PROCRASTINATION IS THE WAY TO DEFEAT

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pointed out the dangers of failure on the part of the Western military alliance in Afghanistan. The war effort is already underfunded to the tune of several hundred million euros. Nevertheless, the costs of defeat will be much higher than the costs of the mission, Rasmussen said at the NATO summit in Bratislava, Slovakia last week.


UNFORTUNATEY, his warnings have  fallen on deaf ears, with only Great Britain agreeing to a slight increase in troop strength. All other NATO defense ministers, including, of course, the German defense minister, remained politely aloof when it came time to make commitments.

For once, this hesitation cannot be attributed to widespread war fatigue in Europe. The mission in Afghanistan is seen as a toxic issue in all Western nations,( it is difficult to fund a war and run an alredy failing socialist government) and every government that has provided troops has come under sharp criticism at home. What the US's NATO allies now find far more irritating is US President Barack Obama's silence on the issue!

The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US's most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the "AfPak" region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate.

According to Carl von Clausewitz, a country has only won a war when it has imposed its will on the enemy. But even without studying the writings of the Prussian military historian, which are required curriculum at military academies like the US Military Academy at West Point, the American generals know full well just how far they are from that goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

White House officials have previously told the Associated Press Obama is considering sending a large number of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than Gen. Stanley McChrystal prefers. The president appears willing to send at least 10,000 to 15,000 troops of the 40,000 forces requested by McChrystal.

The Washington Post reported that Obama is seeking a strategy that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers.(what they do not say is he is trying to appease his anti-war supporters and still act like a CIC of the armed forces)
Obama's long awaited review of how to right a deteriorating war effort is hopefully nearing its end but appears  weeks away from being wrapped up. Once made, he is expected to explain his decision to the American public( a telepromptered aided speech written by his speech writers) and the international community in a prominent way, such as a major address. The details are not yet set.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff includes a high ranking admiral and generals from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The group's main mission is to ensure that the armed forces are trained, ready, healthy and large enough to carry out the missions of the military. In that sense, the body would play a vital role in a normal presidents decision, but I do not think in Obama's war planning they have as much input as his Czars and people like George Sorros. Or the decision would have been made long before this. No commander leaves his field general who has requested more troops and support, hanging in doubt this long!

Morale and unfortunately deaths and injury resut from indecision. Not VICTORY!