Obama's Nam?

Let me ask a simple question. If George Bush would have sent 25,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, what do you think the reaction would have been?

Then why is it when President Barack Obama announced his new strategy hasn't gotten a peep of a reaction? Obama's plan which has 'borrowed' to the point of plagiarism, Bush's successful "surge" strategy that quelled violence and tipped the balance in Iraq. Obama said the U.S. would send 21,000 troops, including 4,000 to help train the Afghan army and police.

Poor Afghanistan. It's been on the back burner for so long. Didn't we win that already?

Not so much, it seems.

Don't forget, Iraq was easier to report. A reporter could easily look out their window from their hotel rather than from the streets and 'ascertain' what the situation was. (link) Especially if they could spin it to make the Administration look bad.

Meanwhile, the Taliban - which has been operating in the sovereign nation of Pakistan continues to flex its muscles and spreading violence.

"Kabul is scarcely under siege, but it has turned from a city where [allied forces] and aid personnel could wander as tourists to one so filled with violence that the U.S. and foreign compounds have become the equivalent of a "Green Zone," according to a recent report from Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

So Obama has pledged to send hundreds of civilian officials to help improve public services and curb the country's reliance on opium production. Borrowing again from the Iraq playbook, the U.S. will try to peel away Taliban members who are committed to a paycheck, but not the cause.

Sure, Obama's surge isn't just guns - he's throwing some butter at them too. Just as important, the U.S. must set some clear benchmarks for progress, just as Bush did in Iraq. That means clear, measurable goals and regular public reports on progress. President Obama promises those benchmarks.

There will be 68,000 troops in theater by the end of the year— and there are some NATO forces there too - a force of about 32,000 non-American soldiers in Afghanistan.

When Obama attended a NATO summit he asked European nations for more help in Afghanistan. He got a finger back. Nearly all new NATO troops will be sent to provide security for Afghanistan's elections this summer and will not be permanently deployed.

Not to water down NATO's contributions—Britain, Canada and Australia, for instance—have fought hard and suffered significant casualties. But many other nations have set stifling limits on where and how their troops can be used, effectively removing them from fighting. Those troops, part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, are so restricted that some American commanders sardonically suggest that those initials stand for "I Saw America Fight."

One senior European diplomat, speaking anonymously to the New York Times said, "No one will say this publicly, but the true fact is that we are all talking about our exit strategy from Afghanistan. We are getting out. It may take a couple of years, but we are all looking to get out." Hey, with Allies like that, who needs the Taliban?

But is Obama prepared to take the fight to Pakistan? There are eerie shades of Cambodia here. He should take heed. Can't win Afghanistan without taking out the Taliban hiding in Pakistan. But you can't just go in bombing Pakistan all willy-nilly. When he suggested it in the campaign, he damn near destabilized the entire government. Oh wait, he did destabilize the Pakistani government! And that thing was standing up as well as a game of JENGA in Michael J. Fox's house.

At least there's a strategy that doesn't say "EXIT" on it.
I hope the US and NATO has the will to see it through.

This isn't just America's war. It's civilization's war.