I spent six years in the Navy, but was never in combat. Simply being in the military does not necessarily make one qualified in military and tactical planning. I learned more about those kind of things while majoring in History, than I did while in the military.
Nonetheless, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I agreed with President Obama that his predecessor made a major strategic error in starting a second and totally separate war in Iraq, before our mission to eliminate Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was complete.
The result has been two pronged wars that have dragged on for the better part of the decade, with (until now) no exit strategy and no end in sight. The result of the Bush Administration policy was costly both in terms of money and precious lives lost.
The main beneficiary of Bush's two wars so far has been the people running the military-industrial complex.
Further exacerbating the matter is that Al Qaeda has expanded heavily into Pakistan, and Iran has acted for the most part with relative impunity with regards to it's nuclear technology development.
Afghanistan is ranked #43 in world population, with approximately 28.3 million people. Iraq is ranked #41 in world population, with approximately 28.9 million people.
To add a little bit more perspective, the population of North Vietnam when the US was fighting against them, was about 16 million.
Another part of the equation which cannot be ignored, is Pakistan, which is ranked #6 in world population, with approximately 176 million people, and has a government which is facing rising unrest, and also has a nuclear arsenal which could spell disaster if it were to fall into the hands of terrorists.
A war between Pakistan and it's bitter rival India, #2 in population, with 1.1 billion people (not far behind China's 1.3 billion), is yet another issue to take into consideration, and underscores even more why the war on two fronts was a total disaster of the highest magnitude.
I mostly blame the chicken hawks in the Bush administration that pushed this position - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, however the top commanders in the military are not without blame either, since they seemed to have been given pretty much free reign and have little to show for it besides two corrupt (and dare I say) puppet governments.
So, enough of this "Obama isn't giving the military everything they want malarkey", unless you want the military to run the government instead of our democratically elected leaders.
Our preoccupation with Iraq, allowed the Taliban to regain strength in Afghanistan, and for the Poppy Fields (the source of the heroin trade) to once again flourish, and although on the run, Al Qaeda is still a major threat to be reckoned with, as they have now found safe haven in and around Pakistan.
Without a change of direction from the failed "Mission (un)Accomplished", that is the legacy of nearly 8 years of Bush administration bad policies, we will surely be mired in a quagmire (if we aren't already).
How do we extricate ourselves from the muck?
The Obama administration appears to have been deliberate in taking it's time to come up with a comprehensive strategy, in consultation with the military and intelligence services, which has several specific measurable goals.
A gradual reduction of troops in Iraq, a surge in military forces in Afghanistan over the next several months, followed by a blueprint for the commencement of troop withdrawals from that country commencing in about 18 months.
Critics of a phased withdrawal argue that enemy combatants and terrorist elements will simply wait us out and then move back in.
Personally, I think the timetables could work in a few different ways.
If our opponents withdraw in the face of a surge, that will put them in an even more defensive position, making them more vulnerable to attack and infiltration, while we simultaneously try to train and shore up the Afghan and Iraq governments, so that should the Taliban and Al Qaeda start trying to reassert themselves, and go on the offensive as we begin standing down, the Afghan and Iraq military might have a fighting chance.
It's pretty clear that even as we begin scheduled troop withdrawals, there will still be a substantial amount of US forces on the ground in both countries for some time to come (perhaps a decade or more). In the end though, it's up to the governments and citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq to determine their own fate.
I say give Obama's plan a chance. None of us have a crystal ball or can predict the future.
What I am most concerned about is the well-being of our troops, and the past course was not working. Our all-volunteer military personnel are suffering mightily from the heavy burden of having to endure multiple tours of duty, and other hardships.
Mental illness, suicide, and divorce rates are all on the rise among military personnel. How much more are we going to ask these brave individuals to sacrifice?
While it is imperative that the government do what it can to keep the nation safe, it should not come at such an enormous cost in money and lives which perpetual military conflict demands.
Since Obama has outlined timetables with significant measurable milestones set to occur before he is up for re-election, the electorate in 2012 will be able to make a clear decision as to whether or not he has come up with the proper mix of strategy and tactics which the people can support.
I think this is far better than writing a blank check that pushes us endlessly deeper into debt, with an ever-increasing body count of our most precious resource.
ADG