BAM CHANNELS LBJ

>
>

by Ralph Peters [author, novelist]

Dirt doesn’t matter. You don’t defeat a trans-national terrorist organization by occupying medieval villages.

Yesterday, President Obama presented his “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was neither new, nor a strategy. Behind all the rhetoric, he just said, I’m sending more troops and more money.

Barack Obama? I heard Lyndon Johnson. The only LBJ touch that BHO lacked was the word “escalation.”

The rhetoric was masterly. The content was drivel. He said, “The situation is increasingly perilous.” Which situation? Why? For whom? Certainly, it’s becoming more perilous for our troops as we escalate in support of the wrong policy.

Obama rightly identified the main threat to us as al Qaeda, which he wants to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat.” Then why are his efforts overwhelmingly directed toward the Taliban?

I don’t like the Talibs, but they didn’t attack us on 9/11. Dirt poor, they just made the mistake of renting some fleabag motel rooms to al Qaeda. And they paid heavily for it.

The Taliban strategy is to make Afghanistan ungovernable for us. What if, instead of trying to claim worthless territory in the name of a corruption-poisoned Afghan government, we flipped the rules and just kept Afghanistan ungovernable for the Taliban?

We’d need far fewer troops. And the investment’s return would be higher.

Or how about Obama’s ringing claim that the Taliban have “nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and oppression?” Many Afghans — at least among the Pashtun plurality — don’t agree.

The tribals deep in those valleys and the Pashtuns in Pakistan feel a lot closer to the Taliban’s values than to ours. They might not mind a new road, but they’ll skip the bikinis and Budweiser, thanks. The Talibs are home-boys. We’re the foreign element. Why is that so hard to grasp?

All of this circles back to the core of the problem — and it’s not Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s not worth a mullah’s hemorrhoid. Putting the bulk of our effort into Afghanistan amounts to attacking a crisis in California by rescuing Nevada. It’s Pakistan that lies (and lies and lies) at the heart of this problem.

To his credit, Obama noted Pakistan’s importance. Then he got all the solutions wrong.

Start with his inane — but touchingly American — statement that “the people of Pakistan want the same things we want.” Oh, really?

How many Post readers think Sharia law would be a good idea? How about beating the crap out of women just for yuks? Or stoning them to death because they smiled at the wrong time? And let’s ban alcohol, bare arms, dating and jobs for women. And grow those beards, fellas!

Yeah, we’re tight. We’re such good buds that, while the Pakistanis protect the worst elements within the Taliban, manipulate our key supply line and pander to terrorists, Obama wants to guarantee Pakistan’s stunningly corrupt politicians $1.5 billion in aid every year. Plus military aid.

Why on earth should the Pakistanis help us when we reward them lavishly for screwing us?

And since it’s still our policy to punish those who aid terrorists, we need to punish ourselves. We bear a portion of the responsibility for every Pakistan-backed terror attack on India. Why? Because the Pakistanis know that, no matter how brutal the deeds of their terrorist auxiliaries, we’ll step in to “mediate” and prevent the Indians from retaliating.

Want a truly fresh strategy that would work? End all support of any kind to Pakistan. Close our embassy. Do what makes military sense and reduce our forces in Afghanistan to a level that can be supplied by air. And concentrate on destroying al Qaeda, not on “owning” village X. (Obama’s approach just stinks of Vietnam.)

Imagine how different the situation would be if we weren’t Pakistan’s strategic prisoner and didn’t stand between Islamabad and Delhi. What if the Pakistanis had to behave responsibly and stop sponsoring terror attacks against India — or face India’s wrath? Nuclear war? Pakistan would vanish, India would lick its wounds. And the Pakistanis know it.

And how about asking ourselves the fundamental question: “Why is India a success story and Pakistan a complete failure?” Any chance that backward Islam might have something to do with it? We can’t bribe people to succeed.

Our president identified al Qaeda as Pakistan’s No. 1 enemy. That’s wishful thinking. Pakistan’s leading enemy has always been corruption. No. 2 is its home-grown Islamist insurgency. Al Qaeda’s way down the list.

Our pathetically naive president articulated one sound goal — defeating al Qaeda — then told us how he wasn’t going to do it. Like LBJ, all he can think of is more troops and more aid. Can’t we ask ourselves why the Taliban’s thriving? After the military beatings we’ve given them? How many of our troops must die for an empty policy?

Ho . . . ho . . . BHO. . . Why don’t your supporters go? ExileStreet


courtesy
NY Post / copyright 2009 NY Post

Ralph Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst. His latest book is “Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World.”

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of 19 books, as well as of hundreds of essays and articles, written both under his own name and as Owen Parry. He is a frequent columnist for the New York Post and other publications.

Leave a Reply