Samson's Jawbone

In response to General Mc Crystal's and NATO's request for 40,000 additional troops some are arguing we need to pull out of Afghanistan now. The arguments for pulling out in Afghanistan belies a knowledge of history and a commitment to defending our nation. Was it not Senator Kerry's argument in the 2004 election that President Bush had "taken his eye off the ball" by going into Iraq, and that Afghanistan should be the main front? Did not then Senator Barak Obama argue that the war in Afghanistan "could not afford to be lost," even threatening to invade an allied nation to win it? Yet now when the going starts getting a little tough Senator Kerry and some in this administration are losing their courage, calling for a pullout. The problem is there arguments for a pullout are specious: Senator Kerry and some of his colleague argue that the Soviets fought there for ten years and were not able to defeat the Afghan War Lords, what makes us think that

I am old enough to remember Vietnam quite well. I remember that we made our goal to support a corrupt regime and to keep the battle contained in very limited geographical boundaries. I remember that battlefield tactics were determined in the Oval Office rather or the Pentagon, rather than on the battle field. I am also old enough to remember the botched rescue attempt of our hostages in Iran, while President Carter ran the operation from the Oval Office. Now some are asking if Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam, whether it is a lost cause.I submit that the reason Vietnam was lost was because of an unsuccessful strategy that is typical of the way Post-World War II democratic administrations prosecution wars. If Afghanistan fails it will be because the President's strategy is flawed. Beginning with Harry democratic Truman Presidents have fought wars for political expedience and then sought what they have called "exit strategies," which is euphemism for easiest way to en