What the President and Commander-in-Chief really meant was that he was adding additional troops to cover his retreat just when the 2012 Presidential primary season begins in mid 2011. Well isn't that a coincidence. I believe he has no intention of seeing this war end in "victory" - a term that seems illusive to him. It is only a means to a self serving political end - his re-election. I know my view seems harsh and I hope I'm wrong, but who else would telegraph their intentions in a war. How do you think the Afghan government officials think, especially those adamantly opposed to the Taliban? Without U.S. protection they may be in great danger once the withdrawal takes place. How do you think many in the military feel that they may be risking their lives for something far short of victory? The world is watching every move the U.S. takes, and what they see is weakness, not strength of purpose.
Somehow the President was able to convince his military commanders and Secretary Gates that he means to stick it out given the conditions on the ground, but what are these conditions specifically, and who will interpret these conditions when they are met? The President hopes he can convince our NATO allies to send more troops but their resources are limited. Much of their governments' spending was diverted to the costs of running socialist systems at the expense of their military, plus the fact that they became all too dependent on America's military might to protect them over the last 60 plus years.
I don't remember a time when President Bush put the budget before our national security, but President Obama mentioned the monetary cost of the war in his speech, as well as on other occasions. He is worried the military spending will stifle his very costly socialist agenda. I don't know anything that trumps the cost of protecting our nation, but I feel he thinks much differently. I believe that his heart isn't in this fight against radical Islamic fascism, and his uninspired speech shows it. And Iran - well, that is another matter.
Somehow the President was able to convince his military commanders and Secretary Gates that he means to stick it out given the conditions on the ground, but what are these conditions specifically, and who will interpret these conditions when they are met? The President hopes he can convince our NATO allies to send more troops but their resources are limited. Much of their governments' spending was diverted to the costs of running socialist systems at the expense of their military, plus the fact that they became all too dependent on America's military might to protect them over the last 60 plus years.
I don't remember a time when President Bush put the budget before our national security, but President Obama mentioned the monetary cost of the war in his speech, as well as on other occasions. He is worried the military spending will stifle his very costly socialist agenda. I don't know anything that trumps the cost of protecting our nation, but I feel he thinks much differently. I believe that his heart isn't in this fight against radical Islamic fascism, and his uninspired speech shows it. And Iran - well, that is another matter.
