Andy Martin on “The Obama Implosion” in Afghanistan

Andy Martin on “The Obama Implosion” in Afghanistan

U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin says Barack Obama’s Afghanistan “policy” is a “political agenda, not a military agenda”

Martin says Obama is going to waste tens of billions of dollars and endanger American lives, all to accomplish nothing

NEWS FROM:
ANDY MARTIN /2010
“The name you can trust”
Republican for U. S. Senator
30 E. Huron Street, Suite 4406
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
(312) 440-4124
www.AndyforUSSenator.com
www.AndyforUSSenator.blogspot.com
www.AndyforUSSenator.wordpress.com

www.MarkKirk.us
www.IllinoisHighSpeedTrains.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:


Andy Martin says Barack Obama’s “surge” in Afghanistan is a political agenda, not a military blueprint

(CHICAGO)(December 2, 2009) The Obama “implosion” has begun. After laboring mightily for months, Barack Obama has brought forth a “mouse” of an Afghanistan “policy.” Obama’s approach is not just mistaken; it is monstrously wrong and flies in the face of decades of military experience with counterinsurgency.

What Obama has produced is not a military policy but rather a political timetable to immunize himself from a liberal challenger in the 2012 primary election process. Obama would start “withdrawing” in Afghanistan just as candidates start filing for the 2012 presidential primaries.

In my book, “Obama: the Man behind The Mask,” I assembled a psychological profile of Obama. My conclusion was that under stress, Obama would eventually crack. He’s cracked.

Sending thirty thousand men and women to Afghanistan for 18 months, supporting them with tens of billions of dollars borrowed from China, and then arbitrarily withdrawing them is not just wrong, it’s damn wrong.

If I were advising the Taliban, I’d say “Go on vacation and come back in 24 months. The Americans will be gone and we can take over the country with a minimum of military action.”

My 2007 psychological profile predicted that Obama was capable of retreating into and living in his own delusional world. Obama seems to think his “speech” is going to make Al Qaeda and the Taliban do what he wants, not what they want.

Tuesday night Obama said “our resolve [is] unwavering.” Unwavering for 18 months that is. Then he “unwaivers” us right out of the country. A great guy to have on your side.

Obama’s “policy” is built on the fiction that our men and women can create a viable Afghan military force in 18 months. He further pretends he can “secure” population centers and build confidence in the central government.

What does president Barry O think Afghans are? Morons? They may not be educated, but they are not stupid. They are not so dumb they are going to give their loyalty to a military program that has already announced in advance that the protective force is leaving in 18 months. Americans may have been dumb enough to vote for Obama. I predict Afghans are a lot smarter than Americans. They are going to “vote” with their feet, and avoid Obama’s protection.

The unstable situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a threat to the United States. We have legitimate interests there to protect. But why do we have to take on the whole load? What happened to Obama’s buddies in Europe? They left the table when the waiter left the tab. They left the bill for Obama to pay. Hs “friends” were very fleeting in their "support" of their savior.

Some Republicans will grasp at straws and suggest the 18-month surge will work. Don’t be fooled. Pseudo military types such as Mark Kirk may look at public opinion and decide to say “rah, rah” if Kirk thinks it will bring him votes in February. Kirk is a bogus military man who has been pretending for years, decades indeed, to be an “intelligence" officer and “warrior.” He is neither. Kirk’s record on military matters is a disaster, an embarrassment, an utter failure.

But this is one time when politics should be out of the question.

I am saddened to say that this is one time radical liberal Michael Moore has the better of the argument. Obama is going to make Joe Biden look wise by comparison. In 18 months, when the roof caves in and Afghanistan collapses, Obama’s opponents are going to look like wise men.

The “surge” in Iraq and the surge in Afghanistan are fundamentally different. George Bush committed more men, but he did so without a rigid timetable for withdrawal. Moreover the years of American occupation had given the United States working control of Iraq. Finally, Iraq did have a military tradition and cadre of soldiers who had actually been part of organized units. In other words, when Bush “surged,” he was surging into a vastly different situation than Afghanistan.

In Iraq, Saddam was the enemy. In Afghanistan, we are the enemy. We are propping up the corrupt dictatorship of Hamid Karzai.

Americans are tired of war in Afghanistan? What do we think Afghans feel? They are not tired? Of course they are. Afghans are going to see the 18-month surge as nothing more than the death rattle of the Bush-Obama policy. They will hunker down and hold on for 18 months, when Obama cuts and runs on the eve of the primary election season for 2012.

We can now see the consistent pattern in Obama foreign policy: where Obama confronts strength, such as in China, he projects weakness. Where Obama thinks he can project “strength,” he untimely imposes weakness on our strategy.

Military men are trained to work with a “can do” attitude so they will try to make Obama’s harebrained scheme work. But the Obama “plan” is dead-on-arrival in Afghanistan, with Afghans.

Here’s how we can save tens of billions of dollars.

First, stop the insanity of sending an army twenty thousand miles to the end of the world, only to recall the force in 18 months. That’s just plain stupid.

Second, acknowledge that we messed up in Afghanistan.

Third, tell Karzai he should train his own forces and protect his own cities: now, not in 18 months. Why is it that Afghans have been the “graveyard of empires” but suddenly they are helpless children that can’t defend their own land from internal enemies?

Fourth, transition expeditiously to a CIA/Special operations-based approach to resolving issues in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Fifth, work towards bipartisan support for a new paradigm in our war against terror.

Republicans? This is not 1994. This is 1996. Obama is wandering into a war he can’t understand and can’t control, and it is going to blow up in his face, the same way Viet-Nam decimated the Democrats in 1966 and led to election of a Republican president two years later.

Democrats in Congress are not stupid. They know Obama is signing their political death arrant with his crazy “policy” in Afghanistan.

Obama is about to fight a war on terror all right, a real war on terror, a war on terror waged by his own party against the Obama battle strategy in Afghanistan. My bet: Congress wins and Obama loses, even if the congress grudgingly votes to provide additional funds on a very temporary basis.

BOTTOM LINE: Obama’s policy is no policy at all. He has announced a strategy for surrender, and he is trying to mask his surrender in a “surge” that is nothing of the sort. Better to keep the men and women home, and avoid borrowing money from China for a goofy expedition in Afghanistan.

It’s a sad day for this country when Michael Moore and Joe Biden make more sense than the man in the White House. But they do. There is no way the civilian population of Afghanistan is going to rally to the American side with advance notice than we are departing in 18 months. How dumb does Obama think Afghans are? As dumb as the Americans that voted to make him “Surrender In Chief?”

A PERSONAL NOTE: I first went to Afghanistan over thirty years ago, entering western Afghanistan from Mesahd, Iran and linking up with the anti-Soviet mujahadeen.

A SCARY CLOSING NOTE: It’s a good thing Obama was not in command of World War II. Obama’s policy would have been to land on D-Day, and then immediately announce we would also start withdrawing in a few months. The Third Reich would still be in power today if Obama had been in the White House in 1944.