Friday, December 4, 2009

Epitome of stupid II, Obama's Afghanistan speech.

Seems the saying that History shows that man learns nothing from history is being demonstrated by this either stupid or treasonous administration. When I heard, yes I actually listen for God only knows why to BO's speech, and I just in awe of what came out of the man's mouth. Not in awe of amazement, but awe of disbelief. I've never heard or even read such stupidity in the entire history of warfare or political posturing. BO makes Chamberlain look like a political mastermind in comparison. Let me explain.

First, Obama tries to speak out of both sides of his mouth. First commending about the Islamic fascist threat. Finally, the man mentioned the true face of the enemy. Then he mentions how that to maintain the fight and treat the threat that he (this man uses the word "I" in his speeches more than any politician in history and it hasn't even been a year in office yet) feels is the real threat (never mind most every military expert). So he tries to justify sending an additional 30,000 troops. So after all the grief and telling McCystral to shut up, he finally concludes that he was right about needing more troops.

Then he goes and makes perhaps one of the either stupidest moves or the most treasonous. How we need to withdraw and sets a time line. So, he speaks from both ends of his mouth, tries to appease both sides the table and now has given the enemy that he has determined to be such a huge threat a huge victory: a timeline. He's now told the enemy that if they can hold out for 18 more months, we will withdraw with our tails between our legs. Why send the troops in the first place only to have a mission of retreat and withdrawal? Worse yet why advertise it to our enemies?

Sun Tzu said a victorious general will seek victory and then fight. A losing general with fight and then seek victory. Basically, the objective, plan, and forces needed to win will all be predetermined before heading to the battlefield. A losing general will go fight and then define their objectives and make plans. This was the mistake Bush made on the occupation, the US made in Vietnam, and frankly, the mistake the British made during the Revolutionary War. However, Obama took it a step lower. He fights first then seeks defeat. There's no desire to win, no objective, other then to have he afghans take over and fight for themselves without any definition of what that is or plans of how that will be achieved and it won't. Now that they know the US is planning defeat and abandon them, they will turn and make alliances with their enemies against a common enemy now.

A general who decides quickly, consistently, and with reason is well respected and the men will fight for him to the death. The general that procrastinates, is indecisive and has no clear objective loses the respect of his men and the results is chaos. Which one does Obama sound like? A winning general keeps his plans as dark as the night. He tells no one of his plans so his enemy doesn't catch wind of his intentions. Obama just broadcast for the world to hear that he plans to cut and run. If you're the Taliban what will your plan be now? It's easy, hit and run and just create as many casualties as you can til they leave. As for allies, you're going stay away from this one because it's a lost cause. I like to know how he intends to get those 45,000 NATO troops. I guess because he's the messiah will be good enough. Pfffffft.

Had Obama took either fight to win or the fight isn't worth the costs and withdrawal, or basically took either fight or flight, I could had given him some credibility and respect. At least he would had been making a decision and standing by it right or wrong. At least that's what Bush did though most of the decisions were awful. Now, we have one that speaks from both ends of his mouth, trying to have it both ways, telegraphs his intentions, gives hope and enboldenment to the threat that he even defines has being real, and gives any allies every reason to avoid this like a hooker with HIV. It was by far the worse thing he could do and by far one the stupidest statements he's made. What gets me is most in the media don't even realized how much he's just dropped, fumbled, booted, and then punted the ball on this and in the end, this won't only be Obama's Vietnam, it will become his Waterloo.

No comments: