Reagan: A half-hearted Afghanistan strategy revealed 

As many of you will recall, in previous writings I urged President Barack Obama to do the right thing when it came to providing Gen. Stanley McChrystal with his requested troop increases in support of the war effort in Afghanistan. And during the early debate over troop levels, I even accepted the president’s request for reasonable time to meet with his advisers to discuss all options available to obtaining military victory in Afghanistan.

Last night, I was pleased and encouraged to see that President Obama heeded the counsel of his generals on the matter of increased troop levels that are so critical to our continuing battle against terrorists and those who house and support them.

Sadly, we are already seeing many members of the president’s own political party take exception to an increase in troop levels — many pushing for a retreat from the fight against those who took the lives of so many innocent victims on Sept. 11, 2001, and who are continually plotting for the next great attack against Americans on our home soil and/or abroad. How did so many Democrats forget that fateful day — a mere eight years ago?

This morning, the Taliban and al-Qaida are on notice that 30,000 more of America’s best and brightest military personnel are gearing up to take the fight against terror to the nearest town, village and even cave to track down and eradicate those who have done or desire to harm America and her interests.

But I do take exception to the fact that the Taliban and al-Qaida have also woken up to news that this massive American military surge, one that will increase our troop levels to close to 100,000, already has a publicized end date.

Yes, that is correct. Our enemy has been put on notice by the president himself that by July 2011, we will begin pulling back our troop commitments in Afghanistan. What makes this date even more disconcerting is the fact that it will take us several months to implement the 30,000-troop influx that is so central to this new security offensive.

This means we will begin leaving just a year after all the troops arrive — but conveniently in advance of the beginning of the 2012 election season.

It doesn’t seem to me that it makes any sense to let your enemy know when you are coming and when you plan to leave. All they should need to know is what you plan to do: win.

Wednesday, President Obama had a golden opportunity to borrow a line from my father — one that would have brought the house down and instilled more confidence in the plan he appeared half-heartedly to support. All he had to do was announce: “We win — they lose.” But rather, the president’s message and demeanor presented more of a détente approach to American foreign policy, in a speech where he never once made victory our goal.

Gen. David Petraeus, leader of the Iraq surge and now head of U.S. Central Command, acknowledged after President Obama’s speech Wednesday that there was “tension” between the desire to win the conflict and the desire to pull out quickly. Those desires are both real and understandable, but no one knows better than Petraeus how much meeting both can sometimes prove impossible.

Moving forward, the American people, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and our NATO allies must now rise to the task before us. But even as I move to follow my president, I can only hope that it is this pattern, rather than political timelines, which he follows in the next two years.

To the men and women who now bravely go to serve, you have my deepest thanks, hopes and prayers. You are the soul of this country, and your service will not go unmarked.

Michael Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is chairman and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation (www.reaganlegacyfoundation.org).

About The Author

Michael Reagan

Pin It
Favorite

Latest in Guest Columns

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Videos

© 2014 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation