« Racist Rush Limbaugh Attacks Another GOP Black | Main | Palin Supporters Populate Alternate Reality »

President Obama Determined To Make Success Against Al Qaeda And Taliban A Major Foreign Policy Goal

Yesterday, in a major summit arranged at the White House, President Obama met with the rival leaders of both Pakistan and Afghanistan who have been blaming each other for problems with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and allowing terrorism. President Obama achieved peace between the rival leaders and got assurances from both to cooperate against the common enemies of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and terrorism. Also, from Pakistan, there were promises to use military force with the Taliban and to stop making any new peace deals with them.

In just one White House summit, President Obama was able to achieve a great deal, and was able to advance his policy to defeat both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. A new cooperation pact with the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan to work towards the same goals is vital to defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Some Republicans had hoped to raise foreign policy doubts about President Obama, however he has proven himself to be tough just like other Democrats who have been forced to respond with military force when America felt compelled to act. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson sent American troops into combat during WWI. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt sent American troops into combat after the United States was attacked by the Japanese Navy at Pearl Harbor. Democratic President Harry Truman sent American forces to blunt Chinese Communist aggression in Korea. Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson first sent military advisors, and then combat troops in an effort to stop aggression and to achieve peace in the Vietnamese Civil War. Democratic President Bill Clinton sent American forces to combat aggression and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. In far more instances, Democratic presidents have deployed military force from the United States to attempt to restore peace and order in serious incidents than have Republican presidents, yet some Republicans continue to misrepresent that Democrats are either weak on defense or will fail to protect the nation's interests, of which history clearly proves are false assertions.

President Obama is very serious about achieving a military victory over the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And breaking the back of this terrorist network is a major foreign policy goal of his administration.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)

Comments (7)

Mac Lorry:
In far more instances, Democratic presidents have deployed military force from the United States to attempt to restore peace and order in serious incidents than have Republican presidents,

You're right, Democrats are warmongers. Of course, it might be that Democrats are just unluckier than Republicans. Now instead of raw numbers, Paul, try percentages and see what you come up with.


"President Obama is very serious about achieving a military victory over the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And breaking the back of this terrorist network is a major foreign policy goal of his administration."

Yeah, with the backing of people like Harry "The War Is Lost" Reid, Jack "Retreat over the Horizon" Murtha, and Nancy "I wasn't Briefed on that" Pelosi, what could go wrong?


Paul, part of your analysis that is missing is the state of the U.S. military going into these wars. In WWI, WWII, and even Korea, our military was NOT the size it should have been, or trained as well as it should have been, or very well equipped. Going into our involvement in the Balkans, we cut our troop strength (in the army) by 40%!(Clinton cut the size of the active duty army from 18 divisions to 10) This is one of the reasons that our military is suffering such high rates of PTSD and attrition. This is also one of the reasons that our reserve and national guard forces are doing so many deployments. President Obama should not be speaking about "ending" wars. Either you force the enemy to submit (victory), or you pull out leaving the enemy the impression that they can attack you again (losing). I don't think we can afford to lose in Iraq or Afghanistan. You can't make peace with these people, they only accept the dar al islam (which is the house of submission) not the dar al harb (house of war). There is no inbetween for them, and should not be for us. I'm glad to see that he brought Pakistan and India to the table to fight terrorism, I just have to wonder about Pakistan's commitment. When you have upper echelon army generals involved in planning a terrorist attack, how deep does the corruption go?


Seeing more and more people are realizing that our soldiers are being physically and mentally wiped out by all the deployments they have, I think it's time for the US to re-instate the draft. But this time, all eligible people will serve. Got a cyst on your rear end, the military has doctors to fix it. Got flat feet, you can sit at a desk.

We all hear the BS some spout about "supporting the troops." But they have all kinds of reasons not to join the military. The draft would make that slogan a reality for some people. And us retired vets are all for a draft.

Doubting Thomas:

Speak for yourself, Allen. I did 10 years active in the AF and 13 in the AF Reserve, and every time some Democrat floated that idea over the years NOBODY had anything good to say about it.

We're a long way from the '70s, where all a draftee had to learn was how to work an M-16. There's a heck of a lot of high-tech gear on the battlefield and support areas, and a disgruntled grunt could do a hell of a lot of 'accidental damage' to some expensive stuff.

Draft? No. It's not a workable idea these days, and anyone trying to actually shove it through will sure get an earful - and it won't be in support of the idea, either!

Mac Lorry:
And us retired vets are all for a draft.

I was in the military, so that makes me a veteran, but not one who's retired. I strongly oppose the draft. In fact, it's one of the few causes that would get me out on the street to protest against. First, it's political suicide for the party that imposes this on the American youth. Second, it's militarily ineffective unless you are going to launch human wave attacks like Iran did against Iraq. Third, the United States has spent billions and billions on force multipliers, but they don't work without well trained and highly motivated troops. Fourth, and probably most importantly, there is a warrior class of people and in combat each one is worth four draftees.

Yes, our military needs more warriors, but the way to get them is to increase their pay, non-combat living conditions, public respect, and after service medical and financial benefits. Obama somehow knows this and is moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, the far left winglets are trying to derail this by imposing the requirement to let gays serve openly. The last thing you need in combat is sexual intrigue among and between the officers and men. "Why does Johnny never take point... cause the Lieutenant is attracted to him." When decisions aren't made for military reasons the unit loses cohesion. Anyone who doesn't know why cohesion is vitally important never spent a day in combat.


Allen, I know you mean that with all good intentions, but I must respectfully disagree. I don't believe that a draft would help. I'm looking at a deployment, and I'd much rather do it with soldiers that haven't been forced into it. Our current training and equipment are very technically sophisticated, and no 2 year draftee is going to get proficient without the will to. I do agree with Mac that we should make the military a better, more competitive career for those that wish to join. I know plenty of guys that wish they'd done it when they were younger, but now they have families and other careers. The other issue is to get the numbers we would need in order to get back up to 18, or even 14 divisions is time and money. With the Navy and Air Force sucking up 2/5 of the defense budget apiece, that doesn't leave much for the Marines and Army. I'm all for air support, but the guys on the ground NEED better gear and guns over the next decade. Building Billion dollar fighter jets, and multi-billion dollar ships doesn't help the guys that have to actually fight the enemy face to face. Sure, we need them too, but the whole procurement system needs a revamp, and the lobbyists need to get punted off the hill. When is the last time that we took a look at building the next generation Main Battle Tank, or looked at providing soldiers with better boots and helmets? Not that the ones we have now are bad, they could just be a whole lot better. What about PBA (every soldier's dream), or exoskeletons to help carry the load? Those programs could really help out, but are not a priority for development. DDX, LCS, F-22, F-35, the "Next" nuclear sub are all "sexy" programs that provide a lot of pork to senator's home districts.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.