Suffering the Consequences of War

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, President Obama is signaling an endgame in the Afghan war.     LINK

Barack Obama has for the first time flagged the need for an endgame in the strategy for Afghanistan, saying he did not want to leave the next US president with an open-ended commitment to a conflict that has already raged for eight years.   In a series of interviews from Beijing with US network and cable channels, Mr Obama said a decision on troop numbers and a refined strategy was close.   He told CNN he believed his Afghan policy needed to include an endgame because ”unless you impose that kind of discipline, [US policy] could end up leading to a multiyear occupation that won’t serve the interests of the United States”.

What a refreshing change from the last guy who started two wars, had zero exit strategy and left the mess for the next guy.  WTG, Obama!  Of course, war is often tolerated because the actual consequences are hidden pretty well from public view.   Sneaking bodies back from the killing fields with no press coverage, attacking war ojectors as being unpatriotic, denying support to returning troops resulting in large numbers of mentally ill and homeless veterans,  and hiding the high costs of injuries to the troops and their families are serious issues that our fine soldiers must bear.  WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if the public were informed, daily, about the true consequences of war?  I doubt that many readers have the stomach to think about the consequences, but if you find it is time to take a stand, please view the above clip.   I’d appreciate any comments from engaged viewers    🙂

More from the linked article:    Senior military and Administration officials said Mr Obama was not asking for firm, publicly declared handover dates like those in early Iraq war plans.  Instead, the officials said, the Administration wants the Pentagon to identify important milestones for Afghanistan to reach, in its governance and the capability of its security forces, and then give a rough sense of when each objective is likely to be achieved. Reaching these goals would allow the US role to shift away from direct combat, allowing troop levels to decline.  ”What the White House wants is a strategic glide path that gives a sense of the path ahead and the time it will take to meet each specific target,” a military official said. ”It’s not a hard-and-fast timetable for withdrawal.”  The President said his goal was to ensure that his successor does not inherit the conflict.

I say, bring home the troops from that hell hole in the middle east.   The cost of blood and treasure is too high.    Rv – –

About Red Vixen