Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool. One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. Gabor Steingart, Der Speiegel

The President failed to sound a clear call to arms, instead calling for retreat in the very next sentence after he called for more troops:

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

Why 18 months? Would it have something to do with Obama’s reelection prospects? Now Taliban leaders have a clear date they can use to inspire their troops. In fact the Taliban already seem emboldened:

Obama will witness lots of coffins heading to America from Afghanistan.

Their hope to control Afghanistan by military means will not become reality. The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting.

They will withdraw shamefully. They cannot achieve their hopes and goals. Qari Yousuf Ahamdi, Taliban Spokesman

Obama failed to use the word “victory” even once in this speech, while using the personal pronoun “I” 45 times. Obama mentioned the word “cost” eight times in the course of this speech. Only once in the context of lives lost, but seven times in regards to financial burden:

“Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We’ve failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills.

He then went on to campaign for his social agenda. A significant portion of the speech was spent denigrating earlier US attempts in the war on terror.

All in all the tone of the speech was academic. Perhaps that was fitting for an address at an educational institution, but not for this type of address. Entirely missing was the fire of Obama speeches when addressing SEIU or causes that he really believes in, like “we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” (View the videos linked in this paragraph and decide for yourself.)

Obama agreed to send 30,000 more troops. Let’s not forget that McChrystal originally asked for 50,000 and was pressured to revise his request down to 40,000. So our troops are receiving a little more than half the number McChrystal really wanted.

For this speech we had to wait 90 days? We are keeping the NIP McChrystal Clock ticking until the boots hit the ground. We are hoping reinforcements arrive to support our troops before they are called home. With only 18 months, we are not so sure.

Just Another Day at The Office for Jihadists

FALLUJAH: You can murder, mutilate, and burn US citizens, then hang them up to dry from a bridge, that’s OK. But if you have your lip busted open by Navy SEALs while they are trying to bring you to justice, that’s not OK. In fact, we’ll try those SEALs and send them to jail. It’s not the Twilight Zone– you’re in the world of the Dems, you’re in ObamaLand.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, one of the most notorious terrorists in Iraq and the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004, has claimed his rights were violated when he was punched in the mouth by his Navy SEAL captors.  William Busse, Examiner.com

You can behead a defenseless journalist, Daniel Pearl, on video, for the world to see. You can orchestrate the killing of 3500 innocent New Yorkers, prompting Arabs to dance in the streets praising Allah. You can confess your crimes and then revel in them. For your reward you’ll get an all-expense paid trip to NYC, blocks from where you butchered innocent Americans. Now you’ll get to demean and belittle those whom you have massacred, all covered by live TV. You’ll get to make the families of the victims suffer all over again, while encouraging others all over the world to follow in your footsteps. All this in a civilian court of law which may likely find you not guilty. Welcome to the world of the Dems, you’re in ObamaLand now.

You can dedicate your life to serving your countrymen, risking your life day after day. You can be appointed by the Commander-in-Chief to prosecute the “good war” and bring it to a successful conclusion. You can tour Afghanistan every single day, visiting with troops and their commanders. You can look into the eyes of wounded and maimed GI’s and assure them and their families that their sacrifice is not in vain. You travel the country, getting on-the-ground intelligence, and with the best military minds in history you provide your assessment that calls for reinforcements. Then you are put off for months by the Ditherer-in-Chief who will second-guess you, a second-rate college professor that professes to know better than you do what you and your troops need. You’ll watch as your President undermines world support of the war. Then you will need to explain to the men under your command why the White House is playing politics with their lives.

You’re not in the Twilight Zone– you’re in the world of the Dems, you’re in ObamaLand now. This is where everything is backwards, where a Chavez can seize power and US officials call it “an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution.” This is where the President of the greatest nation in the world bows down to kings and rulers and travels the world demeaning this country’s history. This is where the bad guys are coddled and the good guys vilified. The NIP only has one question. When will patriotic Americans get to work and reject this “glorious revolution” and reverse the course of this administration?

MY name is Debbie and my son is a member in the 5th Stryker Brigade 1-17 ID fighting in Afghanistan. I can’t just sit here any longer while the extra troops they need are being pushed on the back burner. I created a YouTube video and I hope you can help by watching it and passing it along. We need to keep our Soldiers in the forefront and I don’t know how else to help them. Please help me and view this video immediately and pass it on. This comes straight from the heart of the mother of an American Soldier.

A Mothers’s Video Letter to President Obama:

Webmasters everywhere, put our McChrystal Clock on your web site (seen at right.) Get your code here. We need to pressure the administration to stop dithering.

Angry at Monday’s CBS report (and the military sources who seem to be pushing it) that the President has already settled on an option that would send almost all the troops Gen. McChrystal has requested for Afghanistan, aides insist that Obama has not told anyone what he wants to do – and that he’s likely to continue to mull his options as he travels across Asia over the next 8 days. George Stephanopoulos, ABC News

US Allies are concerned that Obama’s dithering is undermining the White  House’s own strategy. The UK’s Daily Telegraph reports:

One British source said that the absence of a clear strategy from the US, the largest troop contributor in Afghanistan, is hampering the British Government’s attempts to maintain public support for an increasingly unpopular conflict. James Kirkup, Daily Telegraph

Rahm Emanuel isn’t helping either. On October 22nd John Hannah calls out Emanuel’s politicizing the Afghan war policy:

And when you go through all the analysis, it’s clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that’s adrift. That we’re beginning at scratch, and just from the starting point, after eight years…

And before you commit troops . . . before you make that decision, there’s a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it’s clear after eight years of war, that’s basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked. Rahm Emanual, reported by John Hannah, ForeignPolicy.com

The problem with Emanuel’s charge, Hannah reports, is that the Obama administration already conducted their own strategy review in March of this year. He puts it this way:

Remember? The one that had the president on March 27 unveiling a “comprehensive, new strategy” that “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.” The one that had the president sending another 21,000 American troops off to war?

If true, Emanuel’s implicit accusation that basic questions were not asked in that first review would be a shocking indictment of the administration’s own competence. If untrue, Emanuel was gratuitously insulting the professionalism of his hard-working colleagues involved in the review, presumably to advance some other agenda. John Hannah, ForeignPolicy.com

The foot-dragging continues. The political name-calling continues. The McChrystal Clock keeps ticking. Meanwhile, our troops are dying. The NIP kindly suggests to the president that he quit listening to people like Emanuel and start listening to his hand-picked General Stanley A. McChrystal.

Over the past few months the Obama administration has been trying to figure out what policy change, if any, should be made in Afghanistan. My guess is that they will kick the ball down the road, neither greatly increasing the number nor reducing the number of troops. This is a huge mistake.

Afghanistan is a money pit, a  “tar baby” and a no win conflict for the United States. We spend and have been spending billions of dollars fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully, the Iraq war is winding down and US troops will be brought home from there within the next couple of years. In Afghanistan,  a war that President Obama deemed a “good war” during the presidential campaign in 2008, there is little hope of bringing our troops home.

The Taliban have rallied and increased their control within many areas of Afghanistan. They are much more ruthless in the way in which they fight than are the soldiers of the United States and other NATO nations. We purposely attempt to avoid civilian casualties so that we don’t receive negative media coverage of our operations. The Taliban are more than willing to murder innocent villagers so that people fear opposing the Taliban. They welcome the press coverage of such events because it spreads the fear. As we used to say on the playground, “No fair.”

The United States often gets involved in wars because of good intentions. We intended to assist the South Vietnamese and keep them free from communism. Earlier we did a similar thing in Korea, again helping the South Koreans to fend off the North. We invaded Afghanistan as a justified reaction to 9-11, essentially doing so to capture Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, we forgot the primary mission after we missed capturing him in Tora Bora and turned our attention to Iraq. Osama is still alive, based upon recent tapes from him, and remains a thorn in our side.

We are not going to fix Afghanistan. It is not a country as we know countries. It is a land of tribes. They form alliances on an ad hoc basis. They are not loyal or patriotic to a national government but are loyal to fellow tribesman. It is a recipe that does not lend itself well to nation building and the United States should know better than to try.

The government is corrupt and will likely continue to be even after the runoff election. Karzai’s brother is reportedly involved in the opium trade. Whether his brother receives proceeds from the trade is an open question.

According to reports, many insurgents fight against the Americans because they consider us to be invaders and occupiers of their country. This country knows that the Soviets grew tired of paying the price of men and material fighting against Afghani tribesmen. They know that the American army will also leave. The Taliban have ample examples of the impatience of the American people to be engaged in long wars.

We should search for and find an exit strategy from this quagmire. Some would argue that such a decision would give the Taliban what they want. True. They will partially rule over a backward nation of tribesman and uneducated peasants. We cannot fix all of the similar countries in the world. We have no business trying to fix this one.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted to ask President Obama for 50,000 more troops for Afghanistan on top of the 68,000 already stationed there, but he was convinced to lower the request to 40,000, reports CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

Sources tell Reid that McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, considers the lower number to be a firm bottom line McChrystal believes anything short of 40,000 increases the risk of failure, Reid reports.  CBS News

Can you imagine George S. Patton being told by Roosevelt’s administration on how to run the desert campaign in North Africa during WWII? Maybe the planning of the invasion of North Africa would have gone something like this:

Three pronged attack? We’re sorry General Patton, we can only afford 2 amphibious landings, not 3. Why don’t you just decide which of your 2 targets are the most important? Plus can’t you just pull into a port? It would save money on landing craft. We have some very bright Senators that have given this a lot of thought.

Our Senators promise that you will have more success if you concentrate your troops properly. We think you are over-estimating this overseas contingency operation. The big war is in Europe, the Germans aren’t really all that interested in North Africa. After all it is just a bunch of sand for the most part. Senate intelligence has concluded that this fellow Rommel is a bit of a dandy, calling himself the “Desert Fox” of all things. It should be an easy victory.

Your estimate of 125,000 troops is way over what our Senate oversight committee recommends. The cost of this is enormous. Don’t forget we still have the New Deal we are financing. The committee recommends 60,000, tops.

If you have any problems over there  don’t worry, you can count on the French to back you up.

If forcing General McChrystal to lower his initial request wasn’t enough, now John Kerry, acting as administrative spokesman, is giving the general lessons on warfare. His smarmy, pontifical address yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations sets the stage for further pressure to cut back:

Kerry said McChrystal’s central option, for 40,000 more troops, “reaches too far, too fast.” His argument is that there are not yet enough Afghan troops or government structures to accompany American soldiers into areas they clear, which means that the key second and third phases of counterinsurgency — “hold” and “build” — could not be carried out.  Jackson Diehl, Washington Post

The White House announced this week that Obama may be making his decision well before the upcoming Afghan Presidential recount (brokered by Kerry), but not to expect his announcement until some time after. Today White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said “the president will announce his decision in the coming weeks.” (AP) Apparently we’ll get some more mileage out of our McChrystal Clock.

We wonder who is telling the truth here, John Kerry, or General McChrystal? Someone is prevaricating here somewhere, our bet it is John Kerry. (Where are the Swift Boat Vets when you need them?) Maybe we could get Kerry and McChrystal to switch places. We’ll let Kerry go to Afghanistan and muddle along with less troops than he needs, and we’ll send McChrystal to conquer the real enemy, the US Senate.

The McChrystal Clock is a free service of the National Institute of Prevarication. All a web page needs to do is enter this one-liner in its html and then it will be done. Copy and paste. (Make sure you don’t somehow use curly-quotes instead of regular quotes.)

<iframe width=”272″ height=”265″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” src=”http://prevarication.net/McChrystal-counter.html”></iframe>

This code will open a tiny window on your page where your visitors will view the running clock and will see a new photo of our troops each time the page reloads.

Here is a narrower version:

<iframe width=”220″ height=”215″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” src=”http://prevarication.net/McChrystal-counter-200.html”></iframe>

Here is a narrower version, with black background, white text:

<iframe width=”220″ height=”215″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” src=”http://prevarication.net/McChrystal-counter-200b.html”></iframe>

If you want to use only the text version only (no photos) use this:

<script language=”JavaScript” src=”http://prevarication.net/afghan_clock/counting.js”></script>

That’s it, you just paste one of the 2 versions into your html and the clock shows up on your blog or web page. If you are using WordPress or similar software you need to the code into the html using the html editor. Since we are running the scripts on our web server you don’t need to worry about performance hits or trojan horse issues.

Let us know if you need other versions to fit your template.

The NIP hopes that widespread usage of this clock will illustrate the lack of attention the troops are getting from the White House. The point of the McChrystal Clock is not whether or not the White House should send more troops to Afghanistan. The NIP takes the position that Obama needs to take time out of his busy campaign schedule to at least give the general the courtesy of a reply. Is he going to send more troops per their request, or not?

If you want to read McChyrstal’s assessment the Washington Post has the unclassified version here.