The argument that "the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the U.S." did not hold water. On the other hand, the Commander of the U.S. forces in that country has asked for more troops to fight a war that we all knew existed. So, what was the fuss about. You either would send troops or you would not.
President Obama himself has emphatically stated on many occasions that Al Qaeda and the Taliban caused the greatest threat to the security of the United States, and he would do whatever he could to annihilate them. That should remain the objectivity of the government; to make sure that American citizens were safe wherever they were; either vacationing in Bali or anywhere else in the world.
The war, the war, the war, and it must be fought; that was the issue. The generals responsible for winning it had spoken, and they had to be listened to. They had said categorically that any delay to fulfill the obligation of sending more troops to Afghanistan would eventually cause the U.S. to lose the Afghan war. They were on the ground in the war zone, and they were reporting what they saw and recommending that the Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, should give them the tools and the opportunity to finish the work that they had been given to do.
Their request was a very simple one. They needed more men to hold down the areas that they had already cleared of the enemy, and to able to go after them wherever they were hiding. The terrain there was rigorous, and the Taliban hid in the caves in the mountains, and they should be flushed out. More equipment and additional soldiers were required for the work at hand.
Any excuses on the part of the government would not suffice. The new strategies thought out in the Situation Room in the White House did not have any guarantees that they (strategies) would succeed. There would be those members of the administration that would say that they did not want another Iraq on their minds, and that domestic issues must be dealt with instead.
By George, they could be right; yet, the question still remained that the legacy left in Afghanistan would be a disastrous one, if the Taliban was given the chance to take control in that part of the world once again; and who would be responsible if that should happen; the government or the generals?
Fighting a war was not a game; and there were men and women in the White House, yesterday, who realized that more than those of us on the outside. Therefore, the sooner they gave in to the demands of the generals, the better it would be for everyone. In the interest of the U.S. forces fighting to keep America safe, the president should acquiesce to the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; the commanding military officer responsible for the Afghanistan war; for more troops.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN.
There are two extremely important decisions to be made by the government that will affect the foreign policy of the United States for a long time to come; and they are about Afghanistan and Iran. They will, and must come either this very week or soon.
The McChrystal request for more troops was the topic on which President Obama met with members of the Senate yesterday, which included Senator John McCain; yet, the report that the Pentagon was preparing to engage in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was not far from the minds of the president and the lawmakers.
Afghanistan would be the tipping point of America's resolve to deal with the Islamist extremism question; whether it would be allowed to persist and continue to disturb the peace in the world, or to be crushed and be made perfectly clear to all the nations that practiced the Islamic religion that, no one was against them. They must accept the existence of other religions and recognize that the only way that all nations could live together was by peaceful co-existence.
With Iran would come the assurance that the proliferation of nuclear weapons has to stop; and that the government's orders for the Pentagon to use a bunker-busting bomb, called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), to eliminate and destroy Iranian uranium enrichment facilities would send a message to those who were aspiring to acquire nuclear bomb making technology, be they North Korea or Venezuela.
Pentagon's request has previously been made in a classified notification document, displayed on ABC News site, to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees during this summer, to "accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers."; and that the notification appearing publicly in the news indicated that an approval has been given.
It now behooved Iran to come clean and work things out peaceably with the U.S. government before too late; for under the circumstances, and with Iran's secrecy of its nuclear program, it would not be long now, when its ambition to equip itself with nuclear weapons, would be relegated into the doldrums of world history.
Any damage done, after the fact, would not be the Obama administration's fault, if the bombing should take place during his (Obama's) watch; however, the fact remained that some action on the part of the administration dealing with Iran was imminent; and it would be that Iran should have considered the resolve of the president to rid the world of nuclear weapons in his speech at the United Nations Organization General Assembly meeting only a couple of weeks ago.
His administration's objective was also spelled out in the orders given the Pentagon to pursue in dealing with Iran; and that has been made exceptionally clear in the aforementioned government notification.
'Urgent Operational Need'
" The notification was tucked inside a 93-page "reprogramming" request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.
Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).", Article, J. Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? 10/06/09, 2009. Retrieved 10/07/09 2009, Website, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-preparing-bomb-iran/story?id=8765343
The decision on Iran's determination to overrule the U.N. Security Council resolution on disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which was chaired by President Obama himself, was as necessary as one on troops increase in Afghanistan; and they must be made with all the seriousness they required.
The U.S. foreign policy would remain "sacrosanct" and blameless; and no amount of criticisms would be deemed as proper or reasonable against the notion that it sought to bring about a new world order that would cater to the peace of all humankind.
The McChrystal request for more troops was the topic on which President Obama met with members of the Senate yesterday, which included Senator John McCain; yet, the report that the Pentagon was preparing to engage in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was not far from the minds of the president and the lawmakers.
Afghanistan would be the tipping point of America's resolve to deal with the Islamist extremism question; whether it would be allowed to persist and continue to disturb the peace in the world, or to be crushed and be made perfectly clear to all the nations that practiced the Islamic religion that, no one was against them. They must accept the existence of other religions and recognize that the only way that all nations could live together was by peaceful co-existence.
With Iran would come the assurance that the proliferation of nuclear weapons has to stop; and that the government's orders for the Pentagon to use a bunker-busting bomb, called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), to eliminate and destroy Iranian uranium enrichment facilities would send a message to those who were aspiring to acquire nuclear bomb making technology, be they North Korea or Venezuela.
Pentagon's request has previously been made in a classified notification document, displayed on ABC News site, to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees during this summer, to "accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers."; and that the notification appearing publicly in the news indicated that an approval has been given.
It now behooved Iran to come clean and work things out peaceably with the U.S. government before too late; for under the circumstances, and with Iran's secrecy of its nuclear program, it would not be long now, when its ambition to equip itself with nuclear weapons, would be relegated into the doldrums of world history.
Any damage done, after the fact, would not be the Obama administration's fault, if the bombing should take place during his (Obama's) watch; however, the fact remained that some action on the part of the administration dealing with Iran was imminent; and it would be that Iran should have considered the resolve of the president to rid the world of nuclear weapons in his speech at the United Nations Organization General Assembly meeting only a couple of weeks ago.
His administration's objective was also spelled out in the orders given the Pentagon to pursue in dealing with Iran; and that has been made exceptionally clear in the aforementioned government notification.
'Urgent Operational Need'
" The notification was tucked inside a 93-page "reprogramming" request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.
Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).", Article, J. Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? 10/06/09, 2009. Retrieved 10/07/09 2009, Website, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-preparing-bomb-iran/story?id=8765343
The decision on Iran's determination to overrule the U.N. Security Council resolution on disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which was chaired by President Obama himself, was as necessary as one on troops increase in Afghanistan; and they must be made with all the seriousness they required.
The U.S. foreign policy would remain "sacrosanct" and blameless; and no amount of criticisms would be deemed as proper or reasonable against the notion that it sought to bring about a new world order that would cater to the peace of all humankind.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
THE INTERNET AND THE ORDINARY PERSON.
The control of the Web would be a disastrous adventure on the part of the government. It would curb the freedom that people had known since the beginning of time. It would decimate many lives.
In an article under "Opinion" titled, Obama Wants to Control the Web, on FOX News website, it seemed frightening to the point that the FCC would soon be shoving so much regulatory measures on the Internet; and it was a wonder that charging a fee or a monthly payment of some kind before the ordinary people could comment on an issue on the Web, let alone blog, as the case might be, to derive any kind of income, was not one of those measures.
However, when that should happen, only big business could go online (the Web) and present whatever they desired to push on the public. Why? Because they could afford any type of a fee or payment to the government, irrespective of how high it was. They would, in effect, had bought and paid for the Internet; and like the newspapers, TV, radio, magazines and other forms of (the) media, only the rich, the powerful and the affluent could afford to use it.
It would only be a privilege for the man in the street to contribute to the Internet or the Web, when he was in the news through a plane crash or an automobile accident, or something like a mugging happening to him. He would be sealed in to the same extent that we saw today, with big business having a self acquired enterprise by coercion of the government through money over those media mentioned above; using influential law firms to fight any violations.
We all knew what the government was attempting to do, and that was to make certain that there was no domination of any kind by any group or, for that matter, by the capitalist corporations, who have made the airwaves and the print media their personal properties, and were milking society, as a fleece sucked the blood out of a mule. They saw society as a carcase, and even though it was dead, they would kick it anyway. Or those who were raking in vast sums of money by way of pornography.
They were the ones to be controlled, and not the student, or a housewife with children to feed, or a retiree school teacher, or just out of luck, unemployed person, who could not get a sanitation job even if he or she tried to; but he or she could write and make a living out of it (writing) through the Web.
The FTC (the Federal Trade Commission) vote of 4-0 to regulate "blogging" was so frightening, it left mothers and unemployed fathers, as well as debt riddled people, with poor students among them, crying their eyes out. They knew that the word "regulation" meant nothing but control of the only medium, the Web, that has truly bestowed freedom on human kind; and was the exercise of that freedom going to be taken away? Good grief.
Under the tutelage of a White House staffer by the name of Susan Crawford, who happened to be a well known Marxist socialist, and who has been organizing the "OneWebDay", along side the radical environmental Earth Day campaign idealists, who just wanted to bamboozle everyone, but themselves that they were the ones to restore the biomes of the world; and she being the Internet Czar, has been using that same word quite frivolously, calling it the neutrality regulation, to enhance her agenda to revolutionize the information industry, and for that matter, the whole world's media, including the Web, of course.
Therefore, the ordinary person has once again been caught between the capitalists, who had the profits to be able to afford to eat a $1500 dollar lunch, and the socialist activists, who wanted to correct the inadequacies that allowed such people to exist, but could not do so without soliciting them (capitalists) to help them (socialists) to achieve their aim, which was the total socialistic transformation of the Web. An Internet revolution that would remove the liberties that all people should equally have.
At this juncture, they would forget that they were sworn enemies; and they would clamp it down in such a way that only the very rich could afford to use it; whilst they, the same capitalist conglomerates, continued to derive their profits by the exploitation of the underprivileged, the common man and woman in the street.
Regulations? Yes; but only on those that deserved them.
In an article under "Opinion" titled, Obama Wants to Control the Web, on FOX News website, it seemed frightening to the point that the FCC would soon be shoving so much regulatory measures on the Internet; and it was a wonder that charging a fee or a monthly payment of some kind before the ordinary people could comment on an issue on the Web, let alone blog, as the case might be, to derive any kind of income, was not one of those measures.
However, when that should happen, only big business could go online (the Web) and present whatever they desired to push on the public. Why? Because they could afford any type of a fee or payment to the government, irrespective of how high it was. They would, in effect, had bought and paid for the Internet; and like the newspapers, TV, radio, magazines and other forms of (the) media, only the rich, the powerful and the affluent could afford to use it.
It would only be a privilege for the man in the street to contribute to the Internet or the Web, when he was in the news through a plane crash or an automobile accident, or something like a mugging happening to him. He would be sealed in to the same extent that we saw today, with big business having a self acquired enterprise by coercion of the government through money over those media mentioned above; using influential law firms to fight any violations.
We all knew what the government was attempting to do, and that was to make certain that there was no domination of any kind by any group or, for that matter, by the capitalist corporations, who have made the airwaves and the print media their personal properties, and were milking society, as a fleece sucked the blood out of a mule. They saw society as a carcase, and even though it was dead, they would kick it anyway. Or those who were raking in vast sums of money by way of pornography.
They were the ones to be controlled, and not the student, or a housewife with children to feed, or a retiree school teacher, or just out of luck, unemployed person, who could not get a sanitation job even if he or she tried to; but he or she could write and make a living out of it (writing) through the Web.
The FTC (the Federal Trade Commission) vote of 4-0 to regulate "blogging" was so frightening, it left mothers and unemployed fathers, as well as debt riddled people, with poor students among them, crying their eyes out. They knew that the word "regulation" meant nothing but control of the only medium, the Web, that has truly bestowed freedom on human kind; and was the exercise of that freedom going to be taken away? Good grief.
Under the tutelage of a White House staffer by the name of Susan Crawford, who happened to be a well known Marxist socialist, and who has been organizing the "OneWebDay", along side the radical environmental Earth Day campaign idealists, who just wanted to bamboozle everyone, but themselves that they were the ones to restore the biomes of the world; and she being the Internet Czar, has been using that same word quite frivolously, calling it the neutrality regulation, to enhance her agenda to revolutionize the information industry, and for that matter, the whole world's media, including the Web, of course.
Therefore, the ordinary person has once again been caught between the capitalists, who had the profits to be able to afford to eat a $1500 dollar lunch, and the socialist activists, who wanted to correct the inadequacies that allowed such people to exist, but could not do so without soliciting them (capitalists) to help them (socialists) to achieve their aim, which was the total socialistic transformation of the Web. An Internet revolution that would remove the liberties that all people should equally have.
At this juncture, they would forget that they were sworn enemies; and they would clamp it down in such a way that only the very rich could afford to use it; whilst they, the same capitalist conglomerates, continued to derive their profits by the exploitation of the underprivileged, the common man and woman in the street.
Regulations? Yes; but only on those that deserved them.
Monday, October 5, 2009
THE GENERAL VERSUS THE GENERAL.
The tug-of-war that is going on in the United States now is quite obvious; with the top troop commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal saying that more troops are needed for the war effort, on the one hand, and National Security Adviser Jim Jones somehow quipping that, "I don't foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling," on the other.
The Sunday news programs were divided as well, leaving no room for error of "either you do or you don't" for President Obama; and therefore there was no doubt that the White House was in a quandary, to say the least.
However, the commitment to root out the insurgency was still at the top of the list, as the public has been led to believe by the numerous statements of the president. His administration's desire was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda by all means.
Yet, in war, there should not be any waiting; and the time that was elapsing between now and when a decision would be made, one way or another, was very critical. If it was decided for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, it would take at least four to five months to have them on the ground; while, if other strategies that were being developed to remedy the situation, would come at the appropriate period for the administration to see any tangible results that those strategies were working to benefit the general and the troops fighting the Afghan war, was also debatable if not questionable. In other words, there was no assurance of that happening.
Eight soldiers were killed on Saturday morning, when a pair of remote outposts were attacked by militant fighters streaming from an Afghan village and a mosque; and surely that was not a factor to support the assumption by Gen. Jim Jones that Afghanistan was not in imminent danger of the Taliban. The other general (McChrystal) was comparing the war with the game of football and said in a speech to the IISS in London, in effect, that it was easy to look at the scoreboard in a game, but it was not at all easy to view statistics that favored the other side in a war.
Every minute should count; every attack should be looked on as the enemy becoming bold every passing day, and being able to offset the progress of advances made by the U.S. soldiers; and every U.S. soldier's life lost must be felt in hearts of all Americans. There should therefore be no holdup in the decision making process of the Obama government to get the Afghanistan issue resolved.
Time was what nobody had; definitely not the general, and not the national security adviser, and certainly, not the president. A decision should be imminent rather than a delay. A decision on the war on terror should even be more imminent.
The Sunday news programs were divided as well, leaving no room for error of "either you do or you don't" for President Obama; and therefore there was no doubt that the White House was in a quandary, to say the least.
However, the commitment to root out the insurgency was still at the top of the list, as the public has been led to believe by the numerous statements of the president. His administration's desire was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda by all means.
Yet, in war, there should not be any waiting; and the time that was elapsing between now and when a decision would be made, one way or another, was very critical. If it was decided for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, it would take at least four to five months to have them on the ground; while, if other strategies that were being developed to remedy the situation, would come at the appropriate period for the administration to see any tangible results that those strategies were working to benefit the general and the troops fighting the Afghan war, was also debatable if not questionable. In other words, there was no assurance of that happening.
Eight soldiers were killed on Saturday morning, when a pair of remote outposts were attacked by militant fighters streaming from an Afghan village and a mosque; and surely that was not a factor to support the assumption by Gen. Jim Jones that Afghanistan was not in imminent danger of the Taliban. The other general (McChrystal) was comparing the war with the game of football and said in a speech to the IISS in London, in effect, that it was easy to look at the scoreboard in a game, but it was not at all easy to view statistics that favored the other side in a war.
Every minute should count; every attack should be looked on as the enemy becoming bold every passing day, and being able to offset the progress of advances made by the U.S. soldiers; and every U.S. soldier's life lost must be felt in hearts of all Americans. There should therefore be no holdup in the decision making process of the Obama government to get the Afghanistan issue resolved.
Time was what nobody had; definitely not the general, and not the national security adviser, and certainly, not the president. A decision should be imminent rather than a delay. A decision on the war on terror should even be more imminent.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
OBAMA AND THE IOC.
The 2016 Olympic bid was not a fiasco after all, for it did not make news headlines in the United States the day after, although it might probably have done so in Copenhagen, Denmark or Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
The general public was not criticizing President Obama's trip either, because he was there not just as president, but also as a representative of Chicago, the city he and his family had called their home before they moved to the White House.
There would have been those who would say that he should not have gone, while others would have said the opposite. All in all, only FOX News (TV) had some comment to make on Mr. Obama's engagement in the voting of the IOC in Copenhagen, but it (comment) was not sterile (lacking the power to function); so not many Americans paid any attention to it.
Also, somehow, it was fruitful, because the president had the chance to meet with Gen. McChrystal on Air Force One to discuss obviously the war in Afghanistan; and the two men got to know each other better, no matter how short the time they spent together was. The president might have assured the general that the United States government was squarely and securely behind the effort to defeat the Taliban; and that he and his advisers were seriously looking into the general's demand for more troops there.
He Gen. McChrystal, the top military general in Afghanistan, was in London for a speech; and he traveled to Copenhagen at the president's request; and with the president being the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, he took the opportunity to get the facts of the Afghan war "from the horse's mouth", so to speak. The meeting was very "productive" by all accounts, judging from the reports about it.
It was a fairly good trip for the president, with his wife, Michelle, in toe, and in support for the bid to get the 2016 Olympic Games to take place in the Windy City. Oprah Winfrey (of the famous Oprah Winfrey Show) was also there to back him to bring something special to America, once again, that would make everyone proud.
He was never putting his reputation on the line, because he did not do it for himself, but for a city that he and his family really loved, Chicago.
P.S. This blog only does give credit where credit is due. It is no supporter of any person or group, politically or otherwise.
P.P.S. The I.O.C. is the International Olympic Committee.
The general public was not criticizing President Obama's trip either, because he was there not just as president, but also as a representative of Chicago, the city he and his family had called their home before they moved to the White House.
There would have been those who would say that he should not have gone, while others would have said the opposite. All in all, only FOX News (TV) had some comment to make on Mr. Obama's engagement in the voting of the IOC in Copenhagen, but it (comment) was not sterile (lacking the power to function); so not many Americans paid any attention to it.
Also, somehow, it was fruitful, because the president had the chance to meet with Gen. McChrystal on Air Force One to discuss obviously the war in Afghanistan; and the two men got to know each other better, no matter how short the time they spent together was. The president might have assured the general that the United States government was squarely and securely behind the effort to defeat the Taliban; and that he and his advisers were seriously looking into the general's demand for more troops there.
He Gen. McChrystal, the top military general in Afghanistan, was in London for a speech; and he traveled to Copenhagen at the president's request; and with the president being the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, he took the opportunity to get the facts of the Afghan war "from the horse's mouth", so to speak. The meeting was very "productive" by all accounts, judging from the reports about it.
It was a fairly good trip for the president, with his wife, Michelle, in toe, and in support for the bid to get the 2016 Olympic Games to take place in the Windy City. Oprah Winfrey (of the famous Oprah Winfrey Show) was also there to back him to bring something special to America, once again, that would make everyone proud.
He was never putting his reputation on the line, because he did not do it for himself, but for a city that he and his family really loved, Chicago.
P.S. This blog only does give credit where credit is due. It is no supporter of any person or group, politically or otherwise.
P.P.S. The I.O.C. is the International Olympic Committee.
Friday, October 2, 2009
OBAMA'S DENMARK TRIP.
The trip to Denmark to lobby Olympic leaders to give the 2016 Summer Games to Chicago would just be a respite that President Obama needed from his former political perch, when he used to be just a Senator from Chicago.
Moving into the White House must have considerably changed his outlook on life to the realization that politics as a whole was a "different kettle of fish", and that he must change some of his ideological positions and become politically mainstream, which was sometimes referred to as "middle of the road" position in the political world, to be able handle himself well, or failure would be stirring him in the face.
He has definitely got himself in a kind of a clutch, which was not sustainable with liberal thinking. He could only sustain himself with "free thought", which was entirely different from the former; and which the general American political philosophy allowed every citizen to be involved in. That was the original basis of free speech inducted into the American Constitution by its writers, to enable each person to hold his or her own thoughts and to express them outwardly whenever that was necessary.
Previously, he had surrounded himself with thoughts, some of which were radical, because some of his advisers were to the left of the political aisle, obviously; and he had the right to accept what was being dished out to him, for future political inclination's sake; however, presently, he was surrounded with expert advisers, whose advise he has the obligation to accept to be able to run the country as its president.
The responsibilities have become great, with domestic policies that he must pursue, as well as international issues that were so pressing and needed him to rethink his views in order to align himself with the realities of this world more than anything else to be able to cope with them.
Health Care reform, the bailout for the car and motor industry, the economy, and the streamlining of regulations for the banks and Wall Street, high Unemployment, Guantanamo, which was turning out to be a debacle, the CIA criminal investigation; the war in Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear controversy; plus Army Gen, Ray Odierno's report that the time limit of troop withdrawal in Iraq was unrealistic ; etc. etc.; all would cause him to need a break, hence his decision to make it to Denmark.
It would only be a good thing for himself, personally; and for the nation as a whole, to have him succeed in his quest to bring the Summer Olympic Games to Chicago. The little time that he would spend there, though very costly in terms of (the) national budget, would be worthwhile; and also he was entitled to a respite, only once, now and then, to properly perform his duties as president of the United States.
Moving into the White House must have considerably changed his outlook on life to the realization that politics as a whole was a "different kettle of fish", and that he must change some of his ideological positions and become politically mainstream, which was sometimes referred to as "middle of the road" position in the political world, to be able handle himself well, or failure would be stirring him in the face.
He has definitely got himself in a kind of a clutch, which was not sustainable with liberal thinking. He could only sustain himself with "free thought", which was entirely different from the former; and which the general American political philosophy allowed every citizen to be involved in. That was the original basis of free speech inducted into the American Constitution by its writers, to enable each person to hold his or her own thoughts and to express them outwardly whenever that was necessary.
Previously, he had surrounded himself with thoughts, some of which were radical, because some of his advisers were to the left of the political aisle, obviously; and he had the right to accept what was being dished out to him, for future political inclination's sake; however, presently, he was surrounded with expert advisers, whose advise he has the obligation to accept to be able to run the country as its president.
The responsibilities have become great, with domestic policies that he must pursue, as well as international issues that were so pressing and needed him to rethink his views in order to align himself with the realities of this world more than anything else to be able to cope with them.
Health Care reform, the bailout for the car and motor industry, the economy, and the streamlining of regulations for the banks and Wall Street, high Unemployment, Guantanamo, which was turning out to be a debacle, the CIA criminal investigation; the war in Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear controversy; plus Army Gen, Ray Odierno's report that the time limit of troop withdrawal in Iraq was unrealistic ; etc. etc.; all would cause him to need a break, hence his decision to make it to Denmark.
It would only be a good thing for himself, personally; and for the nation as a whole, to have him succeed in his quest to bring the Summer Olympic Games to Chicago. The little time that he would spend there, though very costly in terms of (the) national budget, would be worthwhile; and also he was entitled to a respite, only once, now and then, to properly perform his duties as president of the United States.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
AFGHANISTAN WAR DECISION.
Presidents were meant to make tough decisions; it was only how to prioritize them that made the position unique and the expression, "The Buck Stops Here", meaningful.
Though, the war room in the White House, yesterday, was filled with high caliber politicians, top military strategists and expert advisers, who could analyze all types of situations and come up with several astute answers; but they were all there to assist the one person, who's word was vital to change any situation, one way or another, the president.
The Afghan war demanded that without more troops to impact an already complicated war against a resilient insurgency, it was just putting the men and women on the ground at risk, for insufficient back up of more soldiers to stabilize captured civilian populated parts of the country; a scenario, which, if it was not tackled with much precision tactics and a quickness of strong approach, could cause the United States and its Allies to fail, not just in Afghanistan.
The security of the whole region would drastically be affected, as the Taliban and Al Qaeda took control of that area of the world. Pakistan, which happened to be a nuclear power, would become more insecure, with having the military there in disarray; the economy in a confused state, and leaving a civilian political turmoil to persist.
President Obama and NATO's secretary-general met in the Oval Office last Tuesday to discuss the war in Afghanistan, and reached the conclusion that NATO's engagement there was strategically important and necessary. The Secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was shown on TV to have said that he was confident that "U.S. and allied troops will remain in Afghanistan (for) as long as it takes."
It was obvious that they had also discussed Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops, and that it was a priority and an urgency that should and could not wait. It must be acted upon without delay.
Surely, it was also difficult to put more men and women in harms way; however the dangers that confronted the world were far more critical, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda eventually gaining possession of nuclear Pakistan; Iran acquiring nuclear bomb making know-how, etc. etc.; and therefore, nothing should deter the president; not even his trip to Denmark to "push to land Chicago 2016 Olympic bid", from making a swift decision on the question of troop deployment to Afghanistan, as the generals there were demanding.
It would be a tough decision; but it was also a priority, and it would need to be expedited by the president on the premise that "the buck stops here", when the whole world was at risk.
Though, the war room in the White House, yesterday, was filled with high caliber politicians, top military strategists and expert advisers, who could analyze all types of situations and come up with several astute answers; but they were all there to assist the one person, who's word was vital to change any situation, one way or another, the president.
The Afghan war demanded that without more troops to impact an already complicated war against a resilient insurgency, it was just putting the men and women on the ground at risk, for insufficient back up of more soldiers to stabilize captured civilian populated parts of the country; a scenario, which, if it was not tackled with much precision tactics and a quickness of strong approach, could cause the United States and its Allies to fail, not just in Afghanistan.
The security of the whole region would drastically be affected, as the Taliban and Al Qaeda took control of that area of the world. Pakistan, which happened to be a nuclear power, would become more insecure, with having the military there in disarray; the economy in a confused state, and leaving a civilian political turmoil to persist.
President Obama and NATO's secretary-general met in the Oval Office last Tuesday to discuss the war in Afghanistan, and reached the conclusion that NATO's engagement there was strategically important and necessary. The Secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was shown on TV to have said that he was confident that "U.S. and allied troops will remain in Afghanistan (for) as long as it takes."
It was obvious that they had also discussed Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops, and that it was a priority and an urgency that should and could not wait. It must be acted upon without delay.
Surely, it was also difficult to put more men and women in harms way; however the dangers that confronted the world were far more critical, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda eventually gaining possession of nuclear Pakistan; Iran acquiring nuclear bomb making know-how, etc. etc.; and therefore, nothing should deter the president; not even his trip to Denmark to "push to land Chicago 2016 Olympic bid", from making a swift decision on the question of troop deployment to Afghanistan, as the generals there were demanding.
It would be a tough decision; but it was also a priority, and it would need to be expedited by the president on the premise that "the buck stops here", when the whole world was at risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)