Does the Obama administration understand why we invaded Afghanistan?  Does the Obama understand that we have no choice but to remain in Afghanistan until we can establish a stable government that will not allow the country to be a base for terrorism?

The Christian Science Monitor has reported that White House Chief of Staff  Rahm   Emanuel   told CNN it would  be "irresponsible" to send more troops into Afghanistan before the political situation is resolved.   Actually it would be irresponsible to wait for the political situation to be resolved before committing sufficient troops to stabilize the situation.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because the Taliban government of Afghanistan had allowed the country to be used by a group of  al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked New York City and Washington, D.C., on September 11.  We cannot afford to leave until we can be assured that the country has a government that will not allow the country to be used to stage any more attacks against the U.S.

Emanuel said it would be "reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create."

Does Emanuel understand  what  the impact of  Soviet rule followed by the rule of the Taliban?    Both governments followed policies of discouraging, and in some cases eliminating, those  who didn't blindly accept government orders.

The only people who had any experience operating a government were in the Taliban and they relied on terror to rule.  Time will be required to find and train honest individuals who will not abuse their government positions.  

Early volunteers for government service have often been dishonest, because dishonest people are more willing to take risks than honest people.  It will be difficult to attract honest people until  we can eliminate the violence that discourages them from getting involved.
 
If none of those who currently are interested in leading the government are capable of providing effective leadership, we will have to  look for  and  develop new leaders.   We may have to rebuild the country beginning at the local level.

Withdrawal before the country  has a viable anti-terrorist government is not an option.   Osama bin Laden would claim a major victory for violent Islam and use the victory to substantially increase recruitment.

Afghanistan is sometimes compared to my war [Vietnam] because it is a difficult place to defend against a guerrilla war.  However,  our adversaries in Vietnam never attacked  American cities or supported terror attacks on American cities.  Our adversaries in Afghanistan have attacked American cities before and want to use the country as a base for future terrorist attacks   against the United States and other countries.

We need to stay as long as it takes to prevent the country from once again becoming a base for terrorism even if that takes another 20 years.  We still have troops based in Germany and Japan 64 years  after we defeated them in World War II even though they are peaceful countries.

I've seen occasional recent references  comparing  Pakistan to Cambodia during the Vietnam War.  If the Bush administration, or Barack Obama, thinks the two are comparable it is making the biggest miscalculation since the U.S.  made the mistake of getting too close to China in the Korean War.   Obama wants to expand the current Bush attacks on border areas to include an attack on Osama bin Laden where ever he might be in Pakistan.

U.N. forces had routed the North Korea Army and appeared to on the verge of winning when China became concerned that the Americans might decide to go ahead and conquer China as well because China had been supplying the North Koreans.  China responded by sending in its army.  President Harry Truman decided that it was best not to antagonize the Chinese any more than necessary and prohibited  bombing supply bases in China.

Enemies using sanctuaries  isn't a new situation for the U.S.  Andrew Jackson faced such a situation  along the border of what was then Spanish owned Florida during the administration of President James Monroe.  Jackson took care of the problem by in effect declaring war on Spain with nothing more than an ambiguous letter from President Monroe. Jackson invaded Florida without any authorization from Congress and captured the Spanish governor at a poorly defended fort at Pensacola.  Spain after a protest decided Florida wasn't worth the trouble and ceded it to the U.S.

 During the Vietnam War communist forces started using areas  of Cambodia along the Vietnam border as sanctuaries for supply depots and troop bases.  Cambodia with a population of only 7 million and no military force to speak of couldn't force the Vietnamese out and was afraid that acknowledging their presence would draw the country into the war.  North Vietnam denied having any forces in Cambodia. 

The U.S. occasionally bombed these forces and sent in commando type forces, but denied doing either.  The U.S. didn't want to formally enter the country because it didn't want to  risk forcing Cambodia to ask for assistance from someone like China or the U.S.S.R.  Cambodia also ignored the actions of  the U.S. claiming it wasn't aware of the presense of foreign troops or any bombing. 

In early 1970 Prince Norodom Sihanouk's efforts to keep the country out of the conflict failed and he was overthrown in a coup by pro-U.S. officials.   The new government  invited the U.S. in to eliminate the communist bases.  Subsequently the country endured a civil war that resulted in over a million deaths.

Pakistan with an estimated 2006 population of 165 million is the 6th most populous nation in the world with a population equal to the population of Iraq plus the population of  Russia.  It has the world's 7th largest military force, including nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.   Pakistan's population is approximately equal to the combined populations of World War II Germany and Japan. 

Militants are a potential threat to overthrow or even take over the government.  They would welcome an incident  they could use to attract support for  a  Jihad type war. 

Al Qaeda may be using Pakistan as a sanctuary as part of a  strategy to create an incident to draw Pakistan into their Jihad.  Osama bin Laden  might welcome  being killed if he could  achieve martyr status  and induce Pakistan to declare war or to start supplying his forces with conventional or nuclear weapons. 

Pakistan has already had a problem with a government scientist helping other countries develop nuclear weapons without government approval.  Other government officials might respond to a U.S. incident by allowing militants to "steal" nuclear weapons.  If those militants could also "steal" a missile that could be fired from  a ship, they might be able to destroy a U.S. city.

The United States have enough to handle without having to take on a major military power like Pakistan.  Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan do increase the hazards of those serving in Afghanistan just like the Cambodian sanctuaries increased the  threat to those of us who served in Vietnam.  The rockets and mortars fired in my direction may have been stockpiled in Cambodia before being provided for attacks.  The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces where I was took their R & R in Cambodia.

However, the potential threat of a  much wider war makes the risk of attacking sanctuaries, or attempting to attack Osama bin Laden as Barack Obama wants to do,  too great to take the chance.  Pakistan isn't a weak nation like Cambodia or early 19th Century Spain. Pakistan has a stronger military force than China had during the Korean War.  Little Iraq ignored an ultimatum. Why would any intelligent person think Pakistan would take orders from the U.S.?

I wasted  another evening on Tuesday watching one of  the media events ignorant  journalists  insist on misrepresenting as debates.   The candidates repeated the same cliches they used in their first debate.

Once again Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated that he is dangerously ignorant in the area of  foreign policy and the War on Terror.  Once again journalists ignored his mistake. 

Obama. is apparently incapable of understanding the fact that sending military forces into another country without permission is an invasion.  It doesn't matter why the troops enter the country, it is still an act of war.   The fact that Osama bin Laden might be in Pakistan  doesn't mean the U.S. can invade Pakistan without fear of retaliation -- and  Pakistan most definitely does have nuclear weapons.

Obama doesn't understand the volatility of the situation in Pakistan.  The country has been on the brink of a civil war for many years and its government could fall at any time.  An American invasion would force the government to declare war on the U.S. to try to keep the country united.  The first action in that war might be a nuclear attack that would wipe out our forces in the Middle East.

Obama's obsession with bin Laden and Afghanistan indicates he doesn't understand the War on Terror.  This war isn't a traditional war against an enemy with a geographic base. 

Al  Qaeda can function without bin Laden and might even benefit if the United States killed or captured him.  Others are available to head al Qaeda  if something happens to bin Laden.

Death at the hands of the U.S. would make bin Laden a martyr and violent Muslims would rally to avenge his death.    Capture of bin Laden would provoke efforts to capture Americans any where in the world in an attempt to obtain hostages to trade for him.

Al Qaeda doesn't have a fixed location that  it has to defend.  If pushed out of one area, al  Qaeda will move to some other area with a large Muslem population.  If  the U.S. leaves Iraq before the Iraqis  are able to  maintain stablity in  the country, al Qaeda will move in and use Iraq as a base.

It is no longer important whether or not Iraq should have become a battleground in the War on Terror.  The fact is that Iraq is a battleground in the War on Terror and we cannot afford to turn that battleground over to al Qaeda.