Why Are We In Afghanistan?

To hear Obama sympathizers tell it, we are there to kill some Taliban.  And then leave.

"Victory"?  That's so ... George Bush.

So how 'bout we agree that we've killed said Taliban and leave now?

Mark Steyn:

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse,” said Osama bin Laden many years ago, “by nature they will like the strong horse.” The world does not see President Obama as the strong horse. He has announced that U.S. troop withdrawals will begin in 12 months’ time. Karzai takes him at his word, and is obliged to prepare for a post-American order in Afghanistan, which means reaching his accommodations with those who’ll still be around when the Yanks are over over there. The new government in London takes him at his word, too. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, wants as rapid a British pullout as possible. When Obama announced an Afghan “surge” dependent on such elements as mythical NATO trainers and then added that, however it went, U.S. forces would begin checking out in July 2011, he in effect ruled out the possibility of victory. Over 1,000 American troops have died in Afghanistan, 300 British soldiers, 148 Canadians. What will our soldiers be dying for in the sunset of the West’s Afghan expedition? What is Obama’s characteristically postmodern “surge” intended to achieve? More Afghan police sleeping in fields? Greater opportunities for women? Take Your Child Bride to Work Day in Kandahar?

I know what Republican Party chairman Michael Steele was trying to say the other day (I may be the only one) when he positied that Afghanistan "is a war of Obama's choosing."  Our president, then Candidate Obama, wanted the U.S. to focus our foreign policy efforts on any geography that didn't involve Bush's War of Choice (a landmass that begins with "I" and ends in "RAQ").  John Murtha chose Okinawa; others picked Chicago; Obama chose Afghanistan.  Same difference.  Same level of seriousness.

Tough talk pursued.

But lo and behold, Obama, having gotten elected and having grabbed that tiger by the tail, now wonders what in the hell he's to do with it.  So we're entertained by a policy that has us fully committed to defeating Osama bin Ladin, destroying the Taliban, and bolstering the Afghan government, as long as we can do it in the next 180 days.  After that, well, been nice workin' with ya.  We're outta here.  And on to Arizona.  Or wherever the 101st Airborne is needed most.

It's all a joke.  A cruel, deadly, misguided, unforgiving joke.  Being played on those who volunteered to protect the United States of America against those who would have us all dead, but now find themselves in a foreign land with orders to make all-out war on our enemy, but not for much longer, in a "war" where they're to be shot at before they can shoot, and, by the way, don't call those adversaries "the enemy."

Steyn asks: "What is Obama’s characteristically postmodern 'surge' intended to achieve?" Even Obama can't answer that any more.

In truth, Obama's plan was to get his skinny ass elected.  Nothing more.

Now?  Who knows?