From Sarah Palin's Facebook Page:
Finally, A Decision for Afghanistan: We're In It to Win It
Yesterday at 7:29pm
Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice.
At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.
This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”
We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.
- Sarah Palin
Posts
8 comments:
It was an appropriate response, and I support it. However one must remember that so far every Obama promise has come with an expiration date, and if the troops are removed, there's a strong possibility that the Congress will do to Afghanistan what a similar democratic Congress did to South Vietnam 35 years ago - promise continuing support, but refusing it when the North Vietnamese broke the agreed treaties, and invaded en masse. The end result was millions of boat people, hundreds of thousands imprisoned and murdered, and thirty years of Communist dictatorship.
Expiration dates are signs of weakness and unwillingness to support. Nothing could be more disheartening to a people who need outside help than the words: "we're leaving" before the job is done. Furthermore, one is wasting men and resources if the goal isn't lasting peace or stability. Whether that will be achieved in Afghanistan, I do not know. However, we cannot operate on the mind-set of defeat or minimalist effort.
Just my thoughts.
The want to win, and the will to win, may be in the President's decision. However, until the rules of engagement are changed, until our armed forces are allowed to kill the enemy and are protected when they do (see the recent attack against the SEAL team) we won't win. We will lose brave young men to "civilians" who fire from behind and among women and children, as the survivors drag the dead and wounded away from the firefight as directed by ROE.
HalifaxCB:
I do fear that the exit date is etched in stone and no matter where we are strategically in Afghanistan we will be pulling out on that day.
Osumashi:
The expiration date is more than a sign of weakness, it give the enemy a tactical advantage. They now know how long it takes to wait us out.
J.Reed Anderson:
I agree, the compassion method of fighting war has to go bye bye. War is hell, you cannot fight one that sheds no blood or doesn't destroy things. Striving for such is a fools errand.
It's laziness, both moral and martial. It's defeatism.
Well, you're right of course, Clifton, on your 3:23 post (and others). I just hope that there's a conservative Congress two or three years down the road that will be willing to lend air power and financial support. And I hope up here we can convince Canada to continue its support, though it doesn't look likely at the moment.
Post a Comment