Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times

SAN DIEGO, June 25, 2011 — Even before President Obama’s recent speech about Afghanistan, polling data revealed a sharply divided country with those desiring to bring our troops home in a majority. According to a recent Pew Research Poll, 56 percent of Americans prefer ending the war while “39 percent support leaving our troops in Afghanistan until conditions have stabilized” (Newsmax, June 22, 2011).

Mixed reactions to Wednesday’s speech are understandable, especially with so many sub issues involved, laced with moral and ethical questions often in tension with each other. The first question is obvious: Should our Commander-In Chief be paying less attention to polls and more attention to his military commanders?

On the other hand, can we stay in Afghanistan indefinitely watching our honorable men and women put their lives on the line to prop up a fragile, unstable government whose enemies hover like vultures?  There is also a question of motivation: How much of this time table emanates from Obama’s ideology as opposed to political calculation? The answer is not immediately forthcoming. Certainly our president is an astute politician. He also seems sincere, yet dangerously naive in his foreign policy. Of course, all American citizens who follow current events hold to ideologies of their own. It is difficult to protect the consistency of heart felt viewpoints when war is involved because attempting to do so raises even further questions:  Must one be against any war to protest the war in Afghanistan? How about those who supported this operation originally but now feel the “rules of engagement” are making Afghanistan  a conflict we can never win? Should further troops perish on an altar if authentic victory is not our true goal? Or perhaps people support the war, but do not see “nation building” as a necessary objective.

Speaking of objectives, would it not be wise to review the original mission? Obama’s speech offered some review, along with optimistic appraisals of what has been done so far. Although he stopped short of repeating George Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished, ” Obama did seem to get very close before hitting the breaks.  George W had been talking about Iraq (after Saddam Hussein was removed, but before America’s police action which virtually jump started a whole new war.) Earlier, this same President Bush, on the heels of 9/11, made our purposes for going into Afghanistan conditional upon the actions of the Taliban.

He began by assessing life in Afghanistan under al Qaeda and the Taliban:

“The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda’s vision for the world. Afghanistan’s people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.”

President Bush followed his description with some very grave words:    “By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.”

Then came the ultimatum: “And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:

— Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.

— Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

— Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

— Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.  These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. …..The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate.”

But it wasn’t only about Afghanistan. President Bush moved on to the broader world wide problem: “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” ((President Bush’s address to joint session of Congress, September, 20, 2001, Transcript from CNN).

Almost ten years later, America hears a much different speech from a much different president.  To process this very important address, I offer some responses to a few highlights:

“For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on al Qaeda, to reverse the Taliban’s momentum, and train Afghan security forces to defend their own country. I also made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended, and that we would begin to draw down our forces this July. Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment.”

Obama’s reminder that he kept his promise is noteworthy.  Still, truth be told, many people worry more about our president keeping his promises than breaking them.

“Thanks to our extraordinary men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support.”

Announcing in advance when we are going to wind down our military presence is an interesting strategic maneuver, one probably unfamiliar to the very cadets who listened to the prequel speech a year ago. I doubt that too many West Point courses encourage such a strategy.

As for bringing home 33,000 troops next summer…Hmm…Let’s see…Next summer…2012. Something seems familier about that year. Now don’t tell me. It’s right on the tip of my tongue. Could this be Obama’s way of ending the war enough to satisfy anti-war protesters who helped elect him, all the while giving himself wiggle room by still leaving other troops in Afghanistan until 2014? If the whole withdrawal scenario blows up in his face, Obama can “explain to the American people” why we must stay a little longer. This explanation would take place after he secures his second and final term in office.

“By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.”

We don’t need a crystal ball to guess how that’s going to work out. The Taliban will be back in power faster than catnip turns your pet feline into a maniac.

“We’re starting this draw down from a position of strength.”

True, but what will it look like one year after our final set of evacuations?”

“Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda’s leadership.”

Yes, but who exactly is he talking about?  The Pakistani officials may have offered some assistance but they weren’t incredibly helpful in locating the biggest fish of all. True, Obama said in this same speech that “we will work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keep its commitments,” but one wonders how that’s working out. While certain Pakistani informants did help our Central Intelligence Agency in nailing bin Laden, several of them were arrested by Pakistan’s own spy organization for their actions  (New York Times, June 14, 2011).

“The information that we recovered from bin Laden’s compound shows al Qaeda under enormous strain.”

That’s wonderful news, Mr. President, but you still don’t get it. We are not at war merely with al Qaeda. We are at war with Militant Islam in all its incarnations. That includes terrorist organizations and ruthless governments alike. Perhaps you feel America has not declared war against this entire ensemble of characters but your opinion is irrelevant. They have declared war on us, some by citing America specifically, others by condemning “infidels” in general.

Mr. President, maybe you think these stages of withdrawal from Afghanistan will make a difference to the Muslim world, but on what basis? After all, your 2009 Magical Mystery Apology Tour didn’t do a whole lot for America’s standing amongst Militant Muslims. Remember? Instead of pointing to verses in the Koran, which command Jihad, you offered a partial explanation for Muslim hostility:  “…the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam” (Transcript from The Washington Post, June 4, 2009).

This fun packed address was delivered in Egypt, but today only 20 percent of Egyptians maintain good will toward the United States (Pew Research Poll, April, 25, 20110). Your speech produced a love for America that can barely be seen through a microscope. It was about as fruitful as the billions of dollars we’ve poured into this same Egypt and other Middle East countries.

Mr. President, before giving up on courting our enemies, you might want to offer the Taliban, and other prominent extremist organizations a dozen red roses and a box of See’s Candy. It won’t impress them, but perhaps it will impress those Americans who elected you in the first place.

“America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. Our position on these talks is clear: They must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan constitution.”

This part of the speech was the most disturbing of all. After removing  Taliban cutthroats and continuing to push them back for almost ten years, now we are going to have talks with them?  The idea, of course is not new. A trial balloon went up in 2009:

“Even as President Obama  floated the idea of negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban, Afghan and foreign officials here said that preliminary discussions with the Taliban leadership were already under way and could be developed into more formal talks with the support of the United States” (New York Times, March, 11, 2009).

“According to experts and officials here, including several Afghans who served in the Taliban government of 1996 to 2001, there is a widespread desire among Afghan Taliban fighters to seek a settlement that would end intervention by NATO forces on one side and foreign Islamists, including al-Qaeda, on the other…. This week, Karzai and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton discussed the issue at a conference in The Hague, where Clinton said moderate Taliban insurgents should be offered “an honorable form of reconciliation” if they abandon their armed fight and break ties with al-Qaeda” (Washington Post Foreign Service, April 3, 2009).

It’s not unimaginable that certain Taliban wish to see the fighting stop, especially when their side is losing. But have we forgotten how the Taliban treated other Afghani inhabitants? What would be an example of “moderate” Taliban? Those who publicly flog a woman but only allow half the normal sized crowd to watch? Maybe they’ll let a woman learn how to read but not write. Or will they cut off a few fingers of a thief instead of his entire hand?

Assuming Afghanistan becomes “al Qaeda free”  what difference does that make if the Taliban return?  Try to envision World War Two Allies removing Gestapo agents from Germany, all the while leaving SS soldiers in charge?  Maybe the Taliban will not technically be left in charge, but it would only be a matter of time before they rule again.

“Afghan security forces have grown by over 100,000 troops, and in some provinces and municipalities we’ve already begun to transition responsibility for security to the Afghan people. In the face of violence and intimidation, Afghans are fighting and dying for their country, establishing local police forces, opening markets and schools, creating new opportunities for women and girls, and trying to turn the page on decades of war.”

The heroic Afghanis are to be admired. But how much of their courage and inspiration will evaporate after they feel abandoned by the very nation encouraging them to take a stand? Then again, hanging around Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other place for the purpose of nation building puts America on a road without any turns. While some celebrate the reforms going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must remember that no law in either country is allowed to contradict the religion of Islam. (Iraq Constitution, Article 2, Afghanistan Constitution, Article 3). Outside forces cannot change the ideology in a person’s heart. Such transformation comes from other means and without this change, nation building is at once a pointless waste of time and an unfair danger for our military.

Despite all misgivings about Obama’s appeasement, I am forced to agree with the President when he discourages nation building.  Keep in mind however, that other alternatives exist. Our choice is not limited to either nation building or impossible rules of warfare, parsed by lawyers. Many will agree that American troops should not be scheduled to return home until after the war is won. But winning battles and hanging around indefinitely need not translate into equal objectives. Our original purpose was to not only defeat al Qaeda, but also the ruling Taliban who sheltered them. Once the Taliban were out of power, part of that mission was accomplished. Killing or capturing just as many al Qaeda members and dislodged Taliban resisters as possible is a necessary follow up.  This must include shooting even through human sheilds. Niether should we be shy about taking out those who fire upon us from mosques. Then, instead of restructuring their government, we could say, “OK, the Taliban have been removed from power and al Qaeda is gone. You now have a level playing field again. This is your country. If you want to be a democracy, or live under Muslim Law or hold to something in between, the choice is yours. But know this: If your nation ever again harbors terrorists bent upon destroying the United States, we’ll be back. ”

If we can say that without sounding too much like the former governor of California, it might just work. Even then, the war against Militant Islam will not be over, only one chapter.  We need a Commander-In Chief who understands this.

Share this on