When Contemplating the Afghan War, The Number to Keep In Mind is "Seven"

Seven, as in "Seven Years". The number of years that we were at war in Afghanistan while George W. Bush was president. Keep that number in mind as you read stories about the decision that President Obama has to make or the rumors floating around that Gen. McChrystal will resign (and run for president, just like McClellan did) if he doesn't get his way.

The party of Hoover will, of course, try to blame the entire mess in Afghanistan on Obama. That is sort of like having a baseball game where the starting pitcher throws for eight innings, leaves with a seven-run deficit and then blaming the relief pitcher for the loss. Bush had seven years to do something about Afghanistan and he did nothing. It is beyond the point of dispute that Bush neglected the Afghan War.

If Bush's intention was to set the stage for a Taliban victory, he could hardly have done a better job of it. What we now have is a counter-insurgency war to fight to prop up a government that (a) is largely despised by the locals, (b) controls little more than the capital city, (c) has hardly anything in the way of an effective army (after seven years), and (d) blatantly stole an election in order to remain in power. Add to that mix the fact that the counterinsurgency war has to be fought largely with foreign troops in a land that has a centuries-old tradition of armed hostility towards foreigner armies. If there is a more potent recipe for disaster, I do not know what it is.

One other thing to keep in mind, especially when evaluating rumors that this general or that general is threatening to resign: Where were all those generals who threatened to quit when Bush and Rumsfeld under-resourced the Afghan War for seven years? Where all those high-profile generals were who resigned because Bush and Rumsfeld sent a small fraction of the forces needed to establish security in Iraq after Baghdad fell? Where were those generals who publicly quit because Rumsfeld refused to do any post-war planning for Iraq?

Good luck finding any. When Gen Shinseki said in 2003 that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure Iraq, not a single general stood up for him, (and come to think of it, even Shinseki didn't step down in protest). Whatever their misgivings, they all fell right into line behind Chimpy and Darth Cheney. But now that the president is a Democrat, the generals have found their balls?

I don't buy it, not for a picosecond.