In deciding to pull all of the 30,000 troops from the surge out of Afghanistan, six weeks before Election Day 2012, but only 10,000 by year's end, President Obama has satisfied neither the generals nor the doves.
He has, however, well served his political interests.
A larger drawdown would have risked the gains made in Kandahar and Helmand and invited a revolt of the generals, some of whom might resign and denounce Obama for denying them the forces to prevail.
Sen. John McCain, citing some generals, is already saying that, with fewer troops and more missions per unit, U.S. casualties will rise.
A smaller drawdown would have enraged the left, whose support is indispensable to Obama's winning a second term.
So, our president did what comes naturally: cut the baby in half.
Strategically, removal of 30,000 troops in 15 months means that Obama has given up all hope of victory over the Taliban. Gen. MacArthur's dictum — "In war, there is no substitute for victory" — is inoperative in yet another American war.
Obama's strategic goal now is the avoidance of defeat, until the election of 2012 is behind him. And by retaining 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan during the fighting season and political season of 2012, he has an insurance policy against a Taliban Tet-style offensive or major U.S. military reversal as voters begin to fill out absentee ballots.
In the post-speech analysis, there was much chatter about a "political solution" — a peace conference including Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Iran that would bring the moderate Taliban and Karzai government together to iron out their differences.
This is self-delusion, born of hope not rational analysis.
Have we not been here before? With Mao's Communists and Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists being pushed toward a coalition by Gen. George Marshall in the late 1940s. With the Viet Cong and North and South Vietnamese making peace in Southeast Asia in 1973.
Like the old communists, the Taliban are all-or-nothing people.
They have a vision, an agenda grounded in religious faith about how a society should be structured, about how men and women should live. They fought their way to absolute power in the 1990s. And they have shown themselves more willing to die for their beliefs and leaders than the Afghan National Army,
This is not to denigrate the brave Afghan soldiers who have bled and died.
But the Taliban have not needed U.S. training, U.S. arms, U.S. air and fire support or U.S. paychecks to go into battle. All the suicide bombers who give up their lives are — Taliban.
They recruit themselves. And for 10 years the Taliban have battled U.S. soldiers and Marines, backed up by NATO troops, to what Gen. Stanley McChrystal called "a draw."
And if Afghanistan has become a stalemated war between the Americans and Taliban after a decade in which 1,600 Americans have given their lives and 12,000 have been wounded, how well will the Karzai regime and ANA make out when the Americans, the best soldiers in the world, depart, and they face the Taliban alone?
"This war does not lend itself to a military solution" is the cliche of the hour. And, surely, if the United States cannot achieve victory over the Taliban with 100,000 troops, we are unlikely to achieve it with 70,000, or however many may remain after 2014.
But has anyone heard the Taliban concede, "This war does not lend itself to a military solution"? Even should the Taliban come to the table and agree to compete democratically, does anyone think it will be faithful to a commitment given to the infidel Americans, once the infidel Americans depart? Why should they?
Over the next 15 months, the United States will be pulling out all or almost all of its 50,000 troops from Iraq, plus the 30,000 from the Afghan theater.
Our NATO allies will execute similar drawdowns.
This will leave Iraq up for grabs. But the Islamic world will see the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan for what it is: a retreat, forced upon a war-weary America by Islamic holy warriors who are the sons of the mujahedeen who drove out the Red Army in the 1980s and helped to bring down the Soviet Empire.
Make no mistake. Obama is headed for the exit ramp, and the Karzai government and Afghan army will not succeed where that same government and army, backed by 150,000 U.S. and NATO troops, could not succeed.
McCain and the neocons will blame what is coming, a terrible day in Kabul and across Afghanistan, on those who refused to soldier on, no matter the cost in blood and treasure.
But the people who should be indicted by history are not those who, after half a trillion dollars and a decade of bleeding, decided to cut America's losses, but those who stampeded this country into two of the longest and least necessary wars in the history of the republic.
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
6 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
What you and an awful lot of people don't seem toget, Mr. Buchanan, is that the president is a master salesman, and that is all that counts for the easily distracted minions of the Evil Empire (recall Luke and Obi Wan going right past the guards with a wave of the hand, some easy assurances, and a little jedi mind-trickery), and alas, for us too, the easily distracted and forgetful voting masses.
The sale, stupid, is what our political system is all about. What comes later is for punditroids like you to clean up.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:57 PM
|
|
|
|
---It's called 'Order out of Chaos' the strategy of creating, and managing conflict
and controlling all sides.
In short, 'Free Trade', Globalism and EUGENICS on the move.
Still waiting for Pat to call out that Globalist RED China TREASON op for what it is.
Putting his Rockefeller front CNP membership aside, he's not getting any younger and
eternity ---like TREASON ---is forever.
REALLY
Comment: #2
Posted by: free bee
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Buchanan,
I admire and respect you greatly. I have read a number of your books and am much in agreement with you in all that you write. However, in this article, you come across as "wanting your cake and to eat it too".
Precisely, just what would YOU do regarding a drawdown? I believe you and I would agree that this war was unwarranted and is bankrupting us as a nation.
You have written that the majority of the American people want out as well. In another instance you write that if we pull out altogether, it will be interpreted as admitting defeat with a great loss of global respect.
I too am tired of all the political Bullcrap. I know we as citizens have to put up with it, but if for a moment, you could disassociate yourself from that:
WHAT "EXACTLY" WOULD BE YOUR ADVICE BE TO THE PRESIDENT, BARRING POLITICAL DIFFERENCES AND WITH ONLY THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY IN MIND?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Phil
Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Washington has six wars currently Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen
As long as the American sheep/people are content to be irradiated as they dance through the dubious airport scanners, the culture of fear instituted by President Cheney and his acolyte George W (what me worry) will continue.
Remember the HOMELAND SECURITY COLOR THREAT LEVELS??
Das Homeland Security?
Has a nazi-esque ring, ya think?
The 9/11 attack, plotted by some dudes in a cave.
And now the Military Security Complex corporations (through the Pentagon) get 20% of the USA's GDP each year
while American families are Evicted from their homes by Wall Street
I agree with Ralph Nader's view about there being no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, both are corporate owned.
God save the USA
Comment: #4
Posted by: Soothsayer
Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
MY BAD-
The sixth war that Washington is engaged in is the 'Global War On Terror' which can go to any country , anywhere, anytime
peace out
Comment: #5
Posted by: Soothsayer
Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
The Quote of the Century:
"So, our president did what comes naturally: cut the baby in half."
"This war does not lend itself to a military solution" is the cliche of the hour. And, surely, if the United States cannot achieve victory over the Taliban with 100,000 troops, we are unlikely to achieve it with 70,000, or however many may remain after 2014.”
Patrick J. Buchanan
The typical American television viewer—who is not privy to inside information—can only conclude that the country which claims the title of “Destroyer of Civilizations,” is committed to full tribalism as defined by its own wish-fulfillment to self-actualize into the natural outlaw lair it has always been.
Since the apprehension of the brigand, Osama bin Laden, outlaw lairs now understand the American Eagle can suddenly swoop down to snatch the prey from the lap of security.
The Taliban is in many cases the people of Afghanistan and it is NOT in our national security interests to try to fashion a silk purse from a sow's ear of diplomacy.
What may be retrieved from what many conceive to be yet another Don Quixote adventure, is a new awareness and resolve regarding the projection of American military power. This decisiveness of a nation—which remains committed to George Washington's admonition that we be at all times prepared for war—has been severely compromised by Resident Obama's continuing heralds of withdrawal timetables.
War must be understood in its totality, for it exacts the lifeblood and treasure of a nation and this war in Afghanistan was NEVER about nation-building for ingrates who tell us: “Thank you very much, now go home.”
Afghanistan was slated for punishment—not welfare-- as a direct result of providing a safe haven for Osama bin Laden , thereby being in violation of George W. Bush's doctrine for dealing with terrorist and sanctuary state as one cohesive unit.
War is a machine best greased and oiled by expropriation of the spoils, as Adolph Hitler correctly perceived.
With the recently discovered mineral wealth of Afghanistan, the value of which is in excess of a TRILLION dollars; it would be foolhardy to withdraw and leave this war booty to the enemy.
Countries which are defeated in war by the United States of America, cannot expect that as a direct result, they will somehow become the welfare wards of the American people, who are already tapped out to the limit.
Nor should these wretched people imagine they have the “civil rights” to move to Zoo America under a refugee designation.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the American taxpayer is Santa Claus to the world, nor does the government hold the power to impose such a mandate over an ostensibly free people.
The concept of “nation-building” by amassing foreign entanglements, has now been proven to be another bright shining lie promoted by the titans of finance, who create war behind the scenes under color of United Nations authority.
America has become very confused regarding the obligations of war. It is not in the national interest to provide welfare to foreign governments, in the form of rebuilding cities destroyed by American military power. Nor is it a mandate to import these populations of defeated adversaries into American culture as “refugees,” when the whole country subjugated by American military power, qualifies under that designation.
The prosecution of war has become another facet of trade, where national wealth goes out and what returns as a business investment, is a refugee.
The international banker grows rich and fat and the state inherits a foreign welfare ward to replace its dead soldier.
This nation borrows from other nations, so that they may fund their economies and protect their military objectives, all on our dime and obligation.
This nation does not prosecute war to provide an intravenous transfusion of our national life force, to build another culture in the vain hope that it will grow to fit our own mold and at our own expense, no less.
Afghanistan should pay a service charge to America, for the American lives lost and the treasure America expended to prosecute this unwinnable war and rebuild infrastructure for our enemy, while our own economy went without.
Donald Trump understands that America should be the payee and NOT the payer in all matters of love and war. He also understands that one does not “soldier on,” when there is no profit potential in the form of national security and solvency.
“McCain and the neocons will blame what is coming, a terrible day in Kabul and across Afghanistan, on those who refused to soldier on, no matter the cost in blood and treasure. But the people who should be indicted by history are not those who, after half a trillion dollars and a decade of bleeding, decided to cut America's losses, but those who stampeded this country into two of the longest and least necessary wars in the history of the republic.”
Patrick J. Buchanan
If the United States has learned anything, it must be that our nation must be the one to choose and define the field of engagement—NOT the enemy.
That engagement cannot mean adoption and welfare for the alien culture. There can be no “amnesty” concept to win hearts and minds shaped only by tribal loyalty and the biding of time.
We do not tell that enemy the precise hour when or if we will quit.
The only rationale for remaining in Afghanistan, is to garner the spoils of war, as the second phase of military operations.
Rather than telegraphing the defeat of withdrawal timetables, the United States should be reaping the spoils of war as compensation and to fuel the war machine.
“It's all about attitude” and the United States is no more obligated to budge, than say Red China is intent on exiting its occupation of Tibet.
The war cannot lend itself to a solution, when the nation fails to imagine how to make lemonade out of lemons.
It's not the destination, nor is it the “roadmap” to peace, but the journey itself which defines the course of action.
The poor United States of America, which can no longer think for itself in an intelligent manner! What will this idiot government do when its first string players in the halls of government, are a bunch of bench warmers?
Afghanistan need only be pacified—NOT tamed.
Nations in defeat now imagine they will dictate the terms, as they see that we as a nation have failed to play our own game in the arena which boasts of destroying all invaders down through the centuries.
Unwinnable wars, by their very nature must not define our own national resolve when faced with them.
The question must not focus on what we have failed to accomplish in an impossible atmosphere, but rather what can best be done to make this war pay for itself.
We owe that to the American people and none other.
This war has been an Anopheles to plague the American people, who are now resolved to do a little pumping and sucking of their own—in the form of the natural mineral wealth of Afghanistan.
America should also be entirely managing the opium industry in Afghanistan for the benefit of American medicine and to control the bread and butter of the enemy.
The key which will crack this Trojan War is the flow of narcotics. That is where the will of the enemy to resist the occupier, becomes forfeit to an Achilles heel.
The blood of our soldiers demands a service charge, not a promise to cut and run before the final reckoning.
Comment: #6
Posted by: T.H. Asgardson
Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|