[BRIGADE] PJB: Obama's War?
Published: Tue, 07/29/08
"Obama -- and John McCain, who has endorsed the build-up -- should,
before committing any more combat brigades, explain how and when
this war ends in an American victory. For as of today, the Afghan
war resembles Vietnam far more than Iraq ever did..."
Brigade, in 1999 Pat Buchanan said, "Today, candor compels us to
admit that our vaunted two-party system is a snare and a delusion,
a fraud upon the nation. Our two parties have become nothing but
two wings of the same bird of prey..."
Near a decade has past, and today the differences between the
Dem/Gop presidential candidates are almost non-existent.
What can we do? Opt out. Don't participate in the scam. Vote for
anybody - except McCain-Obama.
See Pat's latest column below.
For the Cause -- Linda
------------
Obama's War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
"We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting
in," says Barack Obama of the U.S. war in Iraq. Wise counsel.
But is Barack taking his own advice? For he pledges to shift two
U.S. combat brigades, 10,000 troops, out of Iraq and into
Afghanistan, raising American forces in that country from 33,000 to
43,000.
Why does Barack think a surge of 10,000 troops will succeed in
winning a war in which we have failed to prevail after seven years
of fighting? How many more troops is he prepared to commit? Is the
Obama commitment open-ended?
For, without any visible strategy for victory, Barack is
recommending the same course LBJ took after the death of JFK.
Johnson bombed North Vietnam in 1964, landed Marines in 1965 and
built U.S. forces from 16,000 advisers on Nov. 22, 1963, to 525,000
troops in January of 1969.
Gradual escalation, which is exactly what Barack is recommending.
LBJ never thought through to the end game: how to break Hanoi,
withdraw and leave a South peaceful, prosperous and pro-American.
Has Barack thought his way through to how this war ends in victory
and we withdraw all U.S. ground troops from Afghanistan? For this
writer cannot see anywhere on the horizon any such ending.
If the old rule applies -- the guerrilla wins if he does not lose
-- the United States, about to enter its eighth year of combat, is
losing. And, using the old 10-to-one ratio of regular troops needed
to defeat guerrillas, if the Taliban can recruit 1,000 new
fighters, they can see Obama's two-brigade bet, and raise him. Just
as Uncle Ho raised LBJ again and again.
What does President Obama do then? Send in 10,000 more?
The Soviet Union, whose 115,000-man army in Afghanistan reached
more than twice the size of U.S.-NATO forces, even with the Obama
surge, went home defeated in 1988. The Soviet Empire did not
survive that humiliation.
Obama -- and John McCain, who has endorsed the build-up -- should,
before committing any more combat brigades, explain how and when
this war ends in an American victory. For as of today, the Afghan
war resembles Vietnam far more than Iraq ever did.
Consider. Taliban attacks are up 40 percent this year. U.S.
casualties in May and June exceeded those in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus
says al-Qaida is moving assets from Iraq to Afghanistan and
Pakistan. President Karzai's writ still does not extend beyond the
capital. He is mocked as the "Mayor of Kabul." Security in the
capital is deteriorating.
For the sixth straight year, the poppy crop, primary source of the
world's heroin, has set a new record. The Taliban eradicated the
crop when in power, but are now collaborating with farmers to
extort cash to keep fighting.
Most critically, Pakistan has become for the Taliban, Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaida the same sanctuary that North Vietnam, Laos and
Cambodia provided for the Viet Cong and NVA, with this critical
difference: We cannot bomb or invade Pakistan.
The new Islamabad regime is exhibiting no enthusiasm for fighting
the Taliban who dominate the border regions and North-West Frontier
province and have sympathizers in Pakistan's military and
intelligences agencies.
Air strikes, to which we have begun to resort, have resulted in
wedding parties and families wiped out in their homes on both sides
of the border. President Musharraf has even threatened to retaliate
against U.S. forces if more of his people become victims.
Anti-Americanism, pandemic in Pakistan, is rising.
As for Afghanistan, how do we win a war in a nation of 27 million,
the size of Texas, with only 50,000 U.S.-NATO troops? How long will
it take us to train, equip and arm an Afghan army that is both
loyal to the regime and an effective fighting force against its
Pashtun brothers?
How, ever, can victory be achieved, if the enemy can retire every
winter to Pakistan to rest, rearm and prepare new attacks?
If the Pakistani army will not clean out the border regions, how
can we accomplish it with pinprick strikes by Special Forces, or
Predators and F-16s, which invariably cause civilian casualties?
Afghanistan, in and of itself, is of no strategic importance, if it
is not a base camp for al-Qaida. Loss of Pakistan to Islamism,
however, a nation of 170 million Muslims with atomic bombs, would
be a calamity for the Near East and United States.
Under the (Colin) Powell Doctrine for fighting wars, questions must
be asked and answered affirmatively before committing U.S. troops:
Is a vital U.S. interest imperiled here? Do we have a defined and
attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully weighed?
Is there an exit strategy? Is the war supported by a united nation?
How many of these questions did Obama ask himself before pledging
10,000 more U.S combat troops to what will surely become, should he
win, "Obama's war" even as Iraq has become "Bush's war"?
SOURCE: http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/07/pjb-obamas-war/