How To Lose a War, Without Really Trying

Or...... "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

Borrowing just a bit from the classic Stanley Kubric film Dr. Strangelove, I can't help but immediately see some similarities between that film and what we have occurring in America today as it concerns the war on terror. The only difference between Kubric's fiction and the present day reality? We don't have a renegade General Jack Ripper, or an amiable general Buck Turgidson. Or the most likable Group Captain Lionel Mandrake trying to reason his way through it all, while Peter Sellers changes hats and characters at a maddening pace throughout the drama.

Picture if you will, just a smattering of the facts as they have been reported as of today today.

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

There you have it. We will now call the war......."the war against Al Qaida." It's a "new way of seeing it!"


Then there was this.....

White House Spokesman Uses Phrase "War On Terror"

Not only does Robert Gibbs (White House Spokesman) use the (now forbidden) term war on terror during this news conference? But he attempts to assuage all criticism of the Obama administration's actions and handling of the war over the past seven months, by asserting that the war has undergone "years and years of neglect" and has been sadly"under resourced."

What the hell does that mean? Under funded? Not enough money and material and effort directed toward the war Mr. Gibbs? Well of course that's what it means, but isn't it curious how "now" the democrats want to talk about "under resourced" Afghanistan. After they have spent the last 8 years impeding every bit of war effort and funding in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

They talked a good game when they were campaigning during the 2006 midterms and the 2008 presidential election and beat their chests on how they would have done it. And we heard a lot about how President George Bush took his "eye off the ball" and pursued a war in Iraq when the real game was afoot in Afghanistan. Not to mention how they oh so wished they could turn one or both into another Vietnam for America.

And now...... what have we seen the Obama administration do in the seven months since taking control of the White House? First off, we have seen an immediate draw down of personnel and assets in Iraq, which is now leading to increased violence and more American casualties in Iraq. And this is after George Bush took a beating for seven years, but finally won that war. Now Obama is giving it all away just as he promised. Another example of liberals willingly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And now...... the casualties are mounting daily in Afghanistan and we are told what? That we have "under resourced" the war in Afghanistan? But that we also need to be mindful not to call it a war on terrorism. (Heaven forbid someone utter the phrase a war against Islamic extremism).

And yet there is more.....


Afghanistan strategy must change, US commander McChrystal says

Having previously stepped in it by admitting that America was losing the war in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal (Obama's hand picked man) quickly back peddled and denied that he had said that we were losing the war. He then clarified his remarks (retracted his statements) and the administration claimed that the general was simply taken out of context.

But in today's much awaited assessment by General Stanley McChrystal on ("the war against Al Qiada?") in Afghanistan? This is what we see from the general once again.

U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal said the situation was "serious" but the 8-year-old war could still be won. He gave no indication as to whether he would ask for more troops but is widely expected to do so in the coming weeks.

So what does that mean? We have lost the war but it is still winnable? Or does it mean that we are about to lose the war, but we can pull it out and save the victory? Or does it mean as the previous commander said right before he was relieved of duty....."we need more troops and more funding and a commitment to victory."

According to Obama's general McCrystal......"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement announcing his report was done.

The situation is serious, but achievable, but requires what? "A revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve?" Sound familiar?

Did the dear general just enumerate what most anyone with common sense already knows? That the present strategy (President Obama's strategy) needs serious revision. And in addition to that, if we intend to win this thing? We need some serious resolve and commitment! And a lot more "sourcing!"

Please let me know when you find those elements present in the spinal column of any democrat. And also drop me a line when you see the Pelosi and Reid led congress gearing up to "adequately resource "the war against Al Qaida" or anything else to do with Iraq or Afghanistan or Islamic terrorism.

Then of course there are the bizarre ramblings of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pontificating on the matter of Afghanistan as he sees it.....U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said any recommendation for more forces would have to address his concerns that the foreign military presence in Afghanistan could become too large and be seen by Afghans as a hostile occupying force.

"Clearly, I want to address those issues and we will have to look at the availability of forces, we'll have to look at costs. There are a lot of different things that we'll have to look at," he told reporters.

I literally love to see a mediocre bullshit artist attempting to sell shinola to shites! Well of course a primary driving consideration for Mr. Gates, is that he doesn't want the Afghans to see any potential increase in American troop strength as a hostile occupying force. And of course he will have to look at the costs and a "lot of different things."

I wonder, do any of those things from costs to whatever he thinks the others are? Do they have anything to do with the "under resourcing" of the war to date? As was referenced earlier today by Robert Gibbs?

Makes you wonder don't it. I know it makes me wonder. I wonder what in hell is going on in these people's minds? Actually, I know what is going on in their minds. (not a lot) but I truly wonder what they think is going on in the rest of ours when they float this bullshit.

Are they talking to each other and comparing notes on policy and history and funding and the myriad of things that they are speaking to as it concerns policy and action? Or have they spent the last seven years in a cave somewhere in the Hamptons, simply planning their return to power? Are they totally and completely oblivious to recent history and the actions of their own party and president?

Like I said at the beginning, this is like watching a revised version of Stanley Kubric's classic Dr. Strangelove. Only with different characters playing the lead parts and the script turned askew. Except this time, it isn't a renegade general about to loose Armageddon on the world. It's a renegade president and a less than capable commanding general who is doing his best to stick to the losing script without losing.

And all of this is being done with a supporting cast of real characters that would do Peter Sellers proud!

All we need now? Is the equivalent of Slim Pickens flying a recalled B-52, and preparing to drop his load on an American city in retaliation for being rich capitalist infidels.

Too bad Kubric is dead now. If he were still alive? I believe that I could write him a script for an epic story to rival Dr. Strangelove.