Commander-in Chief AWOL - Obama “Fiddles Around” While American Troops Lose Heart

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a “hawk” and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war - the Vietnam War - mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]

Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America’s economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war - or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.

The Times Online is reporting a story about “American troops in Afghanistan losing heart.” It is like “deja view” - a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,�? . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.�? The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,�? . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.�? . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.�? The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground�?. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***�?.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].

They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.

Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet - but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,�? . . .

« Read the rest of this post HERE! »

Pentagon Delays Troop Request for Afghan War

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told its top commander in Afghanistan to delay submitting his request for additional troops, defense officials say, amid signs that the Obama administration is rethinking its strategy for combating a resurgent Taliban.

A senior Pentagon official says the administration has asked for the reprieve so it can complete a review of the U.S.-led war effort. “We have to make sure we have the right strategy” before looking at additional troop requests, the official said. “Things have changed on the ground fairly considerably.”

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recently completed a classified report asking for significant numbers of new American troops. Military officials familiar with the matter says the report lays out several options, including one that seeks roughly 40,000 reinforcements, which would push the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 for the first time.

But the commander has been told to delay submitting the troop request to the Pentagon at the direction of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other top civilian officials, according to defense officials.

Full Story Here:
Pentagon Delays Troop Request for Afghan War

Funny… I seem to remember a time when we had Afghanistan pretty much under control, and we did it in record time. Then we traipsed off to Iraq…

This wasn’t Obama’s fault. As much as I detest Obama, this was NOT his fault, at least not in it’s inception. He truly inherited this mess, Afghanistan was a done deal and then George *Yes, I really DO have ADHD* Bush blew it ALL to hell and back.

But, NOW, you betcha, it’s Obama’s problem, even though he didn’t DO IT per se, it IS now his problem. We can’t continue to blame it ALL on Bush, even though much of it IS of his (Bush’s) doing, now it’s Obama’s turn to step up and lead, or show us what a DOUCHEBAG he really is…

Americans are divided over the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan — a key voting issue in the 2008 presidential election — according to a FOX News poll released Monday.

President Obama’s campaign was based largely on opposition to the Iraq war and support for a military strategy in Afghanistan. But just as Iraq has lost much of its political contentiousness, Afghanistan may be emerging — albeit to a lesser degree — as the “new�? Iraq.

Americans are divided on both the Afghan war itself and on its expansion, according to the latest FOX News poll.

Full Story Here:
FOX News Poll: Americans Divided on Afghan War Effort

George W. Bush led us into Iraq, and in doing so, he cost the United States a lot more than the over 4,300 U.S. combat deaths we have suffered.

« Read the rest of this post HERE! »

Dueling rallies in Iran turn violent

TEHRAN, Iran - Hard-liners attacked senior pro-reform leaders in the streets as tens of thousands marched in competing mass demonstrations by the opposition and government supporters. Opposition protesters, chanting “death to the dictator,” hurled stones and bricks in clashes with security forces.

The opposition held its first major street protests since mid-July, bringing out thousands in demonstrations in several parts of the capital. In some cases only several blocks away, tens of thousands marched in government-sponsored rallies marking an annual anti-Israel commemoration.

The commemoration, known as Quds Day, is a major political occasion for the government — a day for it to show its anti-Israeli credentials and its support for the Palestinians. During a speech for the rallies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad railed against Israel and the West, questioning whether the Holocaust occurred and calling it a pretext for occupying Arab land. Quds is the Arabic word for Jerusalem.

But the opposition was determined to turn the day into a show of its survival and continued strength despite a fierce three-month-old crackdown against it since the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Full Story Here:
Dueling rallies in Iran turn violent

I have been at odds with quite a few really good bloggers lately, great Conservative bloggers, Facebook friends and so forth. They change their screen names to green colored fonts, they place a green tint on their profile pictures. They fly Iranian flags. They implore everyone to support Freedom in Iran.

They are very confused I am afraid.

Freedom in Iran is NOT in our hands. We’ve got all we can do to keep America afloat given the morons we have in the Obama administration. Czars, socialists, anti-American racists, crooks, uh, yeah, crooks, ACORN and their ilk.

How well do ANY of you remember the Carter administration? Do you remember what the most defining part OF the Carter administration was?

That would be the Iranian hostage crisis, and his lack of ANY success in dealing with it.

The Iranian hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American embassy in support of the Iranian Revolution. SOURCE

The people that gave us the hostage crisis in 1979 are the same people that are in power today, and some of those same people are also on the opposing side, referred to simply as, The Opposition.

The Opposition wants to take control of Iraq, and for many, that means, hey, we need to support these guys, it’s an attempted regime change. And they are right, it would be a regime change. A change from one extreme bunch of Islamic moonbats to another. It’s just that simple. A change of regime in Iran won’t bring about a democracy any more than taking Saddam out of the picture did for Iraq.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, once the leader in place was deposed, he was merely replaced with a bit more acceptable War Lord. And that is exactly what Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki are, the smartest, most powerful and the most pro-U.S. War Lord that could be found. The minute we leave Afghanistan, Karzai will be a page in history. As soon as we exit Iraq, al-Malaki becomes the next Saddam.

« Read the rest of this post HERE! »