Disturbing ...

Afghanistan.

Do you know how many quotes, speeches, critiques (of Bush), interviews, sound bites and statements that one can pull up within minutes of minimal searching online of the president waxing on about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity", that he fully supports that war, that with Iraq Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, that it was the "true" front in the war on terror? That we can not let the architects of 9/11 to reclaim a nation state and on and on and on.

You know its getting bad for the administration when NBC is asking, "If President Obama believes this is a war of necessity, then why would he not fully source his commander's requests?", as David Gregory asked an administration official (the US ambassador to the UN) on Meet the Press, after playing that clip of Obama speaking those words to the VFW as a candidate.

And every time a trooper dies, as 8 did yesterday, it will highlight his indecision and resistance to McChrystal's request of 40,000 additional troops. Get ready to hear the phrase, "he dithers while our troops die." I've heard it no less than 3xs on talk radio in the last hour, on 2 different programs.

Of course to grant this "surge" is to indirectly endorse the Iraq surge, as if the success there isn't enough for any rationale person, which of course precludes the likes of Pelosi, Reid & Obama. But we all know what this is ... it's much more insidious then simple "indecision", or dithering.

What we 3, and scores of informed people across the nation know, is that liberal politicians have for 4+ years now used Afghanistan as a cover from which to hit Bush over the head from with Iraq. Afghanistan was mildly contained when Iraq was at its' worse and partisan, hard left Democrats (which encompasses all of the congressional leadership & "candidate" Obama) continually made the claim, "see, see we aren't weak, we want to fight our enemies, we support the Afghanistan mission, we just think Iraq is wrong." By supporting the then less controversial of the 2 theaters they played the game of criticizing Bush at nauseam over Iraq while clinging to some sliver of national security credibility as a Party by "supporting" Afghanistan. WELL, they walked out on that plank to the extent that the entire Party, especially the president, is lock stock and barrel on record supporting the Afghanistan effort. And I'm editorializing here, but I honestly believe that people as FAR, far left out of the mainstream as the president is, supported the war for only that political posturing, and never truly supported our invasion of any nation post 9/11, or an American military response of ANY KIND. They thought it was "safe" to support Afghanistan thinking they'd never have to actively be in command of redoubling our efforts there, or in other words Obama never thought he'd be have to actually FIGHT that war. I have always been of that opinion and I think his vacillating now on McChrystal's request bears that opinion out - he flat does not believe in projecting US force in the world. He played politics with war making to promote the facade that he could be trusted as the CiC, that he could be tough on our enemies, and now our enemies have called his bluff.

He was bent on drawing down as his administration progressed, not "surging" and with every fiber of his being he does not want to prosecute this war. Not just for Party politics, but rather his entire orientation towards America and more directly "Americanism" is one that believes our history unjust, unworthy and our future in need of "fundamental change." We are no better than any other land in this warped ideology, it is historical revisionism to the point of dislike of their own nation, bathed in the economics of Marx. He does not want the US to project force by any means. He is there, in his mind, to "set America straight." To apologize and attempt to "correct" our course, making up for our failed history. Knowing he does not want to fight this battle I grow very concerned when I hear administration officials describing Al Qeada as "disrupted", and "fundamentally dismantled" and "perhaps our troops mission there should change." I see a "we beat Al Qeada, we can leave now" talking strategy emerging from the administration, and that is a woefully sophomoric analysis and fundamentally dishonest.

I truly think that he believes America has no right to the title of "world's lone superpower", and moreover that we arrived at that status unjustly. But what this misguided, ill informed novice fundamentally does not grasp is the utter chaos and tragedy that will follow if we relinquish it.

Tragically a US defeat will embolden Al Qeada and the Taliban for generations to come. Think about it - in under 30 years the radicalized, militant Islamic incarnation of the Mujaheddin will have routed the USSR and the United States - the 2 loan superpowers of the last 60+ years. For generations they will believe themselves unbeatable. And if we retreat in defeat ... they will be right.