MORE "FOBBITS" OR MORE FIGHTERS? WORDS FROM THE FRONT-LINE AS OBAMA SENDS 30,000 MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN

My friend's husband and his troops in Afghanistan** This blog is dedicated to my dear childhood friend, Lindsay. Lindsay, I pray for Kirk and his troops to return quickly and safely. Godspeed.

Yesterday, President Obama ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Personally, I think we need to get the heck outta there BUT the CEO of our country decided to send more troops so we must support his decision - the father of my friend's children is over in that mountainous hell-hole!

Obama only met with every official dozens of times, for countless hours, for at least nine months, to make a decision. General McChrystal submitted his report that requested 40,000 more troops on August 30, 2009 -- Obama did not decide to listen to his General until 90-days later. I do not think an executive decision should take so long, especially when McChrystal said, "Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate." Nov. 23: President Obama holds a meeting on Afghanistan in the Situation Room. (Pete Souza, White House)

Also remember that while Obama was meeting for the 10000th time, the deadliest attack of the war occurred -- on October 3, 2009? Well, my friend's badass hubby led our troops on-foot, down the mountain because the terrain was too dangerous for the choppers. My friend's husband put his life on the line for all of us, while we were tucked away in our beds. My friend's husband and all of the troops who fought for us that day and every day deserve to come home. I feel bad for the families who hoped and prayed their loved ones would come home sooner rather than later.

WHAT ABOUT LISTENING TO THE FRONT LINE?

Obama's decision to send 30,000 troops does not deal with two major issues that my friend on the front-line recently shared with me: 1) the Afgahn Army, and 2) the kind of troops being sent.

Speaking of the October attack, he said: 

Those were the craziest four days that I have experienced during my 11 years in the Army. When the attack happened I was at FOB Bostic. As soon as it started, I was on a Blackhawk helicopter trying to get in the fight. It started early morning around 6 am -- they started with rocket and mortar fire, then the machine guns kicked in; the bullets were so thick you couldn't get out the door. Very quickly, two of my soldiers were killed by sniper fire, then the guard points began running out of ammo and we could not get more to them -- there was too much enemy fire. While this is happening, I was circling in a helicopter trying to join the fight. It was ripping my heart out knowing my men were being shot up and I couldn't do anything.

He goes on to say...

Politics is the big reason why the truth about the Afghan army is not being told. If the truth got out that American ground forces (when I say ground forces I am talking about the Soldiers doing the fighting) have zero confidence in the Afghan Army fighting ability, a lot of people would ask, "Why are we here?" Or, "Why should we fight if they are not willing to?" A lot of important people would look bad, especially the ones who continue to vote "yes" in funding this war and giving aid to a corrupt government. I have no doubt that some were on the enemies side, but most were just plane scared or unwilling to fight. It is a great example of what I said before this battle, they need to concentrate on quality not quantity.

So what about the Army? What are they going to contribute to the war in their country and can we even depend on them to help themselves? If they are not going to help themselves; obviously, they are not going to help us.

Also, what KIND of troops Obama is sending to Afghanistan? Is Obama going to send front-line soldiers or is he going to send "fobbits?" Yes, I said it: FOBBITS! Fobbits are the guys who are permanently stationed on the "Forward Operating Base" and do not leave the base to fight the battles. Granted, all of our troops are heroes but there is a big difference between the cook and the guy who treks through the mountains with a granola bar in his pocket for the day and thousands of bullets strapped to his back. I think it's important to know if we are sending more cooks or more fighters. Big difference. Again, let me repeat: ALL HEROES BUT BIG DIFF BETWEEN FOBBIT AND FIGHTER.

OBAMA & HIS TIMELINES

Last February, in front of hundreds of Marines, Obama vowed to end the war in Iraq. He said he would begin to withdraw troops in August 2010. “Let me say this as plainly as I can...By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end...I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.” NY Times article here.

At the time of his "promise" Obama was just a one month into his presidency. He should have known better than to make such a guarantee about a war he knew little about. The statement was not only premature, it was immature.

I find it interesting that Obama loves to give promises: he promised to withdraw troops from Iraq and promised to close Guantanamo by January 2010. We know Guantanamo will not be closed in January 2010 and I can bet you it will not be closed until at least 2011. I can also bet that all troops will not be out of Iraq by 2011.

As for Afghanistan, Obama said he would begin withdrawing troops in 18 months. Don't you think Obama should hold off on his timelines and use some of his "legalese" language (remember, he is a lawyer) like "reasonable amount of time" or other language that is not so definitive?

HOW DO WE PAY FOR THE WAR?

The war in Afghanistan has already cost somewhere around $700 billion. Obama voted against funding the war in May of 2007. The cost of sending additional troops depends on who you ask: Obama says about $30 billion; House Budget Committee Chairman (D-SC) John Spratt says $15 billion. Regardless, how are we going to pay for this? I do not know a single American, rich or poor, who has been adversely affected by this jacked economy. But don't worry, if you make over $150,000 you may be subject to paying for the war more than the average Joe, even though you may work more than the average Joe!

Whatever the answer is, I think Obama should have determined HOW we are going to pay for the additional troops before making the decision to send 30,000 people to war. Obama is dealing with people's lives overseas and people's livelihood here at home -- we deserve to know how much he is going to dip into our pockets. (Also, he decided to only give McChrystal 30,000 instead of 40,00 and he's seeking our allies to chip in some troops. Again, shouldn't Obama have gotten the support first, before deciding on 30,000 and crossing his fingers for the help?) Keep in mind there are already 68,000 American troops and 32,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan...

At the end of the day, even though I think we should get out of Afghanistan, I must support our President. He has not even been in office for a year. Yes, I have publicly shared a bit of "buyer's remorse" -- but we must give him the support he needs; after all, the majority voted for him to be our leader for 4 years. At the end of the day, we do not want our leader to fail -- if he fails, our troops fail, you and I also fail. Support Obama's troop-increase decision and pray that our troops come back home as quickly as possible. But at the same time, let's start asking Obama some other questions besides "how much money" and "how many troops?"

www.tamaraholder.com and www.xpunged.com

THE POWER OF 3: AL QAEDA, TALIBAN & AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY

We must get out of Afghanistan now.

The WSJ reports that General McChrystal wants as many as 60,000 more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. Whether we send 1,000 troops or 100,000 troops, are we really capable of "winning" the war against all of these negative forces? I say NO; I say get the hell out of dodge.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said al Qaeda has focused on hitting the U.S., while danger posed by the Taliban "was somewhat different" and less threatening. That's interesting because it was the Taliban, 300+ strong, that attacked our outposts last weekend. AP article here. In fact, my friend's husband led about 60 troops from the top of a mountain, down into the location of the attack. And yet the Taliban is less threatening than al Qaeda? Really?

Also reported to me by a member of the front line was that the Afghan National Army did not help the American troops at all. Apparently, members of the new army are easily paid off by the Taliban. In fact, our troops have implemented a buddy system even for bathroom breaks because they do not trust the Afghan National Army troops.

What is our mission in Afghanistan? We are not trying to bring down one regime, as we did with Sadam Hussein. There is no single leader, there is no single mission. We are fighting al Qaeda forces within Afghanistan and also seeking to keep them from entering from Pakistan. We are fighting the Taliban. And, we are trying to train an Afghan army that apparently is already rooted with corruption. Three forces, three issues, three reasons to get out of Afghanistan.

As a side note, an increase in helicopters is a silly request if the helicopters can't reach dangerous mountain regions. For example, the attack last weekend was in a remote village that prevented helicopters from landing closely; thus, the men had to be dropped off at the top of a mountain and then had to hike downhill. Here is yet another example that quantity of troops or resources are not the answer. The answer is that the United States must leave or we will never get out of there.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

A PORTION OF MY INTERVIEW WITH AN ARMY SOLDIER ON THE FRONT LINE IN AFGHANISTAN -- RECENT TALIBAN ATTACK WAS ON HIS POST & KILLED 8 OF HIS BUDDIES

Gun inside of Afghanistan postBelow is a brief portion of my interview with my childhood friend's husband, who is on the front-line in Afghanistan. He just lost 8 troops this weekend. He answered these questions last week, before the big attack this past weekend.

According to Fox News online: (Entire article here.)

Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. troops and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said Sunday.

The fierce gunbattle, which erupted at dawn Saturday in the Kamdesh district of mountainous Nuristan province and raged throughout the day, is likely to fuel the debate in Washington over the direction of the troubled eight-year war.

It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American troops were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, plans to shift U.S. troops away from remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of his new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians.

My friends, this ain't no joke. Reading about the deaths is one thing, watching the war is another. Imagine being my childhood friend, the wife of an Army soldier, who constantly prays, worries and hopes for the safety of her husband and the father of her kids.

Just this past weekend, I spent some time with my friend and their two absolutely precious children. As I took turns spinning them around until I got too dizzy to stand, I thought about my friend's life and the path it has taken. She's such an incredible mom -- a "single" mom of sorts -- and yet she holds herself together so well. She smiles. She giggles. Her kids are happy and fun. Crazy to think at the very moment I was lifting her son into the tree I used to play on as a kid, the Taliban was plotting an attack on her husband's post. 

Maybe Gen. McChrystal and Obama should talk to the troops on the front line. Is that such a novel idea?

I was going to write a blog about my interview with my friend's husband but I'd rather just post some of his quotes, given the fact that he just lost 8 of his buddies. For the safety of the Army, I have chosen to leave out certain portions of the interview for now.

Something must be done. Time is of the essence.

Another image taken in Afghanistan

Direct from a soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan

More troops: "Troops is tricky because it depends how you use them and what troops are being sent, I feel the answer is yes. But let me explain my answer. What most people fail to realize is that two types of Soldiers exist here Combat and Support. Combat Soldiers (Cavalry Scouts like myself and Infantry) are the ones that go out find the enemy and kill him -- well, we do when it is convenient for the Afghan Army/Government . Support Soldiers are cooks, supply clerks, admin and so forth they make sure the Combat Soldiers get water, food , bullets or whatever they need. Support Soldiers are just as important as Combat Soldiers, but what is needed here is more Combat Soldiers. When some politician says and this is just an example not actual numbers "we are sending 20,000 troops to Afghanistan" only a small percentage are actually combat troops. It does no good to send Troops if all they do is stay in the FOB and do nothing."

Afghan attitude: "Personally I would prefer and so would other Soldiers to have ten well trained, disciplined and motivated ANA Soldiers willing to fight for their country next to me during a fight. Instead of fifty ANA that might shoot me in the back because they don't want to be there or their leaders are taking half their pay and they might get a better deal from the enemy."

Winning: "First of all "winning" is a word we do not use around here to much. Our president (which a large majority of Soldiers I know did not vote for) said that we are not here to win, that is very confusing to a Soldier that is trained to fight and win wars. At times it seems that he places Afghan politics in front of U.S. Soldiers lives. Another confusing issue is the U.S. strategy here if there is one, a U.S. general said, "So we don't get to shoot at those that are shooting at us, that is not always bad." Now, would he have said that if he had seen his friends torn to pieces by those bullets? I have seen it. I want to shoot back and so do my Soldiers. Since we are at the receiving end and not him."

Thank you, my friend, for answering these questions.

Now, please watch this video - my friend's husband is a soldier filmed in the video.

In the first, one Army troop says, "We're in a bowl." Another is asked, "Why are you here?" The response, after a nervous chuckle is, "My boss told me to come here." The video shows the troops getting shot at and the journalist saying, "We don't know where the shots are coming from," as they seek cover in the mountainous area.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BILL O'REILLY WRONG, "IF WE PULL OUT ON AFGHANISTAN, THE TALIBAN WINS."

Bill O'Reilly Interviews Obama (Courtesy of Fox News)Last night, Bill O'Reilly suggested we give Gen. McChrystal the troops he needs -- that if we pull out of Afghanistan now, the Taliban wins.

No so fast, Mr. O'Reilly. This isn't entirely about the Taliban. We have the al-Qaeda problem too, don't forget - remember those are the people who killed us in 9/11? Um, yeah, they were not the Taliban.

What Does Obama Think?

Seems like Obama may not agree with O'Reilly. (That's not a surprise!) This isn't about winning or losing to the Taliban. In July, Obama told ABC News, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."

And just last Sunday, Obama told David Gregory of Meet the Press, "And we are going to see how this is fitting what I think is our core goal, which is to after the folks who killed 3,000 Americans in 9/11 and who are still plotting to kill us - al-Qaeda. How do we dismantle them, disrupt them, destroy them?"

Protecting Afghanistan from TWO Groups: The Taliban AND al-Qaeda

McChrystal's report begins with the stated goal to "to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat al-Qaeda and prevent their return to Afghanistan.'' And that it's "his mission" to protect the Afghan government from the Taliban.

al-Qaeda = Pakistan
Taliban = Afghanistan

McChrystal is essentially saying that we are protecting Afghanistan from not only the re-entry of al-Qaeda from Pakistan but also protecting them from their internal Taliban.

The purpose of our mission in Afghanistan has changed. Our original goal was to destroy "terrorist" training camps so that we would be protected from attacks on American soil. Now, it looks like the entire goal is to protect Afghanistan & the Afghan people, NOT the American people or others who live in the free world. 

"Stability in Pakistan is essential, not only in its own right, but also to enable progress in Afghanistan,'' McChrystal reports. "Nevertheless, the insurgency in Afghanistan is predominantly Afghan.''

Geez, this is getting awfully confusing! If stability in Pakistan is essential, how is the United States and its allies going to accomplish such stability? And is it our job to do so? How long is that going to take?

More Troops

Obama approved 21,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, on the advice of Gates and other senior defense and military leaders. That will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a record 68,000 by the end of this year, working alongside 38,000 NATO-led troops.

Before we send an additional 30-40,000 more troops into Afghanistan, we must re-define the mission, purpose and goals.

Biden's Idea Back on the Table

Looks like Obama may reconsider Biden's idea that adding additional troops may not be the answer. Biden suggests we re-evaluate the Pakistan/al-Qaeda issue before sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Mr. O'Reilly, sending more troops into Afghanistan for the purpose of defeating the Taliban is not proper answer.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IT IS NO MYTH: ONLY A TROJAN HORSE COULD PROVIDE VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN

Obama needs to get the hell out of Afghanistan now. All of these meetings, briefings, memos and summaries are a waste of time. The death toll is rising at a rapid rate, the cost is absolutely absurd, and the people who suggested we enter Iraq are the very same people saying we need more troops in Afghanistan. The idea that we are winning in Afghanistan is only myth that ends with us conquering them with a Trojan horse. You think that sounds absurd? So do I.

Death Toll

With every meeting comes another death. With every briefing comes another roadside bomb. We are losing allies. Just last Thursday, six Italian soldiers were killed - the worst attack on the Italians since their entrance into Afghanistan.

The death toll in July was 76 and August was 77, the highest ever. Before July, the highest number was an entire year prior - August 2008 - the death toll was 46. As of today, September 22, the death toll is 55.  Surely, we can expect more casualties before October 1.

Since 2004, we have lost over 50 more soldiers each year than the previous year. The numbers are going up, not down.

Clearly, the Taliban is getting more violent and are are losing more power. The numbers speak for themselves. Clearly, something is terribly wrong: something like, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan. We can protect American soil on American soil. We cannot protect American soil in the land of poppy plants, roadside bombs and "martyrs" who believe in killing insurgents -- that would be us, just in case you were wondering.

Courtesty of icasualtiesCost

According to David R. Francis of The Christian Science Monitor: Full Article here.

For the first time, the war in Afghanistan in the next budget year will cost Americans more than the war in Iraq. By the end of the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, the total military budget costs for both wars will have exceeded $1 trillion.

That’s more than the cost of the Vietnam War, adjusting for inflation, or any other US war except World War II ($3.2 trillion in 2007 dollars).

A trillion dollars is hard to imagine. Think of it this way: If you had an expense account good for $1 million a day, it would take 2,935 years to spend $1.071 trillion, which is the actual estimate for the wars’ price tag by Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington. He reckons the two conflicts will have cost the typical American family of four roughly $13,000 by next year.

Wars, even counterinsurgency conflicts, are expensive in lives and dollars.

Why is Afghanistan getting so expensive? The US is sending more troops, of course. It also costs about 50 percent more to keep a soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq, says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard University economist. In sharp contrast to flat, urbanized Iraq, most of Afghanistan’s population lives in rural, mountainous terrain with few good roads to link them up.

Officially, Afghanistan war costs are budgeted at $65 billion for fiscal 2010, somewhat more than the $61 billion for the Iraq war.

So as Americans struggle -- they are without jobs, without heath insurance, their homes are in foreclosure -- they continue to pay for a war that has no end. They continue to pay for a war that is providing no answers.

What if we pulled out of Afghanistan and applied all of that money to domestic protection? The best place to protect your home is at your front door, not thousands of miles away, in the mountainous region of Afghanistan.

Infrastructure

The same people who advised Bush to enter Iraq and Afghanistan are advising Obama. The internal forces have not changed. Gen. McChrystal recently stated in a "Commander's Summary" that, "Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress." This is the same guy who said, in April 2003 after the fall of Baghdad, "I would anticipate that the major combat engagements are over." He also looks in the mirror every day knowing he was behind the cover-up of the Pat Tillman "friendly fire" incident.  On June 10, 2009 McChrystal was promoted to General - a decision by Obama himself. Shortly thereafter, McChrystal assumed command of NATO operations, Operation Khanjar commenced, marking the largest offensive operation and the beginning of the deadliest combat month for NATO forces since 2001.

This guy is out of his mind. What has he done besides make terribly wrong decisions and create terribly inaccurate plans?

Obama needs to stop relying on the same guys who advised Bush. That's great: send more troops to Afghanistan. But then what? What is the plan? How do we stop the drugs flowing out of there? How do we stop the killing? How do we convince our allies to stay?

Sending more troops is not the answer -- Obama, we gotta get the hell outta there. Pronto.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com