Just four years ago, candidate Obama was just about promising to invade our more-or-less ally Pakistan to win the "real" war on terror in Afghanistan. Today he just wants out and consequences be damned.
The idea that since we killed Osama bin Laden that we can call it mission accomplished neglects that al Qaeda was only part of the problem. Remember that al Qaeda could attack us because they had Taliban protectors who let them set up shop in Afghanistan. If we abandon Afghanistan before they can defend themselves and keep al Qaeda out, might not the Taliban regain power and renew their alliance with al Qaeda? Hmm?
Back to the Syria point, what has President Obama done in the last three years to encourage the military to trust him?
Afghans, the Taliban and neighbors such as Pakistan can reasonably conclude that the United States, rather than trying to win the war, is racing to implement an exit strategy in which the interests of Afghans and their government are slighted. Americans, meanwhile, rarely hear Mr. Obama explain the mission or the stakes. In this context, it’s not surprising that Afghans show little tolerance for U.S. failures — whether it is this week’s shooting or the accidental burning of Korans. And it’s little wonder that most Americans favor withdrawing troops as quickly as possible. If it’s evident that the president won’t defend the war, and is focused on “winding down” rather than winning, why should anyone else support it?
Obama escalates twice in Afghanistan, authorizes offensives to secure Afghanistan, focuses on domestic issues while the military bleeds and he fails to rally the country behind his escalation in order to win, and then cuts the military off on the eve of his re-election campaign.
The military can rightly ask why they bled these last three years. I'm surprised just one soldier has gone on a rampage, under the circumstances. Our troops aren't machines. They are skilled but they are also good people who need a reason to fight and kill enemies that makes the death of their friends and comrades--or their own death when they will leave a family behind to mourn their loss--worth that price. Fighting to fulfill a campaign promise and then being set aside when the fight becomes inconvenient is not worth the price. They aren't mercenaries the way some on the Left describe them simply because we pay them a salary for their job. The military can rightly wonder whether the president will support them when the going gets tough in a future war. Say whatever you want about Bush (and I never liked his domestic spending--little did I know I should have appreciated his relative restraint), but no soldier, Marine, airman, or sailor doubted his commitment to winning the wars he ordered our troops to fight, even when the going got tough and support in Congress and at home wavered.
Not that I think that we should intervene in Syria with our own military. I don't think this president has what it takes to win a tough fight, so that prevents me from even weighing that option. But we should arm the rebels; give them training and political support outside the country; and provide them with intelligence on Syrian troop movements, strengths, and vulnerabilities. Hurting Assad should be our goal to show that we will pay back his killing of American troops in Iraq. If we can turn in out of office, so much the better. Turkey and Jordan should be supported in case they need to move in to smash a desperate Assad regime that might try to take down the region to save his regime or if we need help to secure Syrian chemical and biological weapons.
Our military will do what they are ordered to do. That's the way it is in this country. But don't expect them to put their lives on the lines willingly when they don't know whether their sacrifice is to defend our nation or defend their command-in-chief's re-election ambitions.
