http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424...

Obama Can't Outsource Afghanistan

By KARL ROVE

So our top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has told CBS's "60 Minutes" that he has spoken with President Barack Obama only once since June.

This is a troubling revelation. Right now, our commander in chief is preparing to make one of the most important decisions of his presidency—whether to commit additional troops to win the war in Afghanistan. Being detached or incurious about what our commanders are experiencing makes it hard to craft a winning strategy.

Mr. Obama's predecessor faced a similar situation: a war that was grinding on, pressure to withdraw troops, and conflicting advice—including from some who saw the war as unwinnable. But George W. Bush talked to generals on the ground every week or two, which gave him a window into what was happening and insights into how his commanders thought. That helped him judge their recommendations on strategy.

Mr. Obama's hands-off approach to the war seems to fit his governing style. Over the past year, he outsourced writing the stimulus package to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, washed his hands of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to reinvestigate CIA interrogators, and hasn't offered a detailed health-care plan.

Mr. Obama's aloofness on the war will be a problem if the recent airing of Joe Biden's views on Afghanistan is a tipoff that Mr. Obama will rely on his vice president's guidance. According to reports in the New York Times and other publications, Mr. Biden supports reducing troop levels in favor of surgical attacks—mostly launched from offshore—and missile strikes against al Qaeda, especially in Pakistan.

Such an approach would almost certainly lose the war. Actionable intelligence—key to defeating an insurgency—would dry up. Tribal chieftains would cut deals with the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Afghan government would probably collapse, and the Afghan people would have little choice but to swing their support to the Taliban. Pakistan would likely come to see us as a fair-weather friend and increasingly resist U.S. attacks against al Qaeda on its soil. American credibility would be shattered. And militant Islamists would gain a victory.

cont................It's a GREAT READ

Obama was voted into office because of the belief he could help change us for the better. People saw water and trees in the desert that was just a mirage. But, it was better than 4 more years of the same ol' same 'ol.... so they thought. Now we see that nothing is different.
The D's are no different than the R's. It's only about getting re-elected and paying off their personal old debts.

Bush's personal debts were to the oil companies and defense contractors. Obama's are a different set of contributors.

Read this one because I think it's spot on. Look where we're going as a country and look at the debts that every state and city are facing. The federal government used to contribute money to the states for building infrastructure, etc. Now, it's all about fighting a war that even the generals have stated can't be won.

BLEED TO BANKRUPTCY.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

Wasn't it Obama that said it was the "WAR of Necessity"....you know the "GOOD WAR" unlike Iraq...His Words.

You Liberals lose Afghanistan you will lose Pakistan and India ain't going to let the Taliban anywhere close to the Pakistani Nuclear Arsenal.

Lose Afghanistan, and your going to see a Blood Bath the Likes that this Planet has never seen.

"Such an approach would almost certainly lose the war."

Yeah because Karl Rove knows what he's talking about...blah blah blah.

One could also say he's a good delegator, Rove spin = outsource, and leaves the issues to the experts like Generals doing war, Attorney Generals conducting investigations, House Appropriations Committee writing stimulus packages, etc. What a concept.

BTW, as we all witnessed, allowing GW to judge anything was extremely dangerous to America and a lot of careers.

Karl Rove doesn't have enough credibility to run a coffee stand, and in fact, should be in jail...and should acknowledge that many of the difficulties in Afghanistan were created by him and his cabal when they completely dropped the ball there...against those who did commit the atrocities of 9/11...to start a war of choice against an unarmed and pacified Saddam Hussein, who just happened to have a lot of oil, not to mention a completely destroyed country that will take trillions of taxpayer dollars to pay Halliburton to rebuild.

Fish on...

Todd

somewhat related - turns out that iraq could have it's electrical infrastructure completely rebuilt using solar systems for less than it will cost to rebuild the oil industry, it's prime source of money and energy.

As far as for Rove and other Bush admin people, many of them were warned by their legal council that when they left office, there were several countries where they would not be able to travel to because they would face prosecution by those countries - i think Rumsfeld had to cancel a trip to Germany over this.

It's also funny that Rove is talking about "outsourcing the war" when we have more contractors with guns in Iraq than we have US soldiers...and not surprisingly, it was him and his knucklehead friends who put them there.

What a fuckin hypocrite.

Fish on...

Todd

Way to stir the pot Sol Duc. Like Todd said, Rove doesn't have the cred to run a coffe stand, but I don't think he should be in jail. Jail is too good for Rove. Rove should be pilloried, along with his cohorts, on the national mall, and left to rot by the elements as slowly as possible. Because extraordinary rendition is also too good for Rove. See what a popular guy you chose to copy/paste?

Sg

Salmo G, this post was not made to pump up Karl Rove. It was made to bring discussion to BO handling of the war in Afghanistan.

Offered for your consideration, actual, factual evidence to the contrary:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/27/i-very-much-enjoy-working-for-obama-gates-says/

Note this is from the Secretary of Defense, not a partisan blowhard. It's also from a who was in the cabinet of both administrations...

Now Go Away.

Dav'e boat has paint on it?

Who is Dav'e?

Is that [censored] pink STAM?

if you replace "Rove" with "politician" we all come out winners

Hank does his best Rory Bellows impersonation again..........

None of these are "wars" they are Military Installations that are met with local resistance.

Have you seen the small city we are building in Iraq? Afghanistan is going to be another "protect them from the Taliban", but if we gain some strategic military footholds in the ME, I guess that would be ok too.

The prime directive has not changed with the presidents.

No one ever said Rove wasn't smart Hank... it's the fact that he's an evil, manipulative, lying, criminal douchebag that turns normal folk off.

No wonder the wingnuts respect him so much...

OJ Simpson never killed anybody, and Al Capone was merely a tax-evader.

He's just the Right's answer to John Podesta is all Webo.

What would be the point?

Not since The GOP schitcanned Habeas Corpus.

Funny how things work out that way. Maybe they thought they'd be in power forever.

So you admit the The GOP has a long history of trampling rights.
Good to know. And as the law is written, despite how you might sell it, "Enemy Combatant" could very well mean YOU, for those bombs you're making in your garage.

'What bomb?', you say?

Well that can of gasoline, that empty bottle, and that old rag.

Bomb Making Materials.

Yeah, not such a swell idea now, is it?

Or changing the nomenclature of arsonist to terrorist.