Afghanistan: Overseas Healthcare Operations

Author's Note: Although I understand that a great deal of focus is spent by me on foreign affairs and national security issues, the events at Fort Hood have shown that the United States faces threats not only overseas, but on our own soil as well. The phrase "Overseas Contingency Operations," coined by this White House was an attempt to deflect that reality so that domestic issues could become the priority. The reality is here and now. 


We face a Global War On Terror, and that certainly includes the United States. There are people and groups that would like to see our society and way of life destroyed, and places like Afghanistan and Pakistan are ground zero for the development of the terrorists. We unfortunately have some of those same issues here. Let your representatives know that you are aware of where the focus in Washington should be. If the terrorists and countries such as Iran have their way, domestic issues will not matter.  

If Only Afghanistan Could Be Renamed Overseas Healthcare Operations: Then It Would Get The Presidents Attention!

Until then, whatever decision is ultimately made will be done in dribs and drabs, fit in around a domestic agenda.

For those of you keeping track as I am of the machinations and deliberations taking place in the White House, Wednesday marked meeting number 8 on the road to a decision on troop deployments in Afghanistan. This situation, not surprisingly, is not extensively covered on your evening news, but it brings up questions as to the Commander-in-Chief, decision making capabilities of this President.

The protection of our people, soldiers and way of life is in no way connected to political considerations. Homeland security is not determined by anything more than what needs to be done to keep Americans safe. This is not the place to be pandering to your base, playing to the polls or for making nice with the very same people that want to destroy you, and who are playing us as patsies.

Over time, he has also raised questions as to his Campaigner-in-Chief capabilities (John Corzine), Olympian-in-Chief (Chicago going down in the 1st round), Diplomat-in-Chief (giving away the store and receiving nothing in return) and Healthcare Reform Obsessive-in-Chief as well. But those are secondary issues to the security of the country.

On Tuesday, Press secretary Robert Gibbs said this:

(AP) "President Barack Obama is considering four options for realigning U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, his spokesman said Tuesday, while military officials said the choices involve several ways the president could employ additional U.S. forces next year.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama will discuss the four scenarios with his national security team on Wednesday. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Fort Hood, Texas, Gibbs would not offer details about those options. He insisted that Obama has not made a decision about troop deployments..."

It sounds very much as if he is not close to a decision. He had his limited time in the Senate, the presidential campaign and close to a year in office to digest and understand the problem. He has had months since the McCrystal recommendation was first leaked. In those months he has had the opportunity to meet with whatever people he wanted to, as many times as he wanted to in order to understand the facts, hear the opinions and to develop a plan, but he has chosen instead to meet 8 times.

In this time we have seen a pick-up in violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is there a correlation? Some people thrive on the indecision and perceived weakness of others. That would be a good description of our enemy. 

For the sake of the country, let's hope the President is getting close to a decision, and that he makes the right decision for all of us, and not for his political aspirations!

Sphere: Related Content