Taliban Strikes Boldly at Heart of Afghanistan in Coordinated Tet-Like Offensive

Stratfor reported this morning at 0827 GMT that the Taliban had launched a major offensive on Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. As the country's new cabinet was being sworn in, the militant group claimed that 20 homicide bombers were attacking the presidential palace, the central bank and the ministry of finance, along with a number of other government ministries. Terrorists were seen attacking the capital's largest shopping mall, the Grand Afghan Shopping Center, gunmen armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers seen running back and forth on the second and third floors.



These bold attacks are designed to make a big impression in three ways: first, to show how vulnerable and weak  the democratically elected government is; second, to sow terror in the hearts and minds of the Afghan people; and third and most important, to weaken support among Western countries for continuing the mission to stabilize Afghanistan.

To anyone old enough, hearing the news of the Taliban's daylight attack this morning was like waking up 42 years ago to news of the Tet offensive in South Vietnam.

And just as with the Vietnam War, you're certain in the next week to hear liberal politicians and pundits moan that the war in Afghanistan is lost. In many cases, it will be the same people after Tet who led the exodus out of Vietnam. Remember Harry Reid's brilliant conclusion in 2006, "The war (in Iraq) is lost," just before the Surge turned the tide?

I don't want to minimize the level of effort that will be required if that hell hole known as Afghanistan is ever to be pacified. But thousands of U.S. troops promised this fall by Pres. Obama should be in country beginning this month. And if U.S. commanders could be unshackled and allowed to take it to the house, instead of fighting defensively, this might be the last coordinated daytime attack on a civilian population that we'll see out of this place.

But I can't help wondering something.  For six months Pres. Obama dithered on sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, troops requested by the U.S. commander Stanley McCrystal. Instead of acting quickly on the request, the president consulted his lawyers and held counsel with political advisors who had no experience in these matters, all the while checking the polls to see how granting Gen. McCrystal's request would play with his far left political base. In the meantime, the Taliban was re-arming, planning, and moving out. Ultimately, after 6 months of Hamlet-like deliberation, the President assented to part of McCrystal's request, playing to both left and right and pleasing neither. If the President has just agreed to the troop surge without the drama those troops would be in place now. So I wonder: Would the Taliban have been bold enough or strong enough to try and pull off this morning's terror attack? I doubt it.

Just thought you might like to know.

Dog Day Afternoons

We've just finished the month of August--the dog days. Lots of heat and little relief. And that just about sums up President Obama's month as well. It was a tough summer for the 44th president. Take a look:

• Town hall meetings across the country, designed to let lawmakers show they were on top of the health care bill, erupted into acrimony as voters gave them an earful about the massive spending plan
• Voters used the healthcare issue as a springboard to air their grievances about a government that spends too much and does too little 
• The President's vaunted "cash for clunkers" program became a metaphor for an administration that can't seem to get anything right--much like Jimmy Carter's Rose Garden strategy in 1980 showed him to be just another hostage of Iran's mullahs
• Casualties in Afghanistan-the war Candidate Obama staked out as his-began to rise in the absence of any clear military strategy
• Attorney General Eric Holder stirred up a hornet nest by announcing a special investigation (yet another) into CIA interrogation techniques from 6 years ago-another Obama genuflection to his ideological base
• The FDIC, going broke after  a rash of bank failures this year, is looking for a GM-type bailout, a potential last straw for voters who are sick of hearing the word bailout.

You need to connect these dots to see what's happened to Barack Obama's presidency. In a couple of months he has managed to squander the enormous political capital built up in his amazing run to the White House. The Rassmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll this morning  has only 46% of Americans approving of his job performance.

The bad news is that it gets worse for the President in September. Congress reconvenes to pick up healthcare reform. After a summer of town hall meetings, Republicans are ready to move to the center on pre-existing conditions and other issues. Moderate Democrats are even looking at tort reform to get Republicans on board. That leaves the 20% or so of Americans who think of themselves as liberals and want Euro-health. So the President will have to decide whether he wants to be president of all the people of just cheerleader-in-chief for the radical left.

Similarly the President's own commander in Afghanistan ended August with a call for a new strategy. Will Barack Obama infuriate his political base and show the courage that George Bush did by calling  for an Iraq-like surge?

And to drive home the point about out-of-control federal spending, a coalition of conservative groups has ripped a page from the liberals' book and plans a massive march in Washington on September 12. 

In the absence of any White House leadership (Sorry, Mr. President, buzzing into a town hall meeting on the way to vacation is cheer leading, it's not nation leading) will Democrats use parliamentary tricks like reconciliation and simply ram a healthcare bill through the Capitol?

One gets the feeling that President Obama enjoyed the chase of running for president more than he enjoys actually being president. This autumn we may find out exactly how much more.

Just thought you might like to know.

The Few. The Proud.

The blogosphere is alive today with a story about a column of 30 U.S. Marines ambushed in Afghanistan by 250 Taliban fighters near the city of Shewan. Outnumbered 8 to 1 the Marines put the wood to the ambushers in an eight hour firefight. 20 Taliban were reportedly killed. No Marines died in the fight and only a handful were injured.
It would have been nice to have been able to read this in the popular press; however, it appears that none of the media conglomerates saw fit to cover or report the story.
It's just another example of how through selective editing--what they choose to report and what they fail to report--the media direct the consciousness of the public on the major policy issues of the day.
In Iraq the media were quick to jump on a story--later discredited--of how the Marines had allegedly massacred civilians. However, not a word about 30 young kids ambushed in Afghanistan who fight their way out against long odds.
I'll leave the question of media bias to others, but rest assured, as a young reporter, if I had sat on a great story like this, my boss would have been biased against my continued employment.
Just thought you might like to know.