Fred Thompson: The War in Afghanistan Has Been Lost

Oh boy, I wish Fred hadn’t gone here but the said truth is someone had to say it out loud…

From the Politico:

Former Sen. Fred Thompson today intensified his party’s criticism of President Obama’s long deliberation over policy in Afghanistan, announcing that Obama’s delay signals that “the war has been lost” and that nothing the president now does will “make any difference.”

“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today.  “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

“Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,” Thompson said.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has the audio here.

Ouch… Barack Obama made winning the war in Afghanistan a central part of his Presidential campaign and yet 10 months into term in office he’s still formulating a policy… Unfortunately, I think Sen. Thompson is right, President Obama lacks the temerity to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and is instead voting ‘present’ just as he has done with everything else.

Jim Hanson laid it out months ago Mr. President, wars do not end, they are either won or lost:

The buck stops with you Mr. President, it’s time to make a decision… Do we give our war fighters the resources they need to fight and win or do we cut and run?

Update (5:15 p.m.): Pete Hegseth has a good post over at The Corner that takes Sen. Thompson to task for his remarks:

Let’s go back to an interview Senator Thompson gave on Hannity and Colmes on May 1, 2007:

HANNITY: The biggest battle we have is this war on terror, this battle in Iraq. We have a really deep divide in the country. Senator Reid the war is lost. We still have to finish the job there. Where do you stand in general on the war on terror and, more specifically, in Iraq, and on the divide surrounding Iraq?

THOMPSON: Well, let’s talk about Senator Reid for a moment. Right before I came over here, I was sitting outside, getting a bite to eat, before we did our interview. A young woman [former Army captain] came up and asked if she could sit down and talk to me a minute. . . . I asked her what she thought about this. She said, “How in the world can anyone, any one of our leaders, declare war, declare that the war has been lost when we’ve got troops in the field? My friends are over there in the field. I know what they think about this.”

And, of course, it’s just like all other Americans think. The very idea that they would do this and undercut our efforts over there is unprecedented. And it’s not only unprecedented; it’s awful politics.

We should not be fearful of these people politically. We just need to concentrate on what’s right. What is right? We need to take advantage of any opportunity we’ve got down there. I’ve got a lot of faith in Petraeus. I knew him when he was at Fort Campbell when I was in the Senate. He tells me we’ve got a shot? We’ve got to take that shot.

I’m sure Senator Thompson made many similar comments in 2007, and he was right. Sen. Harry Reid’s statement was unprecedented, and it was awful politics. And if Petraeus says we have a shot, then we’ve got to take that shot.

In light of the above, what is Senator Thompson doing undercutting the mission in Afghanistan? Is the mission less justified? Is it less achievable? Or is McChrystal less capable? No. Senator Thompson’s issue with the Afghanistan mission is President Obama. And while I share many of his frustrations — indecisiveness, lack of will, unwillingness to articulate the need to win — none of them give him, or anyone, grounds to declare the war lost.

I have a lot of respect for Fred Thompson but the more I think about his remarks the less comfortable I am with them…  Pete Hegseth is right, regardless of our frustrations with the President Obama’s lack of action there are just some things that shouldn’t be said while men and women are in harms way.

Weekend Briefing – Saturday, October 10, 2009

I’m going to be tied up with family all weekend but here’s a collection of must read links:

• CBO: Budget deficit hit record $1.4T in 2009 – Associated Press
• Proposals to create jobs add up to second stimulus – Associated Press
• A Nobel for Obama – New York Sun
• Barack Obama’s peace prize starts a fight – Times Online
• McCain Vs. Palin For The GOP’s Soul – Investors Business Daily
• What I Heard in Honduras – Rep. Jim DeMint, Wall Street Journal
• California Budget Is Already in the Red 10 Weeks After Passage – Bloomberg
• Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit – Washington Times
• CBO’s Analysis of the Effects of Proposals to Limit Costs Related to Medical Malpractice (“Tort Reform”) – CBO Director’s Blog
• Save the Greenback, Mr. President – Larry Kudlow, CNBC
• Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts – Wendy Williams, Wall Street Journal
• CBO Stands for Cooked Books Office – Rep. John Shadegg, Red State
• What happened to global warming? – BBC News
• As Republicans Predict a 2010 Surge, Democrats Dig In – New York Times
• Taliban growth weighs on Obama strategy review – Reuters

Feel free to add your links in comments.

The Perils of Talking

Ralph Peters has an interesting column on Afghanistan in today’s New York Post. Peters directly addresses the difficulties of negotiating with the Taliban.

THE TALKING TRAP: AFGHAN FOLLIES

By Ralph Peters, New York Post, November 13, 2008

NEGOTIATIONS are the heroin of the chattering classes, blinding them to every reality except the next fix they can inject into our foreign policy. The pushers – our delighted enemies – pile up strategic profits.

Certainly, there are situations in which negotiations make sense, such as structuring trade terms or defining alliance contributions. But the notion that, if only we can sit down with our enemies, we’ll inevitably persuade them to love us is a deadly self-delusion.

There’s a looming danger that President-elect Obama’s naive and profoundly anti-military cadres will misinterpret Gen. David Petraeus’ tactic of opening communications with Taliban elements and seek to make talks the centerpiece of the new administration’s Afghan policy. If so, we might as well pack up and leave now.

No American soldier should die just so diplomats can rack up frequent-flyer miles.

Negotiations during a conflict only work to our advantage when we’re in a position of strength that threatens the enemy’s existence or when bloodied opponents have wearied of the fight. Both conditions applied in Iraq.

They don’t apply in Afghanistan. In Iraq, al Qaeda had worn out its welcome. The Sunni Arabs wanted our help. In Afghanistan, Taliban-style Islamist fanaticism has a deep constituency. While most Afghans don’t want the Taliban back, a fierce minority does. And, unlike Iraq’s Sunni Arabs, the Taliban think they can win.

The equation is simple: We kill them, or we lose. Fighting fanatics is a zero-sum game.