The New York Times Sets The Stage For Obama's Withdrawl of Troops From...(wait for it)...Afghanistan

There are some people in America who believe that President Barack Hussein Obama's "tough" talk about our military efforts in Afghanistan were just that...talk...and that he REALLY intends to withdraw the U.S. from the War in Afghanistan. I am one of those people. And now, the New York Times has started the subtle media campaign to help set the stage for Obama doing just that. Here are some excerpts from the New York Times article that point to the hopeless nature of taking on the Taliban:

But even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan “surge,” there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is.

Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”

That last assertion, however, is also open to debate. Some foreign policy experts argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply an extension of Bush administration policy in the region, with the difference being that Mr. Obama could be putting more American lives at risk to pursue a failed policy.
While more American troops can help to stabilize southern Afghanistan, that argument goes, they cannot turn the situation around in the country unless there are major changes in overall policy. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, the darling of the Bush administration, has begun to lose his luster; American and European officials now express private frustration over his refusal to arrest drug lords who have been running the opium trade.

As you can see, the seeds are being planted by the NYT - that the War in Afghanistan is hopeless and considering that all of the Afghans are "druglords"....perhaps it isn't worth it?

Which leads back to Obama...let's face it, Obama has an agenda for America and that does NOT include any military initiatives, actions or even maintenance. Obama has been very clear that he intends to feminize America's military but the question is why? Well, let me give you my best guess. I firmly believe that Obama's empire (and yes, I do believe he has designs on a longer reign than just two terms) is based solely on the socialism of America - it has to be subtle and slow moving in order for him to succeed. During that process, he MUST pull America from the center stage of world affairs and conflicts. You see, I believe that Obama's vision for America is that of a country such as France - a country that is in essence a follower of world opinion, one that goes out of its way to stay out of conflicts and bad press.

With Obama's plan to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and to have voided us from Iraq, he will have successfully removed America from any on the the ground police or military actions and he will point to the improved world opinion of America. With this lack of American influence abroad, Obama can turn 100% of his attention on the socialistic programs he wants installed here. Any hint of American "imperialism" or "watch dog status" across the world means Obama cannot fully gather world support of his "American Union" version of the EU.

I hope I'm wrong, folks. But keep your eyes on Afghanistan. If you see Obama starting to change his tune there...well, you heard it here first.

Fearing Another Quagmire in Afghanistan

Can President Obama succeed in that long-lamented “graveyard of empires” — a place that has crushed foreign occupiers for more than 2,000 years?
Ever since the Bush administration diverted its attention — and resources — to the war in Iraq from the war in Afghanistan, military planners and foreign policy experts have bemoaned the dearth of troops to keep that country from sliding back into Taliban control. And in that time, the insurgency blossomed, as Taliban militants took advantage of huge swaths of territory, particularly in the south, that NATO troops weren’t able to fill.
Enter Mr. Obama. During the campaign he promised to send two additional brigades — 7,000 troops — to Afghanistan. During the transition, military planners started talking about adding as many as 30,000 troops. And within days of taking office, Mr. Obama announced the appointment of Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Balkan peace accords, to execute a new Afghanistan policy.
But even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan “surge,” there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is.
Afghanistan has, after all, stymied would-be conquerors since Alexander the Great. It’s always the same story; the invaders — British, Soviets — control the cities, but not the countryside. And eventually, the invaders don’t even control the cities, and are sent packing.
Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”
“Iraq had a middle class,” Mr. Powell pointed out on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a couple of hours before Mr. Obama was sworn in last Tuesday. “It was a fairly advanced country before Saddam Hussein drove it in the ground.” Afghanistan, on the other hand, “is still basically a tribal society, a lot of corruption; drugs are going to destroy that country if something isn’t done about it.”
For Mr. Obama, Afghanistan is the signal foreign policy crisis that he must address quickly. Some 34,000 American troops are already fighting an insurgency that grows stronger by the month, making this a dynamically deteriorating situation in a region fraught with consequence for American security aims. Coupled with nuclear-armed Pakistan, with which it shares a border zone that has become a haven for Al Qaeda, Afghanistan could quickly come to define the Obama presidency.