Question of the Night

Could Obama have handled the Afghanistan war better?

I admit, this is a bit of a trick question. During the 2008 election, I felt bad for whoever was handed this shit sandwich after winning in November -- I didn't think there were any good choices then, and I still don't now. Maybe the best choice would have been to pull troops out immediately starting in 2009, but Republicans would have hammered Obama for that choice until Kingdom Come. And while I could criticize Obama for playing politics by setting timetables for troop withdrawls to be completed after the 2012 election, it's not like he had this other, obviously better option to go with.

In fact, any time I try thinking of what Obama is responsible for in Afghanistan, I keep circling back to the Bush Administration. It was Bush who ignored Afghanistan to wage a needless war in Iraq. It was Bush who installed the ineffective Karzai, who has delusions of dictatorship. It was Bush who never built up Afghanistan's defense forces to secure the country before he left office. Bush had six years to do this and he didn't get past square one. Indeed, one has to question how much of a united polity Afghanistan is -- as opposed to a loose federation of tribes who aren't friendly with each other under an arbitrary national border -- yet it was Bush who convinced that we could go "nation building" in Afghanistan. It was also Bush who oversaw a corrupt national rebuilding effort in Afghanistan where the military gave money to contractors, who took a cut and hired other contractors, who took a cut and... Well, you get the picture. Who knows how many pennies were left to build a school after this process, all to have that school destroyed by the Taliban because we never built up Afghan's security forces to protect the country.

And now... Well, Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, and we're in "peace talks" with the brutal Taliban regime our military pledged to defeat; yet cannot defeat because, like bin Laden, the Taliban take refuge in Pakistan. So we're fighting a war we're not sure we can even war in the wrong place.

This is the definition of a "clusterfuck". Obama's crime lies in continuing the Afghanistan war, and he didn't have much choice in the matter when he entered office.

So the blame for this mess lies solely with former President Bush. This $429 billion mistake, funded after Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, must be considered a major reason for why our country is broke and discussing austerity measures right now. Indeed, this is how Bush's shameful legacy will effect us for years to come.

Why Litbrit Right About Rules Mattering

I was perplexed by this Joy-Ann Reid post.

Liberals theoretically despise George W. Bush, but in reality, they want Barack Obama to BE George W. Bush — flouting the rules and flouting Congress, while liberal members of Congress appear to have been so trained by the Bush era to follow the White House’s lead, they desperately need Obama to tell them what to do, and to “fight” (ill-defined) before they’re willing or able to do their jobs.

Fellow PR blogger Litbrit has been a longtime fan of Barack Obama. That is until Obama floated the rules.

The last straw was not, as I thought most likely, the president's unnecessary caving in to the obstructionist Republican minority in Congress and extending the costly Bushian tax cuts for wealthy Americans. No, it was this nasty Wikileaks revelation--about the current White House administration's despicable sotto voce attempts to strong-arm certain more law-abiding (and probably more morally-upright) foreign governments and thus stymie war crimes investigations abroad--which sparked my own epiphany. I realized that despite my having passionately called for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their war crimes back in 2007 (great comment thread there at Ezra's old place, if you've got time), I was now at a point where I was allowing others--even some fellow lefties--to (nearly) convince me of how politically inexpedient, how inconvenient, and how costly-to-the-national-morale such war crimes investigations would be. And I was also--mistakenly (oh how mistaken I was!)--believing, all along, that President Obama would eventually turn his seemingly robust moral attentions to the ugly task of holding the criminals accountable. I could wait; it would happen. I was wrong. Jonathan Turley sums it up nicely:

Sadly, I was one of those people telling Litbrit impeachment would be a waste of political energy. I realize now how wrong I am.

Litbrit wants and expects the President to honor the "rules" we call international law. Litbrit blogged about another Wikileaks revelation. A June 24, 2009, a cable between US assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli and Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar reveals private defense contractors (aka mercenaries) DynCorp used children for paid sexual services.

1. (C) SUMMARY: Assistant Ambassador Mussomeli discussed a range of issues with Minister of Interior (MoI) Hanif Atmar on June 23. On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would "endanger lives." He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of "purchasing a service from a child." He pressed for CSTC-A to be given full control over the police training program, including contractors. Mussomeli counseled that an overreaction by the Afghan goverment (GIRoA) would only increase chances for the greater publicity the MoI is trying to forestall.

The Guardian Reports the Obama administration got a Washington Post reporter to bury the story. What the Washington Post failed to report was young Afghan boys ages 8 to 15 years-old were sexually molested by two Afghan police officers and other men at a party thrown by DynCorp. The children are called Bacha boys. The boys wear make-up and women's clothes. They dance for men and are their sexual services are sold off to the highest bidder. Frontline did a story on the hidious practice.



Reid is wrong. Progressives are mad because policies like this hurt America. It is hard to cheer on Obama when his tax cut package will raise taxes on those making under $30,000. It is hard to believe that are foreign policy will become sane when the Obama administration cover up child rape. I wish Obama would have more respect for the rules and so does Litbrit.

Obama Has No Afghanistan Strategy

Another example of why President Obama is not a policy wonk or takes policy seriously: special adviser Richard Holbrooke announced that the United States has no exit strategy for Afghanistan.

"We do not have an exit strategy but a transition strategy," Holbrooke said, adding that "2014 is not the end of international presence in Afghanistan (but) to be sure there will be some drawdown (of troops) in July next year. The size and pace will be decided by the president."

Translation: the Obama administration is winging this. Last year, Robert Gibbs told Chip Reid of CBS News that the 2011 withdrawal date was "locked" in. Gibbs' statement contradicted those of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Sec. of Defense Robert Gates. Both said that their offices had made no plans for withdawal in 2011. Bob Woodward reported that General David Petraeus has refused to provide President Obama with an exit strategy for Afghanistan. Obama could have fired Petraeus for insubordination. Obama chose political safety over firing a General who undermined his own policy.

We now know the the 2011 date is not "locked" in. Obama's promise of Afghan police and military ready to fend for themselves by 2011 was pure fantasy. Obama has never adequately addressed what is the mission in Afghanistan. Reports indicate al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have moved to Pakistan.

During the election, Obama hinted at sending in troops into Pakistan. With the expection of special forces and predator drones; Obama has not given any indication of using full military manpower to invade al-Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan.

In 2009, military contractors outnumbered troops in Afghanistan. Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote a highly controversial article in The Washington Monthly making the case to reinstitute the draft.

But there's a deeper problem, one that any president who chose to invade a country the size of Iraq would have faced. In short, America's all-volunteer military simply cannot deploy and sustain enough troops to succeed in places like Iraq while still deterring threats elsewhere in the world. Simply adding more soldiers to the active duty force, as some are now suggesting, may sound like a good solution. But it's not, for sound operational and pragmatic reasons. America doesn't need a bigger standing army; it needs a deep bench of trained soldiers held in reserve who can be mobilized to handle the unpredictable but unevitable wars and humanitarian interventions of the future. And while there are several ways for an all-volunteer force can create some extra surge capacity, all of them are limited.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it more difficult to retain and recruit soldiers. This is why the United States has relied heavily on contractors. These military contractors do not report to the military chain of command have endangered U.S. troops and civilians. Obama will keep using contractors because he knows the draft would be highly unpopular with the American public.

Obama's Afghanistan policy has nothing to do with defeating al-Qaeda or killing Osama bin Laden. Obama isn't willing to institute a policy that would remove troops from Afghanistan or defeat the al-Qaeda network in Pakistan. Obama is looking for a solution that will cause him the least amount of political pain. Unfortunately, brave men and women will die because Obama is more concerned with being elected for a second term.

Quote of the Day

"The first thing I think we need to do is to make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. And when I say safe haven, I'm not talking about that there isn't a possibility of a terrorist in Afghanistan. I'm saying that when you look at other countries similarly situated - Somalia, Yemem, other countries - that Afghanistan is at least as safe as those countries."

Ken Buck, Republican Senate candidate.

Buck has an unusual definition of safe. This reminds me of John McCain claiming, in 2007, that their were safe neighborhoods in Baghdad. CNN reporter Michael Ware quickly laid waste to that myth.

Well, Id like to bring Senator McCain up to speed, if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now, Wolf, that's because of the helicopter circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing just a few blocks down the road.

Yep. Safe.

Bob Woodward on Morning Joe

Bob Woodward talks to Joe Scarborough about the problems President Barack Obama faces with Afghanistan, the CIA and his own military generals. Woodward wrote that Gen. David Petraeus refused to give President Obama an exit strategy for Afghanistan.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page “terms sheet” that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in “Obama’s Wars,” to be released on Monday.

According to Woodward’s meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

“This needs to be a plan about how we’re going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan,” Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. “Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room.”

Petraeus's reaction was, "They fucked with the wrong guy." Petraeus's only strategy was to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

Gen. Petraeus on Dove World Outreach Center

The Dove World Outreach Center plans to continue with their attempt to burn the Koran on September 11th. Gen. David Petraeus told the Associated Press, "Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan - and around the world - to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

DWOC Pastor Terry Jones told AP was going to "stand up." What exactly is Jones standing up for is unclear.

"We are at this time not going to cancel it. We're still considering it and praying about it," Jones told The Associated Press. "We are also just also concerned and wondering, when do we stop? How much do we back down? ... Instead of us backing down, maybe it's to time to stand up."

Jones has never really made it clear what he is standing up for? Jones has admitted on Hardball that hehas never read the Koran. Jones has not clearly articulated what he expects to achieve from the Koran burning. What is known is Jones runs a church with a less than 50 congregation. Most people would not know who Jone is if he didn't use every media opportunity to promote book burning.

In Kabul, Afghanistan, protests against the DWOC has resulted "Death to America" chants. If Jones's plan was to piss off Afghans and endanger American troops then mission accomplished. I hope this little man enjoys his 15 minutes of fame.

Update: Charlie Crist tells the media he is against Koran burning.

"It's important to understand tolerance. This is a divisive issue on several levels. It obviously was stimulated by the mosque and its location in New York, and I think New York officials are the best to decide whether that's appropriate, but we're a country that was based on religious freedom. Sometimes freedom isn't easy but it's important to respect."

Joel Award: Barack Obama

It is time to give out the Joel Award. The award goes to any celebrity, pundit, blogger or politician that purposely contradicts himself or herself.

President Barack Obama wins his second Joel award of the month. The Huffington Post made a video to illustrate the stark differences Sen. Obama and President Obama had on Afghanistan. President Obama is starting to sound like President Bush in urging Americans to be patient just a little longer on Afghanistan. The trouble is the Afghanistan war is nearly a decade old.

Friday Cat Blogging

U.S. Marines Brian Chambers, Chris Berry and Aaron Shaw rescued Kiki and Keykey and helped bring them to the United States. You can read the story and see more pictures at Unique Scoop.

Hat Tip to Jill.

Quote of the Day

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."...

"It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."

RNC Chairman Michael Steele

President Barack Barack Obama used his awesome time-traveling powers and won the 2000 presidential election. Obama then asked the 2002 Congress to declare war. President Obama had the 22 amendment repealed and won a third term. Curse the evil time-traveling socialist ways of Obama.

Grayson Against Afghanistan Surge

Alan Grayson is breaking with President Barack Obama on Afghanistan.

“Isn’t it more important to make sure 47 million Americans can go see a doctor when they need to, than it is send our young men and women across an ocean and across a continent to fight who knows what,” he said in a press conference. “Isn’t it more important to spend our money on schools instead of bullets?”

I wonder how long it is until other Democrats started breaking ranks. I originally supported Gen. McChrystal additional troop request. Obama's confusing West Point speech changed my opinion. I don't believe Obama thinks Afghanistan is worth fighting for. The President sent troops for his political survival. It is hard to respect a man that places his re-election hopes above the lives of young men and women in uniform.

Domestic Violence in Afghanistan

This is a horrifying video of a Afghan woman whom had her face and ear cut off by her husband. This same abusive man poured hot water on his child. There is absolutely no excuse for a man to do this to his wife and child. The Afghanistan culture is so back ass. I wish I knew how to stop this knid of violent behavior. Whether it is the Taliban or the United States controlling the provinces, the vicious cycle of violence against women and children continues.

No Deadline For Afghanistan Withdrawal

Sec. of Defense Robert Gates and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton told Bob Schieffer there is no absolute deadline to pull troops out of Afghanistan. Gates and Clinton do their best to spin. The fact is President Barack Obama said troops will start pulling out in July of 2011.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs told CBS News Chip Reid the july 2001 deadline was locked in. Troops would be coming home at the deadline. Clinton and Gates are publicly stating there is no guarantee of U.S. military personal coming back at that time.

SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Secretary, is there a deadline or is there not?

GATES: There isn’t a deadline. What we have is a specific date on which we will begin transferring responsibility for security district by district, province by province in Afghanistan to the Afghans. The process of that and the subsequent thinning of our forces will take place over a period of time and will happen and will be done based on conditions on the ground. And the decision on that will be made by our commanders in the field.

Clinton told Schieffer troops will come home based "on conditions on the ground."

SCHIEFFER: But does that mean, Madame Secretary, that American forces will still be there as we start… That they’re not going to start bringing the troops home? That we’ll just begin handing over responsibility?

CLINTON: No, it means that as we assess the conditions on the ground we will be transferring responsibility to the Afghans. And depending on the assessment at the time, that means some of our troops can begin coming home. I think that…

SCHIEFFER: Can begin coming home?

CLINTON: Absolutely, can begin coming home.

SCHIEFFER: But not will begin coming home?

The Obama administration is starting to sound like the Bush administration. I have been hawkish on Afghanistan and was hoping for an increase in Special Forces missions into Pakistan to hunt down al-Qaeda. There is no talk about capturing or killing Osama bin Laden or destroying al-Qaeda in their Pakistan hiding places. (Or wherever the hell they are.) Obama is esculating a war with a fantasy of President Karzai's corrupt government being able to create military and police forces. Karzai wants America in Afghanistan forever. The moment America leaves his corrupt regime will leave.

Obama is playing centrist politics with Afghanistan. He doesn't want to be accused of being weak by Republicans. Obama also wants to keep the anti-war Democratic base happy with a deadline. The only thing Obama has successfully done is piss off both sides. This is cynical politics at it's worse.

Joel Award: Charles Krauthammer

It is time to give out the Joel Award. The award goes any celebrity, pundit, blogger or politician that purposely contradicts himself or herself.

This 2004 comedy gem by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer is worth revisiting. Krauthammer's neoconservative declares President Bush's Afghanistan invasion a resounding success.

President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.

In 2009, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai rigged the election to favor himself. Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali, is one of the most powerful heroin traffickers in the world. The Taliban presence is at it's strongest since the invasion. A 2007 International Council on Security and Development report found the Taliban controlled 54 percent of Afghanistan. Apparently, the Taliban didn't realize Krauthammer declared Bush the victor.

Krauthammer on President Barack Obama's West Point speech.

No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge -- Iraq 2007 -- with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching -- and salutary -- determination.

What about Bush's handling of Afghanistan in 2007. Krauthammer is suffering from selective memory loss. He declared mission accomplished in Afghanistan. For Afghanistan's sake Obama should avoid doing a Bush.

Krauthammer should be ignored on foreign policy matters. He argued for the Iraq invasion on the basis of weapons of mass destruction. His neocon heart supports torture. Do neocons, such as Krauthammer get to decide who is a terrorist? The neocons' track record wasn't so great on WMDs. How many innocent people will have to be tortured to satisfy Krauthammer's thirst for blood? If there are innocent people tortured don't expect, people like Krauthammer, to turn themselves in to the authorities. They might be tortured by the oppressive justice system they wished to create.

Obama Firm On Afghanistan Deadline

CBS News' Chip Reid reports President Barack Obama is going to stay firm on the July 2011 for troop withdrawal in Afghanistan.

I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.

I do not see Obama being able to keep that promise. The Hamid Karzai government is corrupt. Former Deputy Special Representative Peter Galbraith says he was ordered to cover up the fixed election.

“At other critical stages in the election process,” he wrote in The Washington Post, “I was similarly ordered not to pursue the issue of fraud.

The New York Times reports Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan's president, is a major player in the heroin trade. Afghanistan's CIA station chief attempted to have President Karzai move his brother out of the country to no avail.

The current number of Afghan born troops is 90,000. The police force is 93,000. Police jobs are auctioned off. High ranking police officers use their positions to enrich themselves. Afghanistan is ranked as the second most corrupt country in the world. There is no realistic way for Afghanistan to reach the benchmarks Obama has set.

David 'Dean' Broder Wrong Again

David Broder contends it is more important for President Barack Obama to make a quick decision on Afghanistan than be right.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

This foolish man is known has the "dean" of Beltway journalism. No wonder the D.C. media screwed up the pre-Iraq war WMD story.

Obama in Jacksonville

President Barack Obama visited the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida. The President spoke to pilots and sailors about Afghanistan. Obama did not reveal what his plans are for General Stanley A. McChrystal request for 40,000 more troops.

But Obama did not tip his hand on how he might decide.

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way," he said.

Obama promised military personal would not be forgotten and given the social service care they need.

Arianna Huffington Asks Joe Biden to Resign

Arianna Huffington tells Ron Reagan of Air America that Vice-President Joe Biden should resign in protest of U.S. troop increases to Afghanistan. Biden's opposition to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's 40,000 troop request earned him a Newsweek cover story. There was a fascinating exchange in the White House.

Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, "Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.

U.S. forces have pushed al-Qaeda into Pakistan. CBS News cheir foreign correspondant Lara Logan said Afghanistan is the spiritual home of al-Qaeda. The Taliban is intent on taking back Afghanistan. The Taliban will allow al-Qaeda to set up safe havens in Afghanistan. Logan states the Afghanistan government is too unstable to fight al-Qaeda. The questions about President Hamid Karzai's future also cloud matters. Members of the White House, leaked to the media, that they have lost confidence in Karzai. So far, the White House has not called for Karzai to publicly step down.

Biden is right about Pakistan. The Swat Valley has become an international human rights crisis. The Pakistani people were divided over the Taliban. The cruelity displayed by the Taliban turned the Pakistani people. President Barack Obama just signed a $7.5 billion aid bill for Pakistan. What the longterm policy for Pakistan is uncertain. The United States is launching predator drone attacks on terrorist targets.

The issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan demand someone that is willing to challenge the President. Vice-President Biden will do a greater service to his country in office than out. Resigning out of protest would draw headlines. The move would be a one time ploy and Biden would have no voice on policy once he leaves.

Harry Reid Gets Touchy With Nancy Pelosi

Politico reports of friction between Majority Leader Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on Afghanistan. Reid told reporters Democrats will support whatever troop level policy President Barack Obama backs. Television cameras recorded Pelosi moving away from Reid and rolling her eyes. I'm not sure if Pelosi reacted because of Reid's blanket endorsement for Obama's Afghistan policy or she was creeped out by being touched by Reid.



Glenn Thrush quotes sources saying Pelosi was not happy with Reid giving Obama carte blanche on Afghanistan. Pelosi told Politico that isn't true.

Pelosi insisted Wednesday that it wasn’t so, telling POLITICO that she was “not upset,” adding: “I don’t know where you would have heard such a thing.”

It is no secret that Pelosi is not thrilled about a troop increase for Afghanistan. The interesting development is the strain between Pelosi and the White House. The political dynamic is the neo-liberal Obama would rather work with Republicans than the progressive Pelosi. Pelosi has distanced herself from Obama's willingness to dump the public option. Afghanistan is another issue that will be unpopular with the Democratic House base. What is good for Obama politically and ideologically does not hold true for Pelosi.

The Afghanistan Question

MSNBC reports Sec. of Defense Robert Gates gave President Barack Obama General Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, before it was vetted NATO, General Petraeus and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Gates wanted Obama to read the request before the story was dominating the news cycle. My question is who leaked the request?

We know the White House was unhappy with Gen. McChrystal publicly stating the need for more troops at International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. There is no question McChrystal broke protocol. There may have been good reason. Obama met McChrystal was he was appointed the top military leader in Afghanistan. Obama did not meet McChrystal again until after the speech and leak. Did McChrystal or one of his officers leak the troop request because they felt Obama was ignoring Afghanistan?

Relations between Gen. McChrystal and the White House are in shambles. If Gen. McChrystal fails to deliver results the White House will make him own the Afghanistan policy.

I understand why Obama is being deliberate with Afghanistan. There is no margin for error. Is Obama intent on policy of solely hunting al-Qaeda or nation building? The White House has been silent on the rigged elections. The White President has recognized Hamid Karzai as the victor. Obama would be in denial if he believed Afghanistan could one day be a vibrant democracy.

The Left doesn't want an addition of 40,000 troops. Training Afghans to fight under the Karzai government would be a disaster. Karzai does not have the support of the people and has never shown the ability to govern. Karzai would flee the country and al-Qaeda would once again have Afghanistan as a safe haven. The Right has focused on Iraq. The Right hasn't bothered to learn Afghanistan's history or what is going on in the country. How many times have you heard Bill Kristol press the Afghanistan issue during the Bush years. The solutions to Afghanistan (if there is a solution) are outside the spectrum of political ideology.

Lara Logan on Colbert

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Road Ahead in Afghanistan - Lara Logan
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Stephen Colbert brings on Lara Logan to talk about the military strategy for Afghanistan.