What's Going On Behind The Curtains In Regard To Afghanistan?

In a few weeks we will pass the eighth anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan, a hopeless and ill-conceived venture from the very beginning. Obama's embrace of the war in his campaign always seemed to me to be a harbinger of bad things to come and a colossal error. Late last night a 66-page report from General McChrystal "leaked" to the Washington Post and the NY Times that basically says "more troops or we lose."

McChrystal seems to be boxing Obama in with statements like: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months)-- while Afghan security capacity matures-- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible." He calls the situation serious but claims "success is still achievable." He's wrong; it isn't, unless success is defined as depopulating the entire wretched country, something that not even the Soviets felt they could get away with.

The report had been submitted to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on August 30. Who leaked it? And why? The Times points out that the leak "coincided with new skepticism expressed by President Obama about sending any more troops into Afghanistan until he was certain that the strategy was clear. His remarks came as opposition to the eight-year-old war within his own party is growing. General McChrystal’s view offered a stark contrast, and the language he used was striking."

In a series of interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows, Mr. Obama expressed skepticism about sending more American troops to Afghanistan until he was sure his administration had the right strategy to succeed.

“Right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?” Mr. Obama said on CNN. “When we have clarity on that, then the question is, O.K., how do we resource it?”

Mr. Obama said that he and his top advisers had not delayed any request for additional troops from General McChrystal because of the political delicacy of the issue or other domestic priorities.

“No, no, no, no,” Mr. Obama said when asked on CNN’s State of the Union whether General McChrystal had been told to sit on his request.

Mr. Obama said his decision “is not going to be driven by the politics of the moment.”

In an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, Mr. Obama said his top priority was to protect the United States against attacks from Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

“Whatever decisions I make are going to be based first on a strategy to keep us safe, then we’ll figure out how to resource it,” the president said. “We’re not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we’re automatically going to make Americans safe,” he said.

Starting today expect to see a concerted attack on the president from the "We-Want-Obama-To-Fail-Right," making it harder for Democrats to back away from his misguided Afghanistan policies. But none of these games changes the fact this is a pointless and unwinnable war and must be brought to a close as soon as possible. This week Blue America is launching No Means No! a fundraising effort to help bolster members of Congress who already know that and who have been working diligently to end it. If Obama keeps his pledge to end the Bush-era supplemental funding process, future appropriations for Afghanistan will be part of the budget, which means Pay-Go rules kick in. That leaves Congress with two choices when allocating money for the occupation of Afghanistan: raising taxes or cutting social programs. That's the next big battle facing Washington.

Watch Obama on CBS' Meet The Press yesterday: