The president is commander-in-chief. He gets to decide who leads the fight in our nation’s war. He is our leader, and he is responsible for securing victory against our nation’s enemies. There are vital U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan. Failure is a terrible option. Failure will mean a vicious civil war that could lead to genocide in Afghanistan and a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda that could prompt a war between India and Pakistan, and ultimately lead right back to another 9/11. Whomever the president chooses to command our …
More than two years ago, then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton launched a campaign ad that took direct aim at Senator Barack Obama’s inexperience. It painted the picture of a telephone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m. and asked the question, when there is a crisis in the world and your children are safe and asleep, “Who do you want answering the phone?” Now, two years later, there are several crises confronting America, that telephone is ringing, and President Obama isn’t quite sure what to do about it. The first …
European leaders were shocked this week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a NATO audience that the alliance faces a “crisis” because the continent has largely demilitarized. Why the surprise — have they been in a coma? Europe’s free defense ride — thanks to the rock-solid US security guarantee within the NATO alliance — has been a problem for decades. Taking the US protective umbrella for granted, the continent has raided defense budgets to cover its ever-growing welfare bills. Just four of NATO’s European members (Bulgaria, France, Greece and Britain) …
The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reports from Afghanistan: I asked Lt Gen. David Rodriquez, the No. 2 US commander here, in a briefing tonight how long the deployment of the extra 30,000 would take. He answered that “it will happen between nine and eleven months,” starting in January 2010. Which means that some troops might not arrive until November 2010. The next month after that, December 2010, is when Obama plans to assess how well the troops are doing — so he can decide how many to pull out when …
Last night, President Obama outlined his strategy for Afghanistan. Thankfully, he spoke of the fact that this war is not optional, that our efforts there are in America’s vital national interests, and that the strategic goals and objectives of the United States are largely unchanged from March. Now that the president has highlighted his plan, it is time for Congress to ask some serious questions. 1. Given that the president did not specifically outline victory or how the U.S. will win in Afghanistan, what metrics should Congress use to evaluate …
Outlining his strategy to “bring this war [Afghanistan] to a successful conclusion” in a nationally televised address last night, President Obama stated that he was confident of securing additional military and civilian contributions from America’s NATO allies in the days and weeks ahead. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Brussels later this week to meet with NATO Foreign Ministers, and will stand alongside countries like Britain and Slovakia which have already announced additional troop deployments for Afghanistan. Other nations, such as Poland and Italy will likely pledge additional …
1. If the President sends 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, does that count as a “surge?” Simply put, no, because the use of that term implies an Iraq-like strategy of ramping up forces to the maximum of what the generals are requesting. It has been widely reported that General McChrystal’s assessment for additional troops to achieve maximum chance of success was between 60,000 and 80,000 troops. While the President’s decision is better than no new troops at all, it falls short of that assessment. Additionally, the White House plans to …
President Obama has finally made a decision on Afghanistan, which he will communicate to an anxious nation tomorrow night. The White House announcement no doubt has already fueled many kitchen-table conversations during this Thanksgiving weekend, maybe even heated debates. For the sake of our national security, let’s hope most families have concluded that abandoning Afghanistan without achieving our aims is not an option. Some will still waver of course, which is why the president must use his bully pulpit to explain why it is in the vital interests of the …
Senator John Kerry in his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations Monday criticized General McChrystal’s Afghanistan assessment for going “too far, too fast,” yet he failed to lay out an alternative strategy for success or to provide a convincing case against implementation of McChrystal’s specific recommendations. Kerry rightly admitted that a U.S. troop pullout could trigger a civil war in the country and destabilize neighboring Pakistan. He also acknowledged that the costs of failure in Afghanistan are “very real.” But his plan for moving forward lacks boldness and is …
There are cries on the left that General McChrystal violated article 2 of the Constitution when he publicly and candidly responded to questions about the military advice he has offered to the president of the United States. The problem may be that the general’s accusers may be reading a different constitution. They certainly can’t be reading the US Constitution. Under the US constitution, and the oath that military officers swear, they are obligated to obey the lawful orders of their superiors. You would have to twist reality into a different …
