Posted by Phil Giraldi on 11/24/09 7:20 PM Last updated 11/24/09 5:59 PM   [Newer: Memorials for "Wars of Choice"] [Older: Clueless on the West Bank]

In a press conference this afternoon President Obama told visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the US will "finish the job" in Afghanistan and wipe out every last known terrorist.  "Finish the job" is an expressionthat politicians use a lot when they don't really have anything substantive to say.  It is generally believed that Obama will approve a 34,000 soldier increase for the Afghan conflict when he addresses the nation next week.  US soldiers cost the taxpayer $1 million each per year in Afghanistan, which means that the new troop level will cost $170 billion per year.  If the insurgents disrupt the Khyber Pass supply line, which they have been successfully doing, it will cost more, possibly much more.   It might be cheaper to give the insurgents good jobs working for the Afghan post office or something similar to wean them from their criminal ways.  How much more surging can we afford at this price, particularly as it doesn't seem to be working?

I am all for finding and killing ACTUAL terrorists (as opposed to farmers or wedding party guests) who threaten the United States but I have to wonder who Obama has been listening to lately.  There is no coherency to the policies that he appears to embrace, which are little more than mission creep seeking to reconstruct central Asia.  There is little or no al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan while the presence in Pakistan appears to be fairly small and largely preoccupied with scurrying from one bolt hole to another.  If the US successfully eliminates al-Qaeda it will just move somewhere else and continue doing what it is doing, which does not appear to be very much or very effective.  Is it really worth 100,000 troops on the ground at enormous cost?  Not to mention lots of dead American soldiers and Afghan civilians.

There is no US national interest in fighting the Taliban - which do not threaten the United States in any way, shape, or form - while shoring up fraudulently elected President Hamid Karzai and his merry band of cutthroat thieves.  Is Obama also hinting to the Indians that he will next turn on the Muslims seeking to liberate Kashmir, who also do not threaten the US?  Do we keep endlessly going after terrorist groups after that and where does it all end?  If Obama seriously wants to "finish" it in Afghanistan he would gather all of its neighbors in a latter-day Congress of Vienna to work out a security formula that is acceptable to most of them and then pull out.  Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to tell the troops by Christmas that they are coming home by? - Phil Giraldi, American Conservative Defense Alliance

Posted 11/24/09 7:45 PM usapatriot Milton, VT

Brilliant plan by the Obama administration. Empty rhetoric, and escalating the war . . . albeit with less strength than the military commander requested. Do our politicians never learn? Wasn't this the presidential candidate that was talking about "peace" at one point?

Posted 11/24/09 9:19 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

http://educationandethics.blogspot.com/ Tuesday, November 24, 2009 Does India See The U.S. As A Hypocrite? Surely the President of the United States is not in India to flare up the tensions between India and Pakistan! How much U.S. hypocrisy can the world stand? For example, the U.S. tells other nations to ease monitoring the internet while at the same time it lusts after those powers at home; and it condemns political corruption of election processes while at the same time at home in America there is control of the media and of the two political arms of the one-party system of the unConstitutional coup. Maybe the reason for the visit is because India bought 200 tons of gold and the imperialistic U.S. wants to try to put pressure on India not to abandon the dollar before the devising of some other oppressive monetary system is put in place by the ones who are desperately trying to maintain their monetary hegemony.

Posted 11/24/09 9:36 PM Skrag Baton Rouge, LA

"Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to tell the troops by Christmas that they are coming home by?" How many times has that lie been sold to the troops to maintain morale? From the American Revolution to WWII(Operation Market Garden) and beyond. As for Obama, no one has ever summed it up better than Bill Hicks not long before his untimely death. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U He goes even further on the same album(Rants in E-Minor) with track 29, entitled "One of the Boys (Clinton)".

Posted 11/24/09 10:00 PM Skrag Baton Rouge, LA

"Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to tell the troops by Christmas that they are coming home by?" How many times has that lie been sold to the troops to maintain morale? From the American Revolution to WWII(Operation Market Garden) and beyond. As for Obama, no one has ever summed it up better than Bill Hicks not long before his untimely death. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U He goes even further on the same album(Rants in E-Minor) with track 29, entitled "One of the Boys (Clinton)".

Posted 11/24/09 10:01 PM Glenn Cumming, GA

Who are the insurgents? Who are the terrorists? Who are the invaders and occupiers?

Posted 11/24/09 11:26 PM BillNM Carlsbad, NM

Given his Muslim roots, I suspect Obamanation is conflicted. One can argue interpretation, but the book that underpins the Islamic religion gives rise to the martyrs (terrorists). They are the true believers. Non-intervention is the right foreign policy coupled with trade and friendliness. But even that will not dissuade the true believers. That battle has to be fought in the free market place of ideas. Unfortunately, political correctness will not allow the battle to be engaged. All foreign aid has to stop.

Posted 11/24/09 11:47 PM Father Abraham85 Sioux Falls, SD

He ended the article in a preposition. Tis, tis.

Posted 11/25/09 07:30 AM Phil Giraldi Purcellville, VA

The dangling preposition was a typo, not deliberate. Please mentally delete it! Sorry! - Phil Giraldi

Posted 11/25/09 09:01 AM MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

Obama is making the same mistakes made by Johnson and Nixon, Clinton, and the Bushes. Incrementalism is no way to wage war. If you don't want to wage a real war, you should not be waging war at all. There is no middle ground. Obama's delay in decision making is an indicator that he is unwilling to face the issue and make a substantive decision. All middle courses disrespect the service of the armed forces.

Posted 11/25/09 09:50 AM Commander Yo Fort Collins , CO

I think the answer to the question of "is a 100,000 troops really worth it?" If it catches Osama Bin Laden, yes. But we all know that the objective of catching Osama Bin Laben is secondary. Forcing a democracy with a strong central goverment, think of an Afghani reconstruction, on the region is the Real War Plan. However, building a strong central government out of Kabul is profoundly culturally unacceptable to the tribes of Afghanistan and therefore the War "Plan" is doomed to fail. I am continually astounded by the lack of insight, vision, and knowledge coming from all areas of a our federal Government. Our approach to this "War" is no different. We use outdated modalites of war, as if we are chasing Rommel across the North African desert in WWII. If indeed we want to catch Osama, the battle needs to waged with patience, infilltration, and withdraw of all troops so we are not the enemy. FYI Phil, I also think your historical view of Kashmir needs some brushing up. Pakistan invaded a semi-autonomus monarchy in 1947. I don't believe Pakistan and the Muslims should be allowed to be classifed as fighting for independence from indian Rule in the region...

Posted 11/25/09 11:37 AM Phil Giraldi Purcellville, VA

Commander Yo thanks for your comments. I agree that my reduction of the Kashmir conflict was one sided but it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the population in what is now Indian ruled Kashmir did not want to be part of India in 1947. Since that time India has been settling large numbers of Indian hindus in the region to create a pro-Indian majority and has also refused to hold a referendum or plebiscite on the sovereignty issue. My point really is that Kashmir is not our quarrel...

Posted 11/25/09 11:45 AM retornado30 Roosevelt, UT

His rhetoric mirrors George W. Bush. He says we need to stay until it's finished, but waging war against "terrorists" - who by our government's definition can include anyone and whose borders are boundless - is an impossible task. It sounds like he's in it for the long haul (except when he's up for reelection and then his tune will change for 6 months, and of course "democrats" will believe him, just like many "republicans" swallowed everything Bush said). It's like all the other wars waged against ideologies, personal behavior, or belief systems; you cannot win with guns! War on Terror War on Drugs War on Poverty War on Obesity (no guns involved yet, but wait to nationalized health care passes) Finally, a war that the government is loath to admit to, but just as impossible to win, the War on Freedom!

Posted 11/26/09 01:43 AM StaticMatt Richmond, IN

Another great entry from Giraldi. I agree the whole 'Strategic Hamlets' approach will not work as it did not work in Vietnam....(Or a form of it) with the Soviets in Afghanistan. All Rhetoric...We all know how this will play out. Bring home the troops!

Posted 11/27/09 1:45 PM Heata Jonesborough, TN

My young cousin is about to be deployed to Iraq. He's never been one for deep conversations, but he suprised me yesterday by saying he wished Obama would bring all the troops home from around the world because we have no idea what we're doing. That just hit me hard because I thought he was all chest-thumping pro-America. I wonder how many others like him have changed their views lately? What's it going to take for us to change course?

Posted 11/27/09 7:39 PM Cantator Findlay, OH

I looked up the phrase in my personally revised edition of The Devil's Dictionary. For the definition of "Finish the job" it says "see 'Mission accomplished' ".