Monday, December 7, 2009

The Prophet Obama send troops to Afghanistan using the Bush doctrine for war

The Prophet Obama has finally decided after over 3 months, to send more troops to Afghanistan. His defense of this surge is using the same surge plan that Bush used in Iraq.

This is great, The Prophet has screwed everything else up but at least he made a good move here. Iraq and Afghanistan are different, though and it is uncertain we will succeed in a stable government there, which seems to be the goal. In reality, we only need to kill terrorists there, it really makes on difference on the government installed there but it probably can't hurt if the end result is dead terrorists and a stable afghan government.

The repubelicans do need to calm down on the 19 months. The same guy who ran the DOD for Bush is still in charge and we should take the Generals at their word that 19 months is merely a time when they will consider if they can change the battle plan. We could be wrong and if so, then it would be on Obama's head if he planned to cut and run all along though clearly he is planning to use either a claimed victory or a cut and run as political points for the 2012 election.

Either way, the Prophet is doing a Surge, which worked before and is a fairly good plan to try again. Considering his campaign promises were almost entirely the liberal socialist mindset of we just need to understand those that are saying they will kill everyone, it is nice to see that for a moment a few of his braincells worked long enough to make a good decision.


  1. PS,

    This blog entry is thought provoking from many perspectives.

    The view that Obama made a good decision by "surging" is debatable. A military surge may be a great idea if it gets the job done. Time will tell.

    It also seems that if we are going to surge, then lets do it fast and hard and get out and then assist the Afghan people in building a stable government on mostly their terms and based upon their own needs.

    Or, lets get out now and fight terrorism from and within our own lands while working with other countries to stop the spread and need for terrorism by developing modern countries that take care of their people.

    A more socio-economic approach with a democratic capitalistic slant to be sure, but it seems a lot of evidence points to this as a better answer in the long view.

    Even that approach won't totally stamp out terrorism. It will always be with humanity until humanity decides to be wholely humane.

    Obama was in a tough spot, regardless of how we on the outside view his ideology, or agendas. He had to make a military decision to maintain the support from the military. Along with this came a stamp of resolve that we will do something even if it looks a lot like what has already been tried and not quite worked.

    What would you have done if your were in the position to have to decide?

    I am not sure what I would have done. But, I tend to lean more in the direction of dialogue and partnership with the Afghan people who seem to remain strangely silent and un-involved in many ways to this day-years after the initial move on our part.

    It seems time for them to clean up their own back yard and to ask for help if they need it. They have the real power to make a difference in their own best interest.

    Do we, the U.S.A., really need to police the world?


  2. Thank you for posting Jason, You asked two questions and I will provide my opinion in two comments.
    The first question is essentially what would I do if I was in Obama's place. What I would be doing is continuing to increase military activity in that part of the world. I have long held the opinion that fighting in their backyard is preferable to fighting them here. The premise of our existence is we have a right to live without perpetual threat from a religion or nations that insist god is telling them they have the "right" to kill everyone on the planet they don't like or is not a follower. Islam and many of its leaders and followers have long held this belief going back centuries. Hitler and other sociopaths leaders have proven in the past many times, it is simply impossible and frankly ridiculous to believe you can have diplomatic solutions with people who are saying "we are going to kill you" as the premise of their coming to the table and our position is "what can we do to make you not want to kill us all?" I would be over in all of those countries killing enough of them that they either decide perhaps god has not told us to kill everyone or there are too few left to be a problem. The bottom line is we Americans only wish to live in the world, none of us have designs for power and all of us have the right to travel around, work and live without perpetual threat of some fanatics. Since the leaders and people of those countries will not put down their own problems, our government must do it for them. No adult over there is innocent, they allow their leaders and clerics to teach their children to become what they are and allow those leaders to lead. They could stop it if they wished, which leads to the next question.

  3. The second question Jason, does the US need to police the world.

    Should we have to no, but we need too. The US government needs to protect the people of the United States. I see two issues with the US just leaving the world as is. The first is of course the problem with terrorists and other countries such as North Korea that are threatening us. Other nations do not have the right to attack us or threaten our way of life. When their actions result in our lives being lost or our way of life severely impacted, we should do all we can to prevent it or reverse the damage. This does not mean we should use military force every time some country does something. It does mean when another country is using its military as part of their plans for injuring us, we should respond.

    The second issue is moral and is of course debatable. Can you sit back and watch millions of women become enslaved and murdered simply to avoid being accused of "policing the world". Can you sit back and watch millions in Darfur become enslaved and genocide committed, while you pursue "diplomatic" efforts. Could you walk past an alley where a woman is being raped and do nothing? This is a gray line certainly but when I read about how people are oppressed around the world, I do not want to send aid, I want the problem solved and the problem is the people in charge of those places. Generally when we are talking about African warlords, Arab leaders, Muslim clerics, communists, ayatollahs, megalomaniacs and their followers, there is really only one way to get rid of them, war.

    In the long run, our removing these fanatics and thugs from the world will solve the first question? Who would be a terrorist and who would we go to war with, were these psychotic leaders gone and their cultures change with the times and become modern. Modern, where women are not property, slavery is not accepted as normal and god does not command people to kill everyone. So our helping others from oppression, does have a benefit to our not needing to go to war in the future. Again morally, I do not think we can sit here with all of our money and lifestyle, some of which benefits from resources in those countries and at the same time watch people thrown in mass graves, enslaved and women turned into breeding mares and then murdered by stoning when they show even a glimmer of self thought. I will also point out my issue is not with one particular group, people or religion. It is indisputable that the vast majority of the worlds wars, terrorists, slavery and oppression of women all occurs in Islamic countries. Communism is just as bad and is also a reason why we need to assist where we can. Communism has killed millions in the last 100 years and need to be removed. However, this does not mean we treat each communist country the same. I have been to China and Hong Kong and I feel that Red China is slowly moving to a more democratic government and capitalist economy. There diplomacy is working and its own people leading the way. Other places, such as North Korea are directly threatening to kill us and that alone puts them on the same field as the Islamic countries also threatening us.

    We do need to police the world, because if we don't eventually the megalomaniacs will win and eventually come after us directly.