It has been nearly three months since General Stanley McChrystal asked President Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, and still the “commander in chief” has declined to make a decision. Several media outlets, including the London Times, have blasted his inaction, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are decrying the administration’s handling of the war. Of course, some are making more relevant points than others.
“Does it really take 100,000 troops to find Osama bin Laden?” Sen. Robert Byrd (D-Pangea) demanded. “And how much will this cost? How much in terms of more dollars? How much in terms of American blood?”
Byrd’s statement shows again how far out of touch Democrats are. Last weekend the Pakistani government sent 28,000 troops to seek and destroy the Taliban living along the porous border shared with Afghanistan. In addition to hosting a potpourri of Islamofascist groups, the area is also apparently a favorite location for terrorist training camps. One graduate is none other than Najibullah Zazi, who was planning to bomb New York City subways until his plot was foiled by the FBI. The Pakistani offensive will no doubt lead to a migration into Afghanistan, where our troops are stationed. The problem, it appears, is a wee bit larger than bin Laden. As good as capturing the flag would be, it won’t win the war.
Yet there are still those making excuses. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently stated that the situation in Afghanistan is an “evolutionary process,” and the president is going to make his decision about a troop increase “in that context.” Perhaps Gates should tell this to our troops over there, understaffed and looking death in the eye.