some good sites to look at that make the roes more 3 dimensional are real :

http://www.captainsjournal.com/
http://afghanistanshrugged.com/2008/12/17/illum-ilum-where-for-art-thou.aspx

the last link is particularly good given the fact it is written by a guy on the ground in afghanistan and it illustrates how the rules of engagement interact with one's ability to kill or capture AQ/Taliban by something as simple as not being able to fire an illimination round into the sky at night costing the US valuable time and tagets. Lets not forget, the Marines and Army have infantrymen, its it the job of the infantryman to commit themselves into close combat situtaions with the enemy and overcome them take and own property, you can use tanks, yet you can't leave a tank on a hill for months, you can use planes, yet you can't leave a plane on a hill for months, that is the reason why the infantryman is the heart and soul of the military, without them you have no military, and when their hands are tied they can not do what it is they are trained to do wich illustrate the entire reason why the US has a military - kill/defend from and or capture the enemy.

[ThomasD]

Those ROE are horrendous and will cost lives.

[xerocky]

"The unintended consequence of this is that the troops become hostile to the civilian population (b/c of trust and a view that they are harboring potential threats) and it eliminates/reduces "goodwill" from the troops to population, thus seeming more like an "occupying force" instead of a liberator and ally. "

It's like the old adage, a sharp knife is safer than a dull one. Do the job you're supposed to be doing or don't. Neither is nothing.

[rssg]

I’m no Patton or MacArthur but I tend to think we have been less than successful in our war on terror precisely because we’re unwilling to identify the enemy and call them by name. Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with Western and specifically American values and traditions.

Bush started out saying “radical or militant Islam” but the “pc” police got him to change his rhetoric. With Obama, he never mentions those words. If you can’t identify the enemy, you can’t win.

[rrpjr]

This is first time in Obama's career he's had to give a speech that did not combine short-term gratification with desired long-term result. That is to say, he doesn't wish to send troops but he does wish to lose the war. Therein lies the explanation for his obvious unease. Throughout his career he's been able to give speeches which combine gratifying and audacious lies in the moment, requiring zero personal discomfort or sacrifice, and which will lead to the end he seeks. E.g., the speeches promoting the stimulus plan were shot through with lies, and led to the opposite end he promised but the end he sought -- higher unemployment, greater dependence on government, degraded expectations in the private sector. Likewise with healthcare. Every speech about his healthcare proposal is a lie, and all them feel very good to tell because they will lead to a supremely satisfying end.

But with Afghanistan, he is saying things which make his insides twist -- and avoiding saying things which would clearly mortify him, e.g., "victory." This was an entirely miserable speech for him to make. He wants nothing more than to pull out of Afghanistan and see the American military suffer humiliation. But he cannot indulge himself on this. So he has to put into practice every skill at a lawyer's disposal to suppress his urges, in the interest of a longer-term goal which he must somehow find a way to achieve without absorbing the political cost. You might call this the first "grown-up" speech of his presidency, maybe his life.

[Drider]

Alexander the Great couldn't conquer this region but Obama can do it, and he can do it by giving the enemy a "shout out" on when we are leaving AND with that pathetic and infuriating ROE.

He is just that good.

[Dawson]

If this whole adventure had been done compenently in the first place we would not be where we are at.

[brucet]

I agree with above....we are unwilling to identify the enemy - Islam, because I believe, doing so would necessitate considering the wisdom of allowing high immigration of muslims into our country.

You can't fight a war when you allow the enemy to immigrate to your country and in fact, even serve in your Army (Ft. Hood).

[Drider]

Well Dawson, where we are at is this.

Word for word, goal for goal this is identical to the Bush plan.Obama just added the "shout out" to the enemy in hopes that the enemy takes his que and keep things quiet there for the next two years, of course the enemies plans of resupplying both men and weapons don't mean diddly as long as it is quiet enough to stay out of the news.

[seekeronos]

Islam is an idolatrous, demonic religion that serves a moon "god" (originally a "goddess", but the Arabs and their Mesopotamian forebears could not bear worshipping a feminine diety).

It is a religion message of death, destruction, and hatred, much as its father (Satan) seeks to bring upon the sons and daughters of mankind.

Islam is the very enemy of freedom, and anyone who loves freedom should regard Islam as the vile evil from the pit of hell that it is.

[Dennis D]

With these rules of engagement I cannot support this war anymore. Shades of Vietnam.

[Neo]

I wonder if they will start to announce the number of "saved or created" martyrs.

The whole "saved or created" jobs thing already much like the VietNam "body counts".

[Xiaoidng]

The ROE is an attempt to fix a real problem. That problem, is that we don't need an Army, we need a constabulary force.

The Army is the wrong tool to use in this war. But trying to fix that problem with new...and, much better, (in the right hands) ROE's, will never work, it is just stupid.

Obama caved, he got bent over, to the cheers of the American public. There will be no withdrawl in 18 months, that is a lie, pure and simple.

Our refusal to deal with reality, has caused us to fight without honor. We cannot win while in this state. Too bad we got Lyndon for Prez.

Yo Oba, the blood is on your hands now! How you likein it?

Our currnet leadership is incapable of fighting this war. Our populace is idiotic. Retreat is the only option now. We must await the next attack, hopefully then people can make the neccessary changes, in doctrine and personel.

[NoMinarets]

These rules of engagement are not PC, they are anti-US-military. They are intended to ensure that as many soldiers as possible lose their lives, that as many Muslim terrorists as possible are not killed. With these rules of engagement, Obama is protecting Muslims and Islam. How many females in the military will be slaughtered because the "woman" they are searching has a penis and a bomb-belt? How many will be over-powered and taken hostage? These rules of engagement should merit the impeachment of the CIC.