Monday, October 12, 2009

Intelligence Assessments: Al Qaeda/Taliban Cohesion Greater Than Pre-9/11

From the Department of I-Told-You-So, here comes McClatchy's report, "Are Obama Advisers Downplaying Afghan Dangers?":
Recent U.S. intelligence assessments have found that the Taliban and other Pakistan-based groups that are fighting U.S.-led forces have much closer ties to al Qaida now than they did before 9/11, would allow the terrorist network to re-establish bases in Afghanistan and would help Osama bin Laden export his radical brand of Islam to Afghanistan's neighbors and beyond, the officials said.
A real Gomer Pyle moment there, you think?

But check Matt Gurney at FrontPage, "
What’s Their Mission, Mr. President?":

It seems strange to recall now, but there was a time when Barack Obama assailed the Bush administration for what he saw as its lax commitment to the military campaign in Afghanistan and promised to give that war the urgent priority it deserved. But despite his earlier attempts to cast Afghanistan as the “good war,” President Obama seems determined to avoid actually fighting it.

In recent months, Obama has indicated that he would like to get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible – even if that means cutting a deal with the Taliban. It’s a telling reversal: Along with many in his party, Obama used his support of the war in Afghanistan to cultivate a tough-on-defense image during the presidential campaign. Now, as the war grows unpopular, he seems to be having second thoughts about the conflict. Thus, Obama has dawdled on the critical foreign policy decision of his administration: whether to send the additional 40,000 troops that his hand-picked commander, General Stanley McChrystal, believes necessary to winning the war.

General McChrystal is the proverbial “wise old man” when it comes to defeating insurgencies, having overseen the successful American counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq. With the benefit of that experience, McChrystal has made clear that the only way to defeat insurgencies is to protect the local population from attacks by insurgents. Only then can coalition forces gain the cooperation of locals, marginalize the insurgents, and stabilize the country. It was this hard-won expertise that prompted President Obama to fire the former leader of forces in Afghanistan, the well-respected General David McKiernan, in order to give McChrystal the reins.

But having placed McChrystal in charge, the president now appears reluctant to let him complete his mission. Although McChrystal has not formally requested the 40,000 troops, it has been known for some time that he considers this troop surge – modeled on a similar buildup in Iraq – essential to pacifying Afghanistan and turning the tide against the Taliban insurgency. On that all-important decision, the president has been A.W.O.L.
Meanwhile, the New York Times provides cover for the Barack "Neville" Hussein administration. See "Civilian Goals Largely Unmet in Afghanistan." (Via Memeorandum.)

See also, Gateway Pundit, "
Feinstein Blasts Obama For Poo-Pooing Gen. McChrystal's Troop Recommendations (Video)."


The Griper said...

he's learning that popularity does not equal good leadership, good decisions are. and he's afraid of losing his popularity, thus his indicisiveness.