U.S. Marines launch assault in S.Afghan valley

[SHELBYDOG]

U.S. Marines launch assault in S.Afghan valley



By Peter Graff Peter Graff – 1 hr 40 mins ago
LOWER HELMAND RIVER VALLEY, AFGHANISTAN (Reuters) – U.S. Marines launched a helicopter assault early on Thursday in the lower Helmand river valley in southern Afghanistan, spokesman Capt. Bill Pelletier said.

A Reuters correspondent in the valley saw flares in the sky over the town of Nawa, south of the provincial capital Lashkar Gah.

Nearly 4,000 Marines and U.S. sailors are taking part in the assault, code-named Operation Khanjar (Strike of the Sword), along with about 650 Afghan troops and police, a Marines press statement said.

"What makes Operation Khanjar different from those that have occurred before is the massive size of the force introduced, the speed at which it will insert and the fact that where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold ..." it quoted Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, commanding officer of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, as saying.

The valley of irrigated wheat and opium fields along the Helmand river is largely in the hands of Taliban fighters who have resisted British-led NATO forces for years.

The United States has sent 8,500 Marines to Helmand province in the last two months, the largest wave of a massive buildup of forces that will see the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan rise from 32,000 at the beginning of this year to 68,000 by year's end.

President Barack Obama has declared the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan to be the main security threat facing the United States.

Helmand province is one of the Taliban's main heartlands in southern Afghanistan and produces the largest share of the country's opium crop which supplies 90 percent of the world's heroin.

Attacks by Taliban fighters are at their highest levels since the strict Islamists were driven out of Kabul by U.S.-backed Afghan opponents in 2001 after refusing to turn over Osama bin Laden in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

U.S. and NATO commanders have said they intend to deploy American reinforcements to seize Taliban-held territory in the south in time for Afghanistan to hold a presidential election on August 20.

(Reporting by Peter Graff, editing by Tim Pearce)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090701/ts_nm/us_afghanistan_assault;_ylt=AuTyTaqFY7yddJgGHqHfyb dg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTMwbWY4bWNmBGFzc2V0Ay9ubS8yMDA5MD cwMS90c19ubS91c19hZmdoYW5pc3Rhbl9hc3NhdWx0BGNwb3MD NARwb3MDNARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3VzbWFyaW 5lc2xhdQ--

[pepperpot]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

[SHELBYDOG]

Major Military Operation Under Way in Afghanistan

US, Afghan troops clearing out Taliban in first major front of Obama admin


By LARA JAKES Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON July 1, 2009 (AP) The Associated Press

Thousands of U.S. Marines and hundreds of Afghan troops moved into Taliban-infested villages with armor and helicopters Wednesday evening in the first major operation under President Barack Obama's revamped strategy to stabilize Afghanistan.

The offensive was launched shortly after 1 a.m. Thursday local time in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold in the southern part of the country. The goal is to clear insurgents from the hotly contested Helmand River Valley before the nation's Aug. 20 presidential election.

Dubbed Operation Khanjar, or "Strike of the Sword," the military push was described by officials as the largest and fastest-moving of the war's new phase. British forces last week led similar missions to fight and clear out insurgents in Helmand and neighboring Kandahar provinces.

"Where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces," Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said in a statement.

Southern Afghanistan is a Taliban stronghold but also a region where Afghan President Hamid Karzai is seeking votes from fellow Pashtun tribesmen.


The Pentagon is deploying 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in time for the elections and expects the total number of U.S. forces there to reach 68,000 by year's end. That is double the number of troops in Afghanistan in 2008, but still half of much as are now in Iraq.

While Marine troops were the bulk of the force, recently arrived U.S. Army helicopters were also taking part in the operation in Helmand province.

In March, Obama unveiled his strategy for Afghanistan, seeking to defeat al-Qaida terrorists there and in Pakistan with a bigger force and a new commander. Taliban and other extremists, including those allied with al-Qaida, routinely cross the two nations' border in Afghanistan's remote south.

The governor of Helmand province predicted the operation would be "very effective."

"The security forces will build bases to provide security for the local people so that they can carry out every activity with this favorable background, and take their lives forward in peace," Gov. Gulab Mangal said in a Pentagon press release.


Obama's strategy aims to boost the size of the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011 — and greatly increase training by U.S. troops accompanying them — so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war. The White House also is pushing forces to set clear goals for a war gone awry, to get the American people behind them, to provide more resources and to make a better case for international support.

There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House has not estimated how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=7982024&page=1


:congrats:

[gmyers]

I hope they clear them out of there without any loss of life for the soldiers.

[Jolie Rouge]

My nephew is over there ...


US Soldier Believed Captured in Afghanistan
By VOA News 02 July 2009

U.S. military officials in Afghanistan say a soldier who has been missing since Tuesday is now believed to have been captured by insurgents.

Military spokeswoman Captain Elizabeth Mathias declined to provide details on the soldier's identity or the circumstances of his apparent capture. She said the military is withholding information for his protection.

U.S. officials later said the soldier had left his base camp with three Afghans when he was captured. Locals in eastern Paktika province reported that a U.S. soldier went missing in the area on Tuesday.

The Taliban-allied Haqqani network, considered to be one of the deadliest militant factions in Afghanistan, operates in the region.

The U.S. military says it is using all of its resources to find the soldier and provide for his safe return.

The news came as 4,000 U.S. Marines began a major anti-Taliban offensive early Thursday in southern Afghanistan. Officials said the missing soldier was not part of that operation.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-02-voa44.cfm


This 4th of July weekend, let us take a moment to remember all our Troops all over the world, whenever they may have served.




The Soldier

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.

By Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

Semper Fi

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama Muffs History Also Says We Don’t Want ‘Victory’ in Afghanistan –
Will Media Notice?
By Warner Todd Huston
July 24, 2009

Once again Barack Obama waded into territory of which he has no knowledge: American history. Not only did he say during a TV interview that he doesn’t want “victory” in Afghanistan -- because victory is apparently too harsh for the losers -- but he used an example from WWII that never even happened to justify his touchy feely ideas on warfare. So will anyone in the Old Media even realize that the president’s historical example was a muff-up of real history? Will the Old Media make fun of him for his obvious lack of knowledge of our own history?

Let’s try a thought experiment, shall we? When I say “victory,” what do you think of? Do you think of winning the World Series? Do you picture that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Time Square as WWII ended? Do you just imagine “winning” at whatever contest is at hand?

It is likely that even if you don’t picture a particular thing, at the very least your initial emotional response is a warm feeling of worthy accomplishment and an assumption of gaining the accolades that accompanies victory.

It is less likely that upon hearing or seeing the word “victory” an American would immediately get a feeling of defeat and humiliation or picture the end of anything. It is even less likely that a loathing would well up inside of the minds of an American when the word is broached.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not like average, patriotic, optimistic Americans. At least we can easily assume this to be the case by what President Obama recently said of our military efforts in Afghanistan.

You see, Barack Obama said on TV this week that “victory” isn’t his “goal” in Afghanistan. Why not? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/obama-victory-necessarily-goal-afghanistan/


"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

It is telling that when Barack Obama pictures “victory” he doesn’t see in his head that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Times Square on Victory Day.


http://www.cloudgate.org/Images/Products/B000TY/FGVU.jpg

Instead, what is immediately conjured up in Obama’s mind is the bedraggled figure of a beaten Japanese Emperor groveling at the feet of U.S. military might.

Obama’s sympathy seems to be with the Emperor that governed a nation that tried to viciously take over the entire Pacific Rim and enslave many millions of Asian peoples. It is hard to escape the feeling that Obama’s first thought when the word “victory” is broached is of our enemy, his sympathies with them, not us.

But that isn’t even the worst of it. Once again we see another example of Obama’s ignorance of history, even American history. In fact, Emperor Hirohito didn’t even sign the document that finalized the surrender of Japan to General MacArthur. That duty was performed by Japan’s Foreign Minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, and one of its generals, Yoshijir Mumezu.

In fact, we didn’t destroy Japan’s Emperor, rather we allowed him to continue on in a ceremonial role to allow the Japanese to feel as if they hadn’t been entirely crushed and that some of their traditions might live on.

So, once again, Obama garbles history, disrespects his own country, and sets us up to be discounted as a viable force by foreign nations. Obama’s discounting of “victory” in Afghanistan is dangerous news for our troops. It signals a man that will not give our troops the support they need to win the war and come home with our pride and safety intact.

Now, will the Old Media realize this disastrous view of history, warfare and our national security? Or will the Old Media just move on as if nothing happened?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/07/24/obama-muffs-history-says-we-don-t-want-victory-afghanistan-will-

[Jolie Rouge]

Suicide attackers strike southeastern Afghan city
Jason Straziuso And Rahim Faiez, AP Writers
21 mins ago

KABUL – Less than a month before Afghanistan's presidential election, Taliban fighters wearing suicide vests attacked a provincial capital Saturday, triggering gunbattles that killed seven militants. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke said it is "extraordinary" to hold a presidential election during a war.

U.S. and NATO forces have stepped up operations in hopes of ensuring enough security for a strong voter turnout for Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election.

The assault in Khost began when at least six Taliban fighters carrying AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades stormed the area around the main police station and a nearby government-run bank. All were shot and killed before they could detonate their suicide vests, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

A seventh attacker detonated a car rigged with explosives near a police rapid reaction force, wounding two policemen, the ministry said.

Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said all the attackers were killed, but the Defense Ministry later said an eighth attacker may have escaped. The ministry said no government forces were killed but 14 people were wounded — 11 civilians and three police.

The attack came five days after Taliban militants launched near-simultaneous assaults in Gardez, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) northwest of Khost, and in the eastern city of Jalalabad. Six Afghan police and intelligence officers and eight militants died in the two attacks.

Though the three attacks did not kill large numbers of Afghan or U.S. security forces, they showed the tenuous security situation in Afghanistan's countryside. Such attacks grab headlines in Afghanistan and raise the question of whether voters can safely go to polls.

The U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, alluded to those concerns, saying Saturday it was "extraordinary" to hold an election in the middle of war. He said the vote faces "many complex challenges," including security issues and access to polls for women. Authorities need a respectable turnout for the results to appear credible both here and in countries supporting the government.

Holbrooke met separately with President Hamid Karzai and his top two challengers — former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani.

Abdullah told Holbrooke that he is struggling to fight Karzai's built-in advantage as president with government assets at his disposal.

The former foreign minister noted a recent election commission report that said 70 percent of election coverage on the country's state TV channel goes to Karzai. "That's a very worrying sign," Abdullah said. "All the ministers, the main ones, are out doing campaign work."

Holbrooke said he was "concerned" over reports of state media bias. Karzai's campaign has denied the president is using government tools to campaign.

Karzai is believed to be the favorite to win the presidency, but he must win more than 50 percent on Aug. 20 to avoid a run-off. Analysts say it is likely Karzai will win unless the almost 40 challengers rally behind a single opposition candidate.

Holbrooke and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry toured the election commission and watched dozens of Afghans enter voter registrations into banks of computers. He said the "whole world" will be watching the election.

Responding to a question at a news conference about whether there was enough security in the countryside to hold a vote, Holbrooke said: "Do you want the Afghanistan people to abandon the election in the face of a small band of Taliban?"

U.S. troops helped provide security during the Khost attack but were not involved in the battle.

Khost is about 15 miles (20 kilometers) from the Pakistani border and has long been a flash point because of smuggling across the frontier. Last May, 11 Taliban suicide bombers struck government buildings in Khost, killing 20 people and wounding three Americans.

Also Saturday, a British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in Helmand province, the focus of major offensives by U.S. and British forces. The soldier was the 20th British service member killed in Afghanistan this month and the 189th since the war began in 2001.

Fighting has increased sharply in Afghanistan this month after President Barack Obama ordered thousands more U.S. troops to the country, shifting the focus of the war against Muslim extremism from Iraq.

At least 66 international troops have died in July, the bloodiest month of the nearly eight-year war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

[SHELBYDOG]

At least 66 international troops have died in July, the bloodiest month of the nearly eight-year war.


I do agree with this statement, bc we haven't consentrated heavily in Afghanistan the past 8yrs, everything was directed to/in Iraq the past 8yrs.

IMO now it's to little to late in Afghanistan.

[DAVESBABYDOLL]

I hope they clear them out of there without any loss of life for the soldiers.

All we can do is hope, but the reality is...doubtful.

[Jolie Rouge]

Marines try a woman's touch to reach Afghan hearts
Alfred De Montesquiou, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 7 mins ago

KHAWJA JAMAL, Afghanistan – Put on body armor, check weapons, cover head and shoulders with a scarf.

That was the drill for female American Marines who set out on patrol this week with a mission to make friends with Afghan women in a war zone by showing respect for Muslim standards of modesty.

The all-female unit of 46 Marines is the military's latest innovation in its rivalry with the Taliban for the populace's loyalty. Afghan women are viewed as good intelligence sources, and more open to the basics of the military's hearts-and-minds effort — hygiene, education and an end to the violence.

"It's part of the effort to show we're sensitive to local culture," said Capt. Jennifer Gregoire, of East Strasburg, Pa. She leads the Female Engagement Team in the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.

"If you show your hair, its kind of like seeing a nude picture here, because women are very covered up," she said.

Women are technically barred from combat units in the Marines, and some infantrymen have been surprised to see them in brightly colored head scarves under their helmets, deployed in the most intense combat zones in the country.

"But ... I think they understand that what we're doing is vital to operations and vital to the counterinsurgency program they want to run," said Gregoire.

Women soldiers were assigned to search women at checkpoints in Iraq, and the experience fed into the Afghan effort, said Cpl. Sarah Furrer, from Colorado Springs, Colo., who served in both war zones.

"I'm not married and I don't have children, so they think that's awkward because I'm 24," Furrer said of her Iraq experience. But as a result, "we're not so much afraid of engaging the women" in Afghanistan, she said.

"I've found you get great intel from the female population," said Capt. Zachary Martin, who commands the Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, stationed in Now Zad. "The women don't want their men out there conducting jihad and getting killed."

Martin said units have frequently received tips from women about weapons caches or hidden bombs.

But just to find the women is a challenge. There were none in sight as Gregoire's team entered Khwaja Jamal, a village of mud brick homes with no electricity or government presence.

While heavily armed Marines fanned out, the four women started by trying to strike up conversations with the few old men and young children who ventured outdoors.

The several hundred villagers grow wheat and opium poppies in the crossfire between Marines and Taliban fighters who are in the woods less than a mile away.

"They look at us through binoculars. They'll kill anybody who talks to the Americans," said Abdul Gayom to explain why the villagers were so wary of meeting the patrol.

1st Lt. Victoria Sherwood was undaunted, talking to him through her Afghan translator. She gave him painkillers for his back, and small presents for the children timidly clustering around. Some of them begged to try on her sunglasses, and promptly made off with them.

Sherwood, from Woodbury, Conn., got Gayom to promise he might let her into his compound to meet his wife, who he said with a shrug is "so old, the Taliban probably won't care."

But there was a snag: The translator was male. Could he be in the wife's presence? "No way," said Gayom, then asked the Marines for more medicine and goods.

Deeper in the village, an elderly woman eventually appeared on a doorstep. Gusha Halam claimed she was 120 — so old she could do what she pleased. Her black head scarf left her wrinkled face uncovered and revealed some hair, dyed bright orange with henna.

"The Taliban took everything from us. Make them leave," Halam said, before her sons and grandsons arrived, stopped the conversation and hustled her indoors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_woman_to_woman

[Jolie Rouge]

An interesting read : http://www.mudvillegazette.com/032477.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Monday, September 07, 2009
Afghanistan: Palin, Rove, Rubin, Others Send Letter To Obama
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/afghanistan-palin-rove-rubin-others-send-letter-to-obama.html

There are several names blog readers will recognize attached to the letter posted at C4P. They're calling on Obama to fully support the war in Afghanistan. Also, as Instapundit pointed out, regarding the AP's abuse of a dying soldier's image, Palin left a message on her Facebook page today. It would be a travesty were this administration to allow our efforts in Afghanistan to amount to nothing, especially so after the sacrifice of so many good Americans. There was a time not long ago when Terrorism mattered to the US. We don't really want to re-visit that horror again to the extent it can be avoided. And Afghanistan is critical to that on going effort. It needs to be seen by this WH as more than a distraction from domestic policy. That's for sure.


Dear Mr. President:

The situation in Afghanistan is grave and deteriorating. This is in part the legacy of an under resourced war effort that has cost us and the Afghans dearly. The Taliban has retaken important parts of the country, while a flawed U.S. strategy has led American forces into secondary efforts far away from critical areas. However, we remain convinced that the fight against the Taliban is winnable, and it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to win it.





Keeping to the President’s Right on Afghanistan
September 7, 2009 by CK MacLeod

In an open letter signed by a broad swath of conservatives and fellow travelers - from old warhorses like Robert McFarlane to younger ones like Sarah Palin - the non-isolationist right lays out a unity position on the war in Afghanistan, with an eye to requests for more troops expected soon from Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Unlike George Will and other war skeptics across the political spectrum, the members of this Afghanistan victory caucus intend to 1) stay to the President’s right, and 2) stick close to the generals - a key paragraph:


Mr. President, you have put in place the military leadership and sent the initial resources required to begin bringing this war to a successful conclusion. The military leadership has devised a strategy that will reverse the errors of previous years, free Afghans from the chains of tyranny, and keep America safe. We call on you to fully resource this effort, do everything possible to minimize the risk of failure, and to devote the necessary time to explain, soberly and comprehensively, to the American people the stakes in Afghanistan, the route to success, and the cost of defeat.

The letter is unqualified in its support for the President’s Afghanistan decisions, up until now, but lays out a basis for potential future criticism, even separation. If Obama fails to display greater public leadership (“devote the necessary time to explain…”), if he gives in to any significant extent to those who have already turned on the war and are calling for withdrawal timetables or even immediate pullout, and if the situation in Afghanistan and beyond begins to deteriorate, support of this type could quickly turn into fierce opposition.

An early turning point could be a decision by the President to give McChrystal less than he says he needs. In comments otherwise highly supportive of the Administration’s war policies, Senator McCain also recently warned against splitting the difference - reflexively choosing the middle rather than the best option for matching resources to tasks. Yet every deployment or appropriation beyond what has already been committed will increase pressure in the other direction from the left, the isolationist/defeatist right, and a war-weary, domestically focused public. It’s widely believed that such pressure has already been building within the White House - as McCain put it, “not from the President but from people around him.”

The dangers for the President are obvious, but whether there will be much political profit for conservatives in this kind of positioning, now or later, will depend on unpredictable factors. At the very least, however, it enables the right to maintain consistency both on the Conflict Formerly Known as the War on Terror, and on long-standing commitments to win the battles we fight, support the troops in the field, and provide the widest possible latitude to military professionals in adapting means to ends.


http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/09/07/staying-to-the-presidents-right-on-afghanistan/

[Jolie Rouge]

September 11, 2009
Obama at the Rubicon

If the aphorism holds -- the guerrilla wins if he does not lose -- the Taliban are winning and America is losing the war in Afghanistan.

Well into the eighth year of war, the Taliban are more numerous than ever, inflicting more casualties than ever, operating in more provinces than ever and controlling more territory than ever. And their tactics are more sophisticated.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the situation "serious." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullen calls it "serious" and "deteriorating."

President Obama thus faces a decision that may decide the fate of his presidency. For if the situation is grave and deteriorating, he cannot do nothing. Inaction invites, if it does not assure, defeat.

Does he cut U.S. losses, write off Afghanistan as not worth any more American blood and treasure, and execute a strategic retreat?

Or does he become the war president who sends McChrystal the scores of thousands of U.S. troops necessary to stave off a defeat for all the years needed to conscript and train an Afghan army that can and will defend the Kabul regime and pacify the country?

Afghanistan is being called Obama's Vietnam.

It could become that, and bring down his presidency as Vietnam brought down Lyndon Johnson's. But Afghanistan is not yet Vietnam in terms either of troops committed or casualties taken.

The 68,000 Americans who will be in Afghanistan at year's end are an eighth of the forces in Vietnam when Richard Nixon began to bring them home. Vietnam cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The Afghan war has cost fewer than 1,000. U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are as yet only a fifth of the U.S. losses in the Philippine Insurrection of 1899-1902.

If we compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, we are about in 1964, when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed and the bombing of the North began, or December 1965, when the Marines came ashore at Danang.

Obama can still choose not to fight this war.

But should he so choose, he will be charged by Republicans and neoconservatives with a loss of nerve, with having cut and run, with having lost what he himself has repeatedly called a "war of necessity," with having abandoned the noble cause for which many of America's best and bravest have already paid the ultimate price.

And it needs be said: The consequences of a U.S. withdrawal today would be far greater than if we had never gone in, or had gone in, knocked over the Taliban, run al-Qaida out of the country, gotten out and gone home.

Instead, we brought NATO in, put tens of thousands of troops in and declared our determination to build an Afghan democracy that would be a model for the Islamic world, where women's rights were protected.

After inviting the world to observe how the superpower succeeds in taking down a tyranny and creating a democracy, we will have failed, and we will be perceived by the whole world to have failed.

While there was no vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan before we went in, we have invested so much blood, money and prestige that withdrawal now -- which would entail a Taliban takeover of Kabul and the Pashtun south and east -- would be a strategic debacle unprecedented since the fall of Saigon.

But what if Obama approves McChrystal's request and puts another 20,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops into the war?

Certainly, that would stave off any defeat. But what is the assurance it would bring enduring victory closer? The Taliban have matched us escalation for escalation and are now militarily stronger than at any time since the Northern Alliance, with U.S. air support, ran them out of Kabul.

About the political consequences of escalation, there is no doubt.

Obama would divide his party and country. His support would steadily sink as the roll call of U.S. dead and wounded inexorably rose. He would watch as the NATO allies moved toward the exit and America was left alone to fight along-side the Afghans in a seemingly endless war.

Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today, and the Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it? Few, if any, one imagines.

What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.

Thus Obama's dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a decision that could cost him his presidency.

In such situations, presidents often decide not to decide.

Harry Truman could not decide in Korea. LBJ could not decide in Vietnam. Both lost their presidencies. Ike and Nixon came in, cut U.S. losses and got out. The country rewarded both with second terms.