The President Says On Afghanistan, ‘Let Me Be Clear’

From March 2009. Give him a click at the top left there. You can’t lose. See? *And* you get free eroticized violence. If you order now, the Stiftung will add an additional animation to your order at no extra charge. But you must order now. Twice the violence. You merely pay shipping and handling. Don’t delay. Order now!


Fascinating to see Obama try to evade CENTCOM pressures by hiding behind the empty process of the farcical Afghan ‘elections’. One wishes it presaged the Administration’s rejection of McChrystal/Petreaus’ tragically doomed counter insurgency fairy tale.

Buying time is valuable. Gates, McChrystal, Petreaus and their allies act daily like time works against gaining presidential approval. Gates is demanding a decision now. Dealing with client states is always an art for a metropole regardless of circumstances. Here, there may be no historical parallel – a least nothing comes to mind. From the Ancient World to the present. Even the fatal absence of an actual client State as we’ve discussed just skims the surface of problems. And also as mentioned earlier, the U.S. governmental processes and domestic psyche are not configured for direct imperial rule in any event. With Afghanistan, what we are doing is shoving our hands down into the ultimate Ronco Americano-Matic ™ disposal while giving the on-off switch to dozens of tribal peoples who don’t speak Amerikhun or care.

It’s really that simple. And foolish.

The international community is committed to the charade of a national government in Kabul. We would be wise to keep our own less sanguine counsel. Becoming enmeshed with local process issues like election fraud, run offs, etc., can pull the U.S. into a quagmire just as thousands of new troops hitting Bagram tarmac. Regardless of intentions. In that, McChyrstal and Petreaus can take cynical comfort.

How tragic should Obama for tactical reasons embrace a non-existent, vaporous Afghan national government new Mayor of Kabul regime thinking to forestall CENTCOM yet find himself stumbling along sorrow’s path anyway. Intoxicated on its own bath water one can see how the Administration might invoke counter insurgency to save its completely non-existent ‘imaginary friend.’ All assuming that Obama will not default to his preferred Goldilocks Paradigm anyway.

At least Caligula could bring back sea shells after defeating Neptune.


  1. DrLeoStrauss says

    Imperial decline made real – an American tool (NATO) seeks to set metropole policy. This calculated action differs from past policy disputes such as Pershing IIs requested by the Schmidt government. Coordinated policy meetings among NATO ministers and member internal decision-making are also par for the course. Here, however, the paltry (non-UK contributions) are a rounding error and a increase from other members however unlikely would not yield even a noticeable increase in combat power on the ground. But it does box Obama – he can let everyone else off the hook but will take the political and institutional hit.


    BRATISLAVA — NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and on their own governments to commit more military and civilian resources for the mission to succeed.

  2. Dr Leo Strauss says

    “US President Barack Obama says he may make a decision on a revised Afghan strategy before that country’s run-off presidential election on November 7. But Mr. Obama also says an announcement may wait until after the votes are in . . .”

    The Goldilocks Paradigm in all its awesome glory. With John Kerry on top with a bow.

  3. Comment says

    Obama is the master at seeming to do things while not doing them – Our hope is that he does this with AfPak. Watching McCain and his Butler Lindsey Graham is getting nauseating.
    Delay – kicking the can down the road – is under-rated. We have found that in own lives we avoid many mistakes by just not doing anything.
    Obama should set out a road-map for reform in Afganistan – ie, before a surge, they have to end the drug trade etc –
    Think of Bush’s road map – all lies basically just to save enough Arab face to help proceed with Iraq,

  4. anxiousmodernman says

    When I heard more rumblings in the media over the need to “rectify” the fraudulent elections with a runoff, I indeed took it as a hopeful signal that the White House might not double down on troop commitments for the full-scale COIN strategy. But maybe I’m too optimistic.

    Waiting for the elections gives Obama the opportunity to look like they’re doing something (anything) over there worthwhile, while at the same time delaying decisions about strategy.

    Wild speculation: isn’t a fraudulently-elected, sort-of-de-legitimized Afghan “state” a good thing here? Could an unstable, power-sharing gov’t in Kabul let the US achieve what it needs to over there while not committing to any single group, whoever the Mayor may be?

  5. Comment says

    Ultimately we think Obama will avoid a major debacle in Afganistan – It seems like he sort of trying to figure out the politics –
    It would be funny – actually is sort of funny (and sad) to watch elite msm media types talk about Afganistan on TV – They are totally alienated from reality and its so obvious that they really don’t know anyone who would actually fight, so they have this very casual attitude about trying a “surge” in Afpak while simultaneously admitting on Charlie Rose or wherever that it probably won’t work by that McCrystal sort of has buzz and he should get what ge wants or else Republicans will say Obama hates to win for America.
    It’s totally moronic and uncontentatious. It’s so bizarre that people don’t even notice.

    Shorter Evan Thomas: Should we surge in AfPak? Yeah, why not? Will we win? No, but what is winning ayway?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


CommentLuv badge