On Topic: Afghanistan from the Right

Obama Hopes to Surge Forward…a Little Bit

Well, Mr. President, it’s about damn time. Since General McChrystal asked for more troops (all the way back in August) our president has finally made a decision about it. But before I get into all that, I have to take issue with the amount of time it has taken Mr. Obama to develop this plan. I mean August was what, 4 months ago, and this quote from Gen. McChrystal is all too telling:

“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

Well, Obama’s already managed to waste 4 months out of those 12, and how many American deaths have there been in Afghanistan since then? August was the deadliest month yet for our troops and these chilling charts show the dramatic rise in death since we first sent troops there.

There have been too many deaths while Obama has played golf, basketball, and focused on other things rather than winning the War on Terror. So, Mr. President thanks for finally doing something.

Now what about that something he has decided on? I have three issues. The first is this:  Rush made a great point on his show today about that fact that Obama traveled to West Point to make his speech rather than doing it from the Oval Office. So why all the pomp and circumstance? In my opinion it is because Obama has no credibility on winning the War on Terror. And so he must create this artificial backdrop to look presidential. What better way to do that than to give the speech in front of all our troops dressed in their military finest. It certainly makes a fine looking spectacle.

Second, I, like many Americans am tired of the war, but at the same time I want to win. I want our troops to come home victorious in battle. I don’t want all these years of fighting to be for not. And while I’m glad Obama is finally sending troops there, I wish the focus would be on defeating terrorism for good rather than having a lets-sort-of-do-something-and get-this-over-with-as-fast-as-possible-so-I-don’t-make-my-base-mad-at-me kind of mentality. I just don’t see how we as a country can be successful with that type of mentality. We must be focused on victory. But if McCrystal says Obama has given him what he needs, then so be it.

Finally, Obama talked about the cost of the these wars and about the toll it has taken on the American people economically. Well, yes that is true, but it infuriates me when Obama complains about the cost of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet has no problem with spending trillions on big government programs like health care, stimulus, and cap and trade. Priorities please!

I know that war is devastating, and innocent people are always destroyed by it. But sometimes it is a necessary evil. We cannot forget 9/11 and the 3000 innocent people that lost their lives that day. We cannot forget the millions of people we liberated during WWII, and we cannot forget that war is how we won our independence as a nation. Now we are fighting the tyranny of terrorism and we must not stop until that evil is rooted out and destroyed. After all, Bin Ladin is still out there, and he still hates America.

-Hannaloves27

Please check out Andrea’s take on O’s speech while you’re here for a different perspective.

Advertisements

3 Responses to On Topic: Afghanistan from the Right

  1. […] Be sure to check out Hanna’s post from the right. […]

  2. secularist10 says:

    “I want our troops to come home victorious in battle. I don’t want all these years of fighting to be for not.”

    In economics and business there is a concept called “sunk cost.” A sunk cost is a cost that was incurred in the past, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Therefore it should have no effect on our decisions about the present or the future. The troops that have died in the past are a sunk cost. The fact that they have died, and that the US has pursued this war to now, is irrelevant as to whether we should continue it.

    Regarding the issue of defeating Islamic terrorism, it can and will be defeated only when the US understands that the most effect way to do it is not primarily through military force (which just sparks more hatred and anti-Americanism), but through intelligence, police work and cultural and economic development. The military has a role, but not like this.

  3. greg says:

    hannah, this is really good. hate to sound like a broken record, but i totally agree…(see my response to andrea’s take…)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: