Among the things that unnerve Americans who are familiar with local as well as world events is Obama’s continued turning almost everyone’s list of priorities on its head. Another thing that unnerves Americans is to have this pointed out by a clever and deceitful competitor country such as Russia.
The Russians are very much aware of what should have been an important part of the SOTU menu: The war in Afghanistan with a side of Iraq. Albeit making the point for negative reasons, it is a valid point.
Up to 25,000 US marines have been serving in Iraq since 2003. Most of tem [sic] were quartered in Anbar province. Several thousands of marines are staying there still, but they will be sent home during the upcoming several weeks, according to Washington’s new doctrine. Some of them will stay in Iraq though – to defend the US Embassy.
As for the pull out of troops from Afghanistan, Obama was not that eloquent.
“In Afghanistan, we’re increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) ”
The USA has been waging a war in Afghanistan against Taliban for eight years already. The situation in the region has aggravated a lot recently, and Obama’s administration decided to increase the contingent in this country. The number of US troops deployed in Afghanistan will reach nearly 100,000 people by the summer of 2010.
The current situation in Iraq does not give any serious reason to believe that the war in this country has ended. Three explosions ripped through the streets of Baghdad the day before Obama’s speech: 37 were killed and 104 wounded.
The Islamic State of Iraq claimed responsibility for the terrorist acts. The group, which is believed to be a branch of al-Qaeda, said that the acts were conducted within the scope of the campaign to liberate Iraq from occupation. The previous series of explosions near government buildings in Baghdad in the summer and fall of 2009 took over 400 lives. [Pravda]
Regarding Iraq, the President has to answer the question: aside from the usual number of military at any US embassy, why do we need to maintain a presence there that suggests we have not pulled out of the country? Either we trust the Iraqis with our safety as a member of the group of civilized nations in good standing or we do not in which case we should probably rethink our departure. Perhaps it is premature – the date was after all concocted for political reasons. Again, fear of failure is written all over our quartering of an overabundance of troops to protect the US Embassy. And the enemy quite rightly sees only continued occupation.
We are seriously bogged down with a very high troop level in Afghanistan. Pravda noted the financial drain of this on the US – not to mention the cost in human life. It happened to Johnson. No end to war; no Great Society. The Vietnam “conflict” not only colored the limited way in which we fought subsequent wars but branded the US as a military “power” without success since World War II.
Perception is everything – especially in war. It is used as a weapon to weaken the opposition. When, as in Viet Nam, we need to send in a large contingent of additional troops, it not only signals the situation is in losing mode but that it is a rescue mission for our troops in place. We needed an update on Afghanistan and a clear policy from Obama. The the impact of this war (any war) on social programs and our ability get on our fiscal feet is staggering. We need to hear from leadership on this. That was not forthcoming.
______________________________
HotAir – Homeland Security chief skipped EunuchBomber review, shows up for SOTU
afvet
January 30, 2010
What worries me is Obama’s arrogance.
Concerning military advice that has been given to him during the past year, he appeared to take a ridiculously long time to make a decision.
We are talking about our troop’s live’s here and he is farting around for months on the number of troops to support the mission.
Hey Obama, the General knows what he is talking about, you and your socialist advisers do not.
He is far too political when it comes to our military men and women.
One of the things about Obama is the fact of his elusiveness.
I saw it during the campaign, the news media is just now beginning to come around to the fact that this guy is maintaining a facade for a reason.
In order to achieve his level in politics, without being born into it, and considering the amount of time elapsed since he was even a molecule on the national stage, (convention speech), that impressed even me.
However, it’s not the outside, or what a person says, it’s the inside and what a person stands for.
samhenry
January 31, 2010
afvet – I could not agree with you more on all of your good points. Somewhere along the way I have voiced these same positions in a post. I like your reassuring visits. I like it you have served this country. You have seen it all and that does make a difference.
samhenry
January 30, 2010
If you have time, CAT, would appreciate your honest assessment of this article.