On Afghanistan: Part 2

Its been my speculation for several months now that the President was looking to find a plan that appeased as many people as possible. After all, with a low approval rating and even some in his party starting to question heavily the direction his leadership has brought us has awakened a whole new host of critics. Despite that, a plan for the war in Afghanistan has been talked about for a while, and even the hand picking of a General that the President wanted. But after the Pres. went to West Point to tout a plan to add 30,000 troops to the impoverished region, we find ourselves with a very shortsighted path to victory. I applaud Mr. Obama in the surge, and to be honest in proportions to troop levels with comparing it to Iraq, this surge far exceeds Mr. Bush's late success. In all do honesty though what still trips me up is deadlines. By setting a timetable you allow your enemy to see an end. This happened with Vietnam and Harry Reid tried to do this with Iraq. Sunset provisions do not work. Nor does combat limitation talks, which basically state that we limit ourselves to the weapons we use. The genius of Reagan is bluffing with strength. Theres a term we use in the Army called Mildec, which refers to military deception. Its essentially a macro-level approach to psychological warfare. Frighten not just your enemy, but more importantly your enemies leadership. Im a full believer that the only way to peace is through victory. With Afganistan weve drug our feet, and both administrations are guilty of it. However having some of America's most brilliant and experienced Generals, not to mention a man who could go down in history as our greatest Secretary of Defense helps. But with winter here and the closing of the regional mountainsides and northern provinces in Tora Bora and the Hindu Kush ranges, the violence will be completely centralized to the south, completely. Thus forcing nearly all combat operations on American forces. And with a possible olive branch to Taliban leaders many within our military ranks find themselves abandoned and without decisive support. Not too mention internal gutting hosted by the DoJ and civilian trials for self-avowed terrorists. Moral is low. In fact it is in the garbage can.

Any plan I could offer would cost extreme political capitol on behalf of the Administration and would simply never be done. Those of you familiar with my ideals and beliefs know that while I supported Iraq and Afghanistan, Im a strict constitutionalist and am fastidious toward the War Powers Act of 1973. However, these operations are essential to national security and I find it frustrating that both parties are not willing to own up to the incorrigible constitutional loop-hole. That being said, national defense is a tough game to lay in regards to semantics and for those diehards out there, I welcome any and all comments for a casuist exchange that would bring clarity, yet I feel somehow were beyond the point of playing a gentlemens war, which is the sad thought of many leaders today.