(Cartoon published in Australia and sent by Topshot)

BH0 continued, “If I was just hearing one side, then I would probably not be getting the full reality of what's going on in Afghanistan: which is that, yes we have a vital interest there, yes we have to make sure that we don't get mission creep and that we define our interests narrowly to make sure we're just going after extremists and preventing them from having safe havens. Yes, we have got to have an effective Afghan government and right now we don't have the kind of partner that we'd like; yes we've got to have Pakistan cooperating; yes we've got to have more civilian ah cooperation; so all those variable then go into the decision making process and as I said if I was just listening to hawks or doves on either side of the debate, then I probably wouldn't be making a very good decision.”

Actually, I feel this was a great none answer. I would like to start with your “voices” saying "this is a quagmire and we're wasting our resources and endangering our young men and women's lives and we should just focus on Pakistan, and Al Qaeda that's in Pakistan.” Would you please explain these “voices”. Are they the same voices that said, “The war is lost” in Iraq? Are these the same “voices” that accused Marines of murder? Or maybe it was the “voices” of your left wing radical supporters, like say, George Soros? Yes, it may be a “quagmire’, but it is one because you and your friends are doing all that can be done to cause the U.S. to loss. Your “friends” have tied our troop’s hands with certain Rule of Engagement (RoE). These same RoE have our troops consulting lawyers before they can return fire. In fact you with your code pink RoE are costing American troops their lives. As posted in the New York Post, 9-24-09, “Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:

* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.

These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)” (the link to this article returns an error, this particular article has been removed).”

Now BH0, I ask again, whose voices are you listening to in order to make a decision on sending in the troops the generals have requested. You want to end the “quagmire”, send the damn troops.

BH0, you also said, “we should just focus on Pakistan and Al Qaeda that's in Pakistan”. I wonder, what part of; If we get Al Qaeda out of Pakistan while we ignore the Taliban, then what is to prevent the regeneration of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban; don’t you understand? What is to prevent the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan, if not directly, but by proxy, i.e. by murder or terror. Maybe you can try to look sternly at them or invite them to a beer summit? You want to stop this, again send the troops. Send the equipment and anything else the troops need. Most importantly, listen to the generals, they know more about running a war then you know about running the country. Mr. Clown in Chief, like it or not, we are at war, the congress critters approved it, the American people supported it until the left realized that the American people were coming together and your shame stream media decided to erode the support, just like they did in Vietnam. Just like Walter Cronkite’s comment after the Tet offensive, “The war is lost” (gee didn’t someone in the Senate say that prior to the surge in Iraq). By the way, an NVA general later wrote that if the U.S. had pushed the advantage after Tet, The NVA would have lost the war. If we are forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, then you, and only you will be the blame for the lost. You and only you will prove Bin Laden right, “America is a paper tiger, and doesn’t have the stomach for a war.” As General George S. Patton said during World War 2, “Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war.” Thanks to you and your liberal friends, this will be the U.S.’s second lost, for the same reason, no guts from you or the critters in congress.

BH0 also said, "we've gotta go all in and commit and rebuild Afghanistan so it's a stable just society." Just who do you think you are to judge what is or is not a stable society? Do you want to judge them by our standards? Just how long did it take for the United States to become a “stable society” after our own Revolution? Hell, we didn’t even have a model to follow. But by the Grace of God, a bit of luck, and honorable men, we were able to achieve the goal of becoming a stable country. Yes, it took many years, but we did it. Do you expect to change centuries of customs and traditions in nine years? I realize that you may believe your own shame stream media, that you are the messiah of the world. Hate to break it to you, you were elected president of the U.S., and you’re not doing a very good job at that, what makes you think you do anything about the world. Face it; you’re just a flawed human being like the rest of us.

The American people have often heard you and others in your administration use the excuse, “the Afghan government is corrupt” for not sending more troops. Excuse me; what does that have to do with fighting a war? Yes, maybe it would help if the Afghan troops see there isn’t any corruption within their government, but does that interfere with their ability to fight a war? I would say not, after all, our own troops see the corruption within our own government and the waste of money that accompanies this corruption, yet they continue to do an outstanding job.

BH0 continued, “If I was just hearing one side, then I would probably not be getting the full reality of what's going on in Afghanistan: which is that, yes we have a vital interest there, yes we have to make sure that we don't get mission creep and that we define our interests narrowly to make sure we're just going after extremists and preventing them from having safe havens. Yes, we have got to have an effective Afghan government and right now we don't have the kind of partner that we'd like; yes we've got to have Pakistan cooperating; yes we've got to have more civilian ah cooperation; so all those variable then go into the decision making process and as I said if I was just listening to hawks or doves on either side of the debate, then I probably wouldn't be making a very good decision.”

Mr. Obama, let an Old Marine explain the facts of war to you. First off, you have the facts, General McChrystal needs more troops. The vital interest over there you need to know is that we need to win. We need to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, pure and simple. To do this, you do what every good leader does, you attack, you kill the enemy, you help the civilians when and where you can, but not at the expense of an American troop’s life. I have seen it; the troops will automatically help civilians. The American troops don’t have to be told to help, it is the nature of our fine fighting men and women. Our military did in WW 1, WW 2, Korea, and Vietnam. You say you want the civilian’s support, show them that America is there to win, that we will not abandon them like we did in Southeast Asia some 40 years ago, because a Democratic congress decided to cut of funding to the South Vietnam government. Frankly, do you blame them for not really trusting us? We were force to abandon a country we went into help once and they hear you and your cronies talking about doing it again. Why should they trust the U.S.? Why should any country trust the U.S. for help in combating an enemy?

As I write this there was a report from the Washington Post (11-19-09), “White House aides: No Afghan decision before Thanksgiving” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904.html (last visited 11-21-09) and in that report “Obama said in interviews Wednesday that he would reveal his decision within the next several weeks. On Thursday, aides clarified that there would be no announcement before Thanksgiving, one week away. Senior administration officials said Obama intends to meet with his national security team again before going public with his plans.” I hope that you and your regime’ have a nice Thanksgiving, while our troops are fighting to keep America safe, wondering all the while whether their Commander in Chief really supports them

Why were you so afraid to make a decision? May I remind you of another President who had to make a very hard decision about sending young men into combat and to their possible death? That President is one you and your party hold as your idol, Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt left fighting WW 2 to his generals, particularly when it came to the 6^th of June, 1944, D-Day. General Eisenhower faced one of the toughest decisions of his life, whether to invade or not. The conditions prior to the planned date of the assault were clearly unsuitable for a landing; wind and high seas would make it impossible to launch landing craft, and low clouds would prevent aircraft finding their targets. The Allied troop convoys already at sea were forced to take shelter in bays and inlets on the south coast of Britain for the night. On the 5^th of June Eisenhower's chief meteorologist (Group Captain J.M. Stagg) forecast a brief improvement for 6 June. General Montgomery and Eisenhower's Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith wished to proceed with the invasion. Leigh Mallory was doubtful, but Admiral Bertram Ramsay believed that conditions would be marginally favorable. On the strength of Stagg's forecast, Eisenhower ordered the invasion to proceed. Eisenhower made a very hard decision, something I fear you are not willing to do.