Perhaps this is how President Obama will close after he skywrites the dates and locations for his pre Election Day troop draw-down over Afghanistan. How else can he be 100% assured that the Taliban won't miss one jot of all that valuable intelligence while he sits back and tallies the electoral votes on November 6. And, of course, it never hurts to send a little love as well. Hugz!
It’s bad enough that our military is stuck with a Commander in Chief so unqualified that he can’t pronounce the word “corpsman” and so indifferent that he can’t remember presenting the Medal of Honor to a fallen hero’s grieving parents – not the hero himself. But the aftershocks of Obama’s drawdown plan in Afghanistan – particularly from top military brass – pretty much confirms that our troops’ fate is not only just being decided by an ignoramus, but a self-serving ignoramus who shuns the advice of experts in his selfish pursuit of election year polling points.
Andrew Malcolm commented yesterday:
In his speech Wednesday evening, President Obama disregarded the preferred troop drawdown choice of his top general, David Petraeus, now headed to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Obama clearly appeared to be paying attention to the anti-war left wing of his party and to war-weariness reflected in polls after a 10-year conflict that began when he was a mere state senator.
And Petraeus isn’t alone in his objection to the drawdown. General Jack Keane (retired) said this today on Fox’s America’s Newsroom:
We’re asking the troops that remain to do more with less, that means more us soldiers killed more us solders wounded as a result of having to do more with significantly less than what we had planned for…
When Bill Hemmer wondered why “did the president make this call this way,” Keane replied:
I don’t know what the motivation is, quite frankly. I know there is no military reason for this kind of reduction after we’ve made such significant gains.
Since Keane wouldn’t speculate about Obama’s motives, that just leaves us dweebs to puzzle it out for ourselves, and it’s a toughie.
Hmmmm. What in the world motivates a poll-challenged incumbent president heading into re-election season? Could it be that there is a little transaction going on here, scheduled to be consummated just weeks before the election when coincidentally a third of our troops would winging their way home?
Defeatism in return for votes? It's possible. After all, jeopardizing our hard-won success against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan and aborting the long-term plan to secure the North could go a long way to slake the defeat-lust rampant in the America-hating wing of Obama’s voting base.
And demoralizing and losing the trust of the loyal friends left behind and gifting the Taliban with the priceless intelligence regarding our pull-out, complete with numbers and dates, would just be gravy.
With the available assets, Petraeus forged an improved working relationship between special forces and the CIA and focused on southern Afghanistan. Allies have since regained control of much of that territory.
The plan was to allow newly-trained Afghan security forces to come in behind the allies in the south. And next fighting season the troops would focus on subduing eastern Afghanistan closer to Pakistan.
Those plans, however, now seem at least jeopardized by the removal of one-third of U.S. troops by September 2012, just two months before the presidential election.
Hat tip to Instapundit.