Wider Taliban Attacks in Afghanistan, Orders from Pakistan

The New York Times: Reports that the Taliban of Afghanistan have out foxed the Western Allies, they have moved attacks to once peaceful areas of Afghanistan. The NYT writes the following on the command and control of the Taliban, " showing a.... level of sophistication and organization, are using their sanctuary in Pakistan to stoke a widening campaign of violence in northern and western Afghanistan..." Thus President Obama is facing the same problems that LBJ had over Vietnam, the badlands of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan allow the Taliban/Terrorists to have bases in Pakistan that are secure from land attack by Western Troops. Any major attack on Taliban/Terrorists bases in Pakistan with Western troops could bring down the secular Government of Pakistan, and Pakistan is nuclear armed. But if the USA does not take action, the War in Afghanistan can not be won, its that simple and brutal. The Army of Pakistan has had recent success against the Taliban of Pakistan in the Swat Valley but Pakistan has its own internal problems, the ISI the Intelligence service of Pakistan has supported the Taliban over the years against the enemies of Pakistan. It is like shadow boxing, you never quite win, and you tire yourself out in the long term. Having started to read General McChrystal full report I can see why President Obama is having third thoughts but it could be to late, the surge in March will bring US troops levels up to near seventy thousand, it Obama's War, it does not matter if he wants it, its his bag, to use a modern term. As he stated in his remarks in March Afghanistan is to important to lose, but it might not be winnable either in the long term, President Karzai has become the new Diem. The question is has Obama become the new LBJ.

The Special Relationship, the USA and the UK

BBC News: Reports on the perceived fraught relationship between President Obama and UK PM Gordon Brown. The Special Relationship even at its most special has had its up and downs, FDR during the World War Two thought he alone could deal with Stalin without Churchill. In the 80s Lady Thatcher was not happy with President Reagan when he invaded Grenada, when Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 the UK Government of Sir John Major was out of favour due to the fact that it was seen as having tried help Bush 41 beat Clinton in the Presidential Election. In 1999 UK PM Tony Blair was more hawkish than the President for tougher action in the Balkans, Blair wanted to use ground troops. In 2001 Bush 43 found a political soul mate in UK PM Tony Blair, thus the war in Iraq. At the end of the day US Presidents can think that they don't need the UK but when the teabags hit the fan, its the UK that is by the side of the USA. President Obama should be remained that after the US the next major force in Afghanistan in the UK. If the Obama Administration does not need the UK then we don't need Afghanistan.

USA, Russia and Iran

Fox News: Reports that Russia is now open to place sanctions on Iran. It seems behind closed doors that there was a deal between Russia and the USA when it comes to Iran, the USA removes the missiles shield from Poland and Czech Republic and Russia backs tough sanctions on Iran. The question is will the sanctions be tough enough, will Iran not go nuclear. The answer to both question is NO. If your Iran you have seen that North Korea gets a semi Presidential visit with the visit of ex President Bill Clinton to North Korea. Thus if your in Tehran you might read Obama as weak, you would see that the USA is still in Afghanistan and Iraq, that Afghanistan is causing a political fight between semi Hawks ( VP Biden ) and Hawks ( Every one else ) in the Obama White House, that this might be the time for Iran to simply go ahead with your nuclear programme. At the end of the day sanctions will not work, you also need the CIA to take covert action in to Iran to soften up the regime, how will the CIA react to such a request when the Obama's Attorney General wants to place CIA officials in jail for preventing another 9/11. In other words it will come to down to Israel to preserve Western Security, thank God for Israel.

Afghanistan = Vietnam in the Obama White House

The Times: Reports that the ghost of LBJ and Vietnam is hanging over President Obama and the White House over its strategy in Afghanistan. This blog for years has been against a heavy troop presence in Afghanistan, when Obama was checking in and out of the Senate to run for the Presidency this blog was opposed to an Afghan War with Western troops. As with all things there have been changes, Obama at the start had the chance to scale down Afghanistan, not make Afghanistan the main battle area for the War on Terror, but it had been the Just War in his Campaign for the Presidency, also the Bush surge had worked in Iraq, thus it had fallen from the headlines. In March of this year President Obama stated that he had a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, what the President said about the importance of Afghanistan is now causing him problems, the President states the following, " Many people in the United States -- and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much -- have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer. So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can....The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan.......For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people -- especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence. " Thus the President is up a creek without a paddle, as stated this blog, what ever decision the President takes it will cost lives, this blog has changed its view, from wanting a small footprint in Afghanistan to the support of more troops. If the President had scaled back at the start of his Administration then we might not be her now, the Taliban within 12 months of winning and the UK not having lost some heroic soldiers. But we here, the USA and the UK have taken heavy losses. Is Obama really going to turn around and say it was pointless. The political hacks in the West Wing might think Obama could sell a broken down second hand car but this would be a bridge to far, Obama might as well back his books to go back to Chicago in 2012 if the think he would win. An act of treachery of selling the people of Afghanistan down the river would make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan. A holding strategy in Afghanistan would be Vietnam all over again, Obama sooner or later would be forced to send more troops, by then in political terms it would be to late, also Obama would have to face the fact that his decision will have cost more US and UK lives, also it would allow the Taliban to hit Western Forces and wait them out, NATO would be finished, Russia might think this was the chance to retake his past satellite countries, Ukraine, Poland and the Czech Republic. The Obama decision is more important that the political fate of Obama, this is about Western security, if Obama wobbles Iran will go nuclear and Israel will have no choice but to hit Iran. Lets hope Obama has more Steele than wind.

Obama on the WORLD STAGE = UN

Courtesy of the White House: President Obama at the UN, 23/09/09

The White House Blog: Full Text of President Obama's speech to the UN. The President today at the UN tried again to start to talks with Iran and North Korea, the President stated the following, “ In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope.　 We respect their rights as members of the community of nations.　 I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations. But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable.　 The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.　 We must insist that the future does not belong to fear. ” The problem for President Obama is that due to his actions in Poland and the Czech Republic he is seen as weak by the international community, thus Israel has stopped the Obama Agenda for the Middle East. Also the open political warfare in D.C over how the USA should act in Afghanistan, this is starting to effect the perception of the Obama Administration. On the one hand you have VP Biden who wants to redirect US forces to Pakistan at the expense of Afghanistan on the other you have the US Military and the Secretaries of Defence and State who want to to send another thirty to forty thousand more troops to Afghanistan. In essence Iran sees a weak President, someone they can roll, Obama so far has not used the big stick, a lot of talk not lot of action

New Take on Afghanistan

The New York Times: Reports that President Obama might be having third thoughts about Afghanistan, 1st in the election of 2008 Obama as a candidate argued that the War in Afghanistan was the Jus War, 2nd President Obama argued that the USA needed to defeat the Taliban to beat the threat of terrorism from the region, now we come to the third idea pushed by VP Biden, the NYT states the following policy view of Biden, " to scale back American forces ( in Afghanistan ) and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan.." In other words the Just War can be thrown in the bin, while you doing that throw the people of Afghanistan in to the bin. The Biden policy is based on the theory that Al Qaeda wont go back to Afghanistan, lets see the Taliban hate Western values, they hate the secular government of Pakistan, a close ally of the West, why would the Taliban of Afghanistan not take back Al Qaeda, a major threat to the USA and the West and its friends. Lets hope President Obama is not following a trend of selling out different Alliances based on the political pressure form his left, if this is case we do have another Jimmy Carter on hour hands, if your a Republican that is great, we have the 2010 Mid Term Congressional elections and then the 2012 Presidential Election in the USA. The Republicans should make major gains in 2010 and win the Presidency back in 2012.

Obama's New York Blues

Politico: Reports on the Democratic infighting between President Obama and the New York Governor David Paterson, the Governor has stated that his polls are down due to the weak record of President Obama in Congress. Lets have a look at the background folks, this is politics at its most cynical, the real deal of low down politics. The Obama West Wing has seen that Governor Paterson's polls are in the toilet, he is a drag on Democrats who are up for re-election in 2010. Thus what did the Obama White House try to do, get Paterson not run, this idea went down faster than a New York minute, so what does the Governor do, light some fires under the Obama record in Congress.