A Surge By Another Name

Very recently President Obama approved sending approximately 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, his first significant move to change the course of the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda – a war that his closest military advisers have warned him that the United States is not winning with the current tactics and force levels. About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops. This represents a 50% increase in our force levels in Afghanistan, which was 34,000 troops.

A surge by any other name is still a surge. Strange, that President Obama no longer has a problem with such things when he’s not running for office against a Republican.

The Liberal Media (MSM) has been largely conciliatory in their reporting of Obama’s war in Asia Minor – when they haven’t been utterly silent on the topic. There’s little signs of outrage on their part over this escalation of violence by Obama, unlike their near constant ranting about the same topic under the Bush administration.

Why are we not being inundated by anti-war coverage from the MSM outlets? Why aren’t we seeing one contrived interview after another with protesters demanding that President Obama “bring the troops home?” Is the media – in love with- and well-controlled by Obama – effectively silencing dissent, or is there no actual significant dissent for them to silence? Are the Liberals finally tacitly admitting that they have no real objection to America’s efforts against terrorism and that their only issue was with President Bush?

Perhaps Obama has certain advantages. Perhaps a Black President can kill Brown people with greater social impunity than a White President can.

No matter what the reasons are for this disparate coverage and level of outrage over Bush’s and Obama’s prosecution of the War on Terror it’s still disgusting. It starkly points out the prejudice, ethical failings, and utter lack of patriotism of the Left in America. If – and that’s a very big “if” – this was wrong when President Bush did it, then it’s wrong when President Obama does it. If it is right when President Obama does it, then it was right when Presient Bush did it.

A surge by any other name is still a surge.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

4 Responses to “A Surge By Another Name”

  1. TRO Says:

    Unfortunately this is just a Democratic “half-ass” surge since I believe the military asked for 30,000 troops. Typical of a Democrat, Barry thinks he can do the very minimum and look good to both conservatives who are concerned about defense and liberals who hate war. (Except a Democratic war.)

    Barry is Jimmy Carter all over again and our military and our national defense is going to suffer because of it.

  2. jonolan Says:

    Quite possibly true, TRO – or Obama could be planning a phased deployment over the course of a few months. On that we’ll have to wait and see.

    We’ll also have to wait and see if he pressures any other NATO countries to increase their own deployments to Afghanistan. Hehe, it’d be nice if those nations who were so happy to have a “cooperative” American President had to shoulder their fair share of the burden in the war…

    I’m not holding my breath though. 🙁

  3. Paradigm Says:

    He’s pouring money down a rathole. It’s impossible to fight the Talibans in Afganisthan – the land is too large and mountainous. Better to legalize the drugs they finance their operations with. It’s been done in Portugal and it’s gradually being done in other European countries. So far it’s worked out just fine. The Talibans have no oil so without the heroin they have nothing and we’ll soon run out of ammunition.

  4. jonolan Says:

    Or we could destroy the opium crop, which has less detrimental effects on global society than legalizing heroin would. See this for a more detailed opinion on that matter.

Leave a Reply