Thanks for opening your blog to us. I'm going to attempt to do the same thing with my own blog.

To quote your own words:

"As there is practically nothing of the warrior in Barack Obama, as he lacks the head, heart and stomach for war, defeating al-Qaida in Afghanistan is more of a personal and political matter for him than a patriotic commitment to defeating an enemy of America."

To be a successful warrior you have to have guts,determination, and a belief that your cause is just. Obama lacks all three.

Can anyone point to any evidence that Obama has "guts"? Sadly, what we do find time and again is that when the going gets tough, his default position is to vote "present". When faced with controversy, he has not hesitated to abandon friends, grandmothers, and even spiritual advisors. He's done this so often that "thrown under the bus" is now part of our national vocabulary.

Determination (preferably the "steely-eyed" kind) is not a strong point for Obama either, unless you count self-promotion and narcissism as valuable attributes for our CIC. He's a great speech reader, but what other qualities does he bring to the table in a time of war?

Finally. Do you think that Obama, down deep in his heart of hearts, believes that America is right to wage war in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. Remember, this the same guy who continues to use his international bully pulpit to apologize for Americas past "mistakes". This is the same guy who'll let Iran get the bomb and will express his "deep concerns" when Israel, America's only friend in the Middle East, gets blown off the map. The only cause that Obama absolutely believes in is himself.

I hope to God that Obama does not now try to assume the mantle of Warrior King. Being "The Anointed One" is already way above his pay grade. If he does so, he will make Jimmy Carter look like George S. Patton.

God save the United States of America from itself, please!

Cal,

You state:

"There was a time when America was feared. That time has passed. Either we restore it or we'll live -- or die -- to regret it.

How do we restore fear? Do we attack the Granadas of the world to prove our toughness? Maybe we can kick Panama's a** again.

The problem with trying to be a tough guy (aka "the world's policeman") is that sooner or later we're going to bite of more than we can chew.

This doesn't mean that our military can't win any war they're engaged in. They won every major battle in Vietnam, but we still lost the war. They won every battle in Iraq, but it was touch and go there for quite awhile. Despite winning every Afghan battle, the war there is in a downward spiral. So, it's not the fault of our military.

What is happening to us is we are now fighting wars for very questionable reasons. We are no longer fighting to protect our homeland or even our vital strategic interests, but to re-build broken nations. Is this why America, or any other nation, should wage war? Is it any wonder that the American public is finding it increasingly difficult to remain supportive of our efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq?

When we went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even the lefties were willing to call it the "good "war. Nothing like the desire for revenge to stoke a nation's passions. So, we kicked their butts all the way back to Pakistan and gave average Afghanis hope for a better future. Mission accomplished? Not quite.

We won the war in Afghanistan a long time ago, but instead of declaring victory and going home, we decided to stay on to play democracy builder. Didn't we do the same thing in Iraq? Talk about mission creep!

Until we return to fighting wars for reasons that are vital to our homeland security or strategic interests, we will continue to lose our stature as the world's strongest nation. Let our military wage war and leave nation-building to someone else. This is all the "fear" we need to create.

To our President. Fight to win in Afghanistan, or bring our troops home.

So, you would have us wage war in Afghanistan until "we have brought them to unconditional surrender". Are you referring to the Taliban or the many Islamofascists who fill their ranks?  We aren't waging war against a regular army, or a sovereign state, but against a religion. How can a religion surrender?

Your trying to compare the war in Afghanistan to World War II, isn't going to work. In that war we were fighting for our very survival.

Your comparison to Korea comes a bit closer, especially as the Armistice was signed because Truman was not willing to wage all-out nuclear war against China.

A much better comparison would be Vietnam, something you have recognized in your post.

Although the American military won every battle it fought in Vietnam, we lost the war anyway. You are absolutely correct to point out that the North Vietnamese simply waited us out. When public opinion and political will turned against the war, it was essentially over for us. Could an unfettered military have brought the North to the point of surrender? If so, I've yet to hear this opinion expressed with any certainty.

This brings us back to Afghanistan. Let me offer a few points.

1. Afghanistan is not of strategic importance to the United States, nor has the Taliban
ever posed any military threat to us.

2. A majority of the American public has turned against the war. This opposition includes voters, even political columnists, from both the right, left, and center.

3. Our political leadership does not seem willing to prosecute the war to its fullest. In fact, the President's military adviser, Gen. Jones, specifically told Gen. McChrystal not to ask for more troops.

3. Our political leadership is anti-war, anti-military, and anti-CIA. They are currently investigating the CIA in the hope of prosecuting "torturers". To them, blowing smoke in a terrorist's face is an unacceptable form of interrogation. Heck, they won't even admit to there being a "war on terror" anymore.

4. Our political leadership wants to close Guantanamo Bay, but has no place to send the murdering terrorists who reside there. In the meantime, captured enemy combatants are read their Miranda rights and our Marines in Afghanistan are given rules of engagement that are so narrow that it's costing them their lives.

3. Gen. McChrystal wants another 40,000 troops for Afghanistan and candidly admits that he is unsure if his new strategy even will work.

4.To my knowledge, no one in authority has ever indicated that we have an exit strategy for Afghanistan, or how long we should expect to remain there. It's an open-ended assignment with no real mission statement or discernible goals.

7. Finally, does any sane person truly expect our current political leadership to allow an effective war to be waged in Afghanistan, even if such a war is possible? If they aren't willing to wage war to win, why should our troops be asked to give up their lives until we get around to acknowledging the inevitable? It's time to bring our troops home.

By the way, I haven't been a liberal for quite some time. It is a disease of youth and of those lacking intellectual vigor.

Ollie,

How long must our soldiers fight and die in Afghanistan? We've already been there for eight years and there's still no end in sight. Only now it seems, as things start to turn sour, are we finally asking what our purpose there really is. Even our CIC doesn't seem to know why we're waging this "good" war.

Although we will continue to win battle after battle, we will never fully destroy our enemies, nor totally win the affections of those we're charged to protect. Their religion forbids it. Public opinion is turning against the war and we lack the political will to do what it takes to win.

Can you see the parallels to Vietnam? They cry out to us to reconsider what we're doing in this place "where empires go to die". Are we the next empire to suffer defeat in this godforsaken land that is of no strategic value to the United States? Should we be willing to sacrifice another 60,000 American lives in the hope that this government, unlike the one in Saigon, will be able to defend itself from its own people?

I ask you to fast forward ten years, and thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later, and tell me if it was all worth it.

If we're only fighting in Afghanistan to protect our nation's prestige, or because we're worried that we will appear weak to the dictators of the world, I say that ego is not a reason to wage war.

Bring our troops home!

What people fail to realize is that teacher tenure laws do not guarantee lifetime employment. They were enacted to protect teachers from arbitrary and capricious behavior by administrators and school boards and usually don't take effect until the end of the teacher's 3rd year.

There are two main reasons why incompetent, tenured teachers are not often fired; it's so darn expensive and school administrators are not prepared or willing to do their jobs. Here's how the system operates.

Generally, in order to dismiss a teacher, the school district must be prepared to prove its case before some type arbitration panel. Until the case is decided, the district is frequently required by state law or contract language to continue to pay the teacher's salary and benefits, all the while paying the cost of a replacement teacher.

Teacher unions have become adept at stretching out the dismissal process, sometimes for years. The longer they can keep the process going, by using one delaying tactic after another, the more money it will cost the district. Such costs can easily exceed $200,000 and there is no guarantee that the dismissal will be upheld.

In addition, the district will also have to pay it's lawyer or labor relations specialist to prepare their case and represent them before the arbitration panel.

Until each state passes laws which mandate that the dismissal process, from start to finish, last no more that 12 months, many school districts will continue to find teacher dismissal to be cost-prohibitive.

The second reason.

School districts are a union shop, where nearly every employee is represented by a union. Each union has negotiated a contract with the district in which salaries and benefits, terms of employment, work rules, grievance procedures, etc. are codified. This is the union's bible and they can quote it chapter and verse.

On the other hand, school administrators, no matter how many graduate degrees they may hold, usually pass through their entire careers without ever having any formal training in contract management. In many cases, they've never even looked at what's inside their employees' contracts. Ask many of them to define "progressive discipline" and they'll give you a blank look. This ignorance often results in their inability to properly document a case to support a teacher's dismissal. Because they know they've dropped the ball, they'll let poor teachers slide, year after year.

Until graduate school programs in educational administration start offering contract management classes, ignorance will remain bliss. School districts and superintendents faced with this problem can create their own in-house training programs.

In my opinion, which is based on 21 years as an educator, the last 7 as a school superintendent, tenure isn't the problem. It's the prohibitive cost of the process, along with weak administrators, that allows incompetent teachers to keep their jobs.

 I disagree with the premise that if Obama withdraws from Afghanistan it will cost him a shot at a second term. To the contrary, it may be just what he needs to do to save his political future.

At this moment in time, not only will Obama enjoy the full support of his party, especially the far-left wing that drives the Democrat Party's agenda, but he will have the support of a majority of average Americans. His decision will be applauded by far more folks than will criticize him.

Although our dignity and prestige as the world's democracy-building policeman will take a hit, we've recovered from worse. Leftist Europe and the entire Muslim world will support our decision to withdraw.

The Taliban will resume control of a different Afghanistan, whose people may not be quite so willing this time to return to the 7th century. They will have their hands full and just like before, pose no threat to the United States.

Al Qaeda will continue to plot and plan attacks against the West, just like they're doing now in whatever rat's nest country they're operating in. Also, if the United States is not waging war in any Muslim nation, imagine the dent this will put in their recruiting efforts.

Extinguishing the fires of war in Afghanistan, will help reduce Islamic pressures in Pakistan. The Afghan safety valve will re-open, allowing Taliban fighters to return home and negating the need for foreign fighters to enter the region.

Pakistan's nukes will remain as safe as they're ever going to be and a watchful India will help guarantee their safety.

Finally, if the only reason we are staying in Afghanistan is ego-driven, all the more reason to get out now, on our own terms.

Obama, bring our troops home!

Let's face it, the United States only has 2 choices when it comes to Afghanistan- fight to win or get out. So far, Obama has chosen neither.

In order to implement McCrystal's Afghan strategy, more troops will be needed and  Americans must be willing to sign-on for the long-haul. With polls dropping and politicians (and columnists) at both ends of the political spectrum now calling for withdrawal, it's long past time for our President to make a strong case for our continued military involvement. So far, he's been unwilling to do so.

Making his (and our) decision even more difficult is the fact that even if all the forces in the cosmos line up to favor McCrystal, he can offer no assurances that his plan will even work. It's a roll of the dice.

Up until this point, Obama has chosen to add a few more troops to the fray, but does not appear willing to up the ante. In fact, while McCrystal was preparing his report he was specifically told by the President's military advisor, Gen. Jones, not to ask for more troops. This may be an indication that Obama has chosen to follow a middle (muddle?) path which may ultimately lead to a Taliban victory.

Right now, should Obama decide to pull us out, he has a lot in his favor; an American public growing less and less supportive of the war, a Democrat Congress willing to support his decision, and an apparent split among conservatives over the war.

Mr. President, either make the case for continuing the war and give McCrystal's plan all the support it needs, or explain how you plan to get us out. You can't vote "Present" on this one.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe that Afghanistan can become a self-sustaining democracy?

2. Do you believe that the Afghan government will ever be able to defend itself against the Taliban without U.S. troops?

3. Do you believe that Afghan farmers will ever produce a better paying cash crop than poppy's?

4. Do you believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will ever be entirely eliminated?

5. Do you believe that Pakistan will ever become a strong, unified nation?

6. Do you believe that Afghanistan poses a strategic threat to the U.S.

7. Do you believe that U.S. troops should remain in Afghanistan indefinitely?

8. Do you believe that the U.S. has an exit strategy for Afghanistan?

9. Do you believe that financing a war in Afghanistan is putting a strain on the U.S. economy?

10. Would you willingly send your son or your daughter to fight in this war?

If you answered "No" to these questions, as I have, don't you think we should get the heck out of this mess asap?

Obama, your party opposes this war. A majority of Americans now oppose this war. Only the right wing of the Republican Party (of which I'm usually a member) will give you a hard time if you choose to pull us out. So what? We don't like you anyway. Take the hit, pull us out, or this festering sore will guarantee that you'll be a one-term president. This is your war now, so end it!

It was extremely generous of U.S. taxpayers to give $3 billion of borrowed Chinese money to a small group of folks so they could buy a new car. Does it come as a real surprise that most of cars they purchased were Japanese? Oh well, better luck next time.

Now, G.M. has gone one step further.

I just read this on Drudge.

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - General Motors said on Sunday it has agreed to set up a light commercial vehicle production venture with major Chinese automaker FAW Group, with total investment of 2 billion yuan ($293 million).

Apparently G.M now has enough cash left over from the $ billions we ponied up to save their sorry butts to invest in a Chinese assembly plant. Wow, talk about recycling!

Just think about it. We give G.M. billions of Chinese-borrowed money to keep them afloat. They take $293 million of it and give it back to the Chinese as part of a joint venture to build vans and light trucks. So, China has just invested $293 million of its own money in itself, while American taxpayers are left holding the bill. Another fact - no American workers will be employed at the new plant. Talk about a win-win situation for the Chinese!

Does this make sense to anyone? Perhaps the "Car Czar" can explain it to us? Oops, I forgot he doesn't answer to the people, only the Anointed One" and his band of economic acolytes.

However, isn't it comforting to know that in just a few short months Government Motors no longer finds it necessary to invest in improving it's U.S. plants and operations. They're now doing so well that they can invest their (our) money in China and create jobs for Chinese workers.

God save the United States of America, please!!

During the 60's the rationale for sending troops to Vietnam was to prevent all the countries in Southeast Asia from falling like dominoes to the communists.

Well, 60,000 American lives and millions of Asian lives later, what did our Vietnam involvement accomplish in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely nothing. In fact, if you consider the killing fields of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, we probably caused more suffering to the people in the region than if we had stayed home and let Uncle Ho have his way with the South.

Fast forward to today.

In Afghanistan, we are involved in a war thousands of miles from home, in a country that poses no strategic threat to us, where our opponents (and even some friends) consider us invaders, where our enemies are fueled by religious fervor (rather that ideological), and where a majority of the American public has lost interest in continuing the war. Now instead of communists to rail about, it's Taliban and Al Qaeda. Pakistan has become the new domino we worry about falling. It's Vietnam, Part 2.

Make no mistake, this is Obama's War now and he probably has less of a chance winning this one that we did in Vietnam. Political correctness, the 24-hour news cycle, and his own indecision will keep him tied him up in knots.

Also, does anyone really believe for a second that The Anointed One has the intestinal fortitude to wage war. In his world, blowing cigar smoke in the face of a terrorist is an unacceptable form of torture. God help us!

All this being said, President Obama, declare victory and bring our troops home.

Can we "win" the war in Afghanistan? My guess it that we can't.

First, there is no way we can kill all our enemies. The Taliban draws its support from throughout the Muslim world. Kill 200 of them, and Al Qaeda and Pakistan contribute 250 to replace them. They are like fire ants, you can kill 90% of the ants in your lawn, but the 10% you miss will replace their lost numbers almost overnight.

Sticking with the fire ant analogy.

If your initial treatment kills 90% of the ants, only by continuing to treat the lawn over and over again will you be able to keep the ant population in check. However, once you cut back on your treatments, the ants will start taking over your lawn again.

It is possible to keep the Taliban under control, but only for as long as we are willing to use the U.S. military to keep them in check. The Taliban will never be completely destroyed, no matter how many we kill. Our military intervention will have no end point.

Second, the Taliban is motivated by an absolute hatred of us. Not only have we invaded their homeland, we are infidels whose religion commands them to kill or convert. Their passion for this fight is unflagging. Ours is already beginning to wane.

Third, waging a war on the other side of the world is tremendously expensive. Will the U.S. economy able to sustain such a financial drain for an indefinite period of time? Is Afghanistan worth the expense?

Fourth, does anyone truly believe that Afghanistan has the potential to become a self-sustaining democracy? Does anyone believe that the U.S.-created and supported government will be able to stand on its own two feet and defend itself from Taliban attack if we pull our troops out? Is our presence only delaying the inevitable?

Fifth, if Lyndon Johnson didn't have the guts to face the political fallout he would suffer if he withdrew our troops from Viet Nam, does anyone believe Obama has to guts to get us out of Afghanistan? Will he be willing to sit back and allow the death of another 60,000 American soldiers before he declares the cause lost, or will he be willing to take the heat, pull them out, and risk being a one-term president? With a Democrat controlled Congress fully behind him, and an American public quickly losing interest in the war, what better time to arrange a pullout?

Finally, the question Obama now faces is how can we extricate ourselves from Afghanistan with dignity? Answer, we can't. Even if the Taliban were interested in joining a government of reconciliation, how long do you think it would take for them to be back in control? This would be like declaring a victory, then going home. Sadly, this may be the only course of action we can take.

Everything that happens in Afghanistan from now on is Obama's to decide.