Posted on 12/16/2009 9:06:38 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
U.S. President Barack Obama has scaled back the scope of the Afghan war, now about to enter its ninth year, to a limited military objective: deny al-Qaida a safe haven. And since we are now told there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan — the rest are in Pakistan's tribal areas — a three-way deal between the Karzai government, powerful warlords and Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar would seem to be the better part of valor. After Iraq, we cannot afford another trillion-dollar war.
It took the United States 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $1.4 trillion. This is now projected to double in the next 10 years. The national debt ceiling is going up another $2 trillion to $12.3 trillion. The federal budget deficit for 2009 hit a record $1.42 trillion; 2010 is expected to set a new record of $2 trillion. One trillion dollar bills, end to end, would cover the distance between Earth and the sun, or to the moon and back 200 times.
That al-Qaida would return to a Taliban-run Afghanistan in a heartbeat is an article of faith in Washington. But nothing is less certain. Afghanistan is ripe for stealthy Special Forces, rental deals with warlords who cannot be bought, a modus vivendi with a new Taliban whose chief Mullah Omar had already grown fed up with self-promoter Osama bin Laden when the UPI team led by this reporter interviewed him in Kandahar on June 4, 2001.
Omar, visibly annoyed, complained bin Laden was issuing too many fatwas (religious edicts), which he said he was not authorized to do. We told Omar then if he didn't turn over bin Laden, the United States would invade Afghanistan and defeat him. He thought we were bluffing.
Today, Taliban chieftains and warlords could probably be swayed to take sides against al-Qaida, the alliance that led to their demise in October 2001.
Why Obama still felt compelled to add 30,000 troops to the 68,000 boots already on the ground, at $1 million per soldier per year, is not much of a mystery. The fear of being branded an appeaser and losing the House of Representatives next year and the White House in 2012 to Republicans is clearly paramount. The president is out on a limb but is staying close to the trunk, which leaves little room for Republican and lukewarm left-wing supporters who would saw it off. He can see these two adversaries pre-empting his own post-imperial agenda with a new slogan — e.g., Americans come home … time to rebuild America (before China eats our lunch).
U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus is already being auscultated by GOP scouts parsing the potential field. They recall how Gen. Dwight Eisenhower clinched his presidential campaign with "I shall go to Korea" to end an unpopular war. Once in the White House, he gave the U.S. economy a formidable booster shot — and ordered up the interstate highway system. It became the largest public works project in history and the largest highway system (46,876 miles) in the world.
Americans are fast losing interest in promoting democracy abroad. They see China, with the world's most modern infrastructure, steadily gaining ground in the superpower stakes. Only 10 percent of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations' 642 members say they think democracy around the world should be a U.S. priority, and only 35 percent say the United States should strive to improve living standards abroad. Almost half the general public says the United States should "mind its own business internationally, and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."
All that is a sea change since 2001, when al-Qaida attacked New York and Washington. Forty-four percent of CFR's members already see China as the world's leading economic power vs. 27 percent who say the United States still is — and this at a time when the U.S. economy is still twice the size of China's.
Fewer than half the general public and only 41 percent of CFR say they believe the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan can be averted. Aspirant political leaders will ignore these stats at their peril.
For Obama, the Vietnam analogy is a false reading of history. When Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968, he told this reporter nothing could be achieved until he managed to bring the Vietnam War to an end. And when he launched incursions into eastern Cambodia's "Parrot's Beak" in April 1970, he was roundly denounced for widening the war to another country. The Vietcong and North Vietnamese army had long since established safe havens, ammo dumps and underground headquarters in this sparsely populated Cambodian region close to Saigon. Nixon's decision gave the South Vietnamese precious time to bolster their own forces with a view to fending for themselves without U.S. troops. This, they did. The last U.S. fighter left Vietnam March 29, 1973, two months after the Paris peace agreements. The South Vietnamese army fought on for two years until Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford became president, and Congress, in its infinite wisdom, cut off all military aid to South Vietnam. Saigon fell four months later.
Thirty-five years later, almost 60 percent of Americans asked say the country is on the wrong track. They are confused. The administration says the economic recovery is well under way. Yet almost 25 million Americans are without jobs (including those who no longer qualify for unemployment compensation as well as those who gave up looking). Seven million Americans are behind on their mortgages and risk foreclosure. Economist Peter Morici reports Wall Street banks are divvying up $140 billion in year-end bonuses on the back of $280 billion in new profits. Military men and women are pulling up to five wartime tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. U.S. Rep. David R. Obey D-Wis., chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, says we cannot continue without a war surtax. This could cost the Democrats both houses — and change history.
*****
Arnaud de Borchgrave, a member of the Atlantic Council, is editor-at-large at UPI and the Washington Times. This essay was syndicated by UPI as "President Petraeus?"
he’s clearly competant, a Washington outsider.
I’d support him!
Sarah has the top slot.
Well we don’t know much about his stances on anything and Eisenhower was a great military commander but kind of so so president.
Gen. Petraeus as recently as last week, stated that he has no desire for political office and / or seeking to run for POTUS?
He sounded sincere to me in his statements
Palin / Petraeus would be quite a ticket.
I would like to see his stated positions on a number of issues first. However, overall, I am quite impressed with this man.
I heard the same thing. He will not be running. So it is not an issue.
The national debt broke the trillion dollar mark around the time of World War II.
“Petraeus the Next Eisenhower? [”President Petraeus?”]”
He’d make a fine VP for President Palin.
What an ugly mess of an article....
Considering the headline, one would expect that Mr. de Borchgrave would actually discuss the topic.
Instead, we get an incoherent mess of angst that never really bothers to settle on a point.
Bleh...
I never served under Gen. Petraeus, and likewise, am quite impressed with him as a military commander. Having served as a Provost Marshal and having briefed a number of general officers on various law and order issues, I think a lot of FReepers would be surprised at some of their reluctance to embrace 2nd Amendment related matters (among other things). NRA spokesman Gen. Norm Schwarzkopf is a notable exception, and again, I'm speaking in some pretty broad generalities...I have no idea what General Petraeus's stance on the issue is. Keep in mind that Petraeus's popularity with conservatives is now akin to what Colin Powell's was in the immediate years following Desert Storm...and look how that turned out.
I like everything I know about Gen. Petraeus so far, but would like to know a lot more before throwing his name out there as a possible candidate.
I’m also very impressed with him. For sure I’d like to see him as Secretary of Just About Anything, Defense, State, DCI.
For president, I need to know a lot more about where he stands on issues other than defense. If he’s a believer and a constitutionalist, count me in.
I would not support him until I found out if he was pro-life. If he is pro-life that would be a start for his support.
He would clear the field and win with 395-425 electoral votes.
I have no idea what his politics are.
Which is just about where the country, as a whole is. Personally, I would like someone a little more conservative, but as a wholesale candidate that could govern the vast majority of people, he might be OK. Way too early to tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.