Reducing the Troops Obama style


By: Dr. Phil Taverna

One of the problems with reducing the troops is will it actually happen. With a guy like Obama he says one thing and something else happens. But more importantly this goes against my fundamental belief about war. First off, is Afghanistan really a war? Well almost 500 of America’s best soldiers were lost last year in Afghanistan. And this year’s numbers are approaching that same figure. One episode with our “friends” in Pakistan and that number could easily double. So soldiers are being lost at a fairly high number. You would think the liberal media would show a little concern. By now Ted Koppel should have a show counting the days, adding up all the costs that we can’t afford! But the liberal media has gone mute.

So if soldiers are being sacrificed, then it sounds like we are still at war in Afghanistan. This was the one war that the liberals like Obama and Biden thought was justifiable. That’s coming from 2 blokes who never spent a day in the service. By all accounts Obama should have run from Afghanistan when he took office in 2009. Instead he took full responsibility for the war by increasing the troop count. It took him a real long time to do that but eventually he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Since he took office the number of troop casualties has increase annually exponentially.

But here’s the rub. President Bush was a great leader and made great decisions in the war room. But on the other hand just maybe like his father and President Reagan he had the proper experts to assist in the decision making. But for a community organizer like Obama his decisions only smell of inexperience. If you want to fight a war like Obama in 2009, then you hire a general and let him run the war. Obama finally woke up and put General Petraeus in charge, but again Obama procrastinated. And every war should be run by the generals. If General Petraeus says he wants more troops and he does not want a time table, then that’s what he should get. But what does community organizer Obama give him? The general gets less troops and a time table. So the generals have fewer troops to do more in a shorter period of time. When the negotiators go in to try to convince the Afghans that we are there to help fight Al-Qaeda, whose going to be there to protect them when the greatest military in the world leaves? Good luck negotiators!

And at the end of the day even if Obama is true to his word and gets the troops out by 2014, he loses the election. Obama’s troop reduction scheme is like Obamacare. It sounds good but he can’t deliver. Not everyone will have healthcare and in the end healthcare will cost a lot more than it did in 2009 and there will be limitations. Troop reductions are stupid. If we have turned the corner like the Obama economy then get all the troops out of harm’s way. If we are getting anywhere in Afghanistan, then make up your mind and go in and fix Pakistan. Pakistan is the real enemy. Pakistan is the third party antagonizer or should we say enabler.

Obama had a chance to be a real hero when the Taliban were threatening to invade the capital of Pakistan. The jerks Obama had been fighting for years were right there gathered a few miles from the capital. It would have been nothing to swoop down in behind them and kill them just like he did with Osama. Instead he was more interested in racially charged beer summits, campaign fund raisers and golf.

The liberals will not be happy because Obama has not won the war and he did not bring the troops home like he promised. The rest of America will not be happy because if poor decision making continues, he will not win this war. President Bush stood strong and against all odds he won the war in Iraq. Maybe Obama should give President Bush a call. Play a round of golf and have a beer and a non-beer and pick a winner’s brain. Sometimes you can have all the might in the world, but it takes the right vision to win a war. Rumsfeld will tell you that you need a well thought out strategy. A strategy based on goals not on an upcoming election.

At least Obama wouldn’t have to worry about having 2 mediocre terms like President Clinton. Obama will have only one term and it should weigh in a lot worse than Carter’s!

He could be the first president to raise over a trillion dollars for his campaign and still lose by a landslide. The liberals will call it racism, when in fact it was the community organizer who lacked the ability to lead a nation that desperately needed a leader, not a campaigner!

YourDemocracyChange.Com

About The Author Dr. Phil Taverna:
Dr. Phil Taverna owns and operates his own website.
Website:http://YourDemocracyChange.Com

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.