The President's Plan For Afghanistan

From the transcript of President Obama's address on the war in Afghanistan:

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

With all due respect, I don't buy the president's plan. What will be different in Afghanistan in 18 months? What will we accomplish in that time period, which will include more killing and maiming of Americans and Afghans? That's not to speak of the billions in the costs of the war, billions that could be put to better use than fighting a war we cannot win. The war becomes Obama's war now.

And this from TPM on the mostly ignored, but quite real "giant shadow army of contractors":

Private contractors employed by the Defense Department in Afghanistan will continue to outnumber the size of the American troop presence, even after President Obama sends 30,000 more soldiers to fight in the war, according to the military's most recent contractor count.

The latest figure on DOD contractors in the country is a whopping 104,100, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command tells TPM. That number, which is expected to grow, is already greater than the 98,000 U.S. troops that will be in the country after the new deployments.

The president mentions Pakistan several times during his address, as well he should. According to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are much less safe than the leadership in both Pakistan and the US would have us believe. If you're looking for something else to worry about, read Hersh's article. It's long, but worth a read. A couple of paragraphs from the beginning of the article:

In the tumultuous days leading up to the Pakistan Army’s ground offensive in the tribal area of South Waziristan, which began on October 17th, the Pakistani Taliban attacked what should have been some of the country’s best-guarded targets. In the most brazen strike, ten gunmen penetrated the Army’s main headquarters, in Rawalpindi, instigating a twenty-two-hour standoff that left twenty-three dead and the military thoroughly embarrassed. The terrorists had been dressed in Army uniforms. There were also attacks on police installations in Peshawar and Lahore, and, once the offensive began, an Army general was shot dead by gunmen on motorcycles on the streets of Islamabad, the capital. The assassins clearly had advance knowledge of the general’s route, indicating that they had contacts and allies inside the security forces.

Pakistan has been a nuclear power for two decades, and has an estimated eighty to a hundred warheads, scattered in facilities around the country. The success of the latest attacks raised an obvious question: Are the bombs safe? Asked this question the day after the Rawalpindi raid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We have confidence in the Pakistani government and the military’s control over nuclear weapons.” Clinton—whose own visit to Pakistan, two weeks later, would be disrupted by more terrorist bombs—added that, despite the attacks by the Taliban, “we see no evidence that they are going to take over the state.”

Madame Secretary, I hope against hope that you are right.

No, Mr. President, I cannot buy into your plan.

UPDATE: A link to a post by Fred Schwartz at Real Anglicans which I urge you to read. Fred is a Vietnam vet. Fred's father served in WWII, and his son is presently serving in the Gulf of Oman. I quote the final paragraph, but please read the entire post.

Let me end this with where I began. My son is in the Gulf of Oman. He and his friends are professionals, they go where they are told to go, and do what they are told to do. That is the beauty of our military; actually, that is the brilliance of our military. It is up to our civilian government to say where and when and how and for how long. I for one, do not want my son and his friends, pilots and his shipmates, to be there for one more second than needs be. If, we are there for "the long haul" and we will continue a mission that is ill-defined and ill-conceived and we are unwilling to do what we started to do in the first place, then it is time to stop the madness.