Afghanistan: how about no boots on the ground?

President Obama is conducting yet another of his public decision making ordeals, this time agonizing over Afghanistan. As I have written previously, Obama instinctively tries to split every problem, even those that cannot be split. Instead of agreeing to the request of his hand picked U.S. general for Afghanistan for an additional 40,000 troops, Obama would like to send 40,000 half troops, maybe some waist up, some waist down.

We should eliminate the U.S. Army. That would deprive the commander-in-chief of the option to occupy someplace. We would still have the Air Force, Navy and Marines. That's plenty for what is practical. Oh, and of course, plenty of nuclear warheads on ICBMs and nuclear submarines.

When he was the general in charge of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 for President Bush the elder, Colin Powell popularized the phrase "boots on the ground" as in how many troops do we need. He also popularized the concept of overwhelming force. That's good for winning a war and President Bush the elder had both the common sense and restraint to win and leave Iraq. However, President Bush the younger wound up occupying Iraq and lacking the common sense to know when to leave. He engaged in nation building, even though he stated during the 2000 presidential campaign which gave Al Gore more popular votes that he, Bush the younger, abhorred nation building. Bush the younger did the same in Afghanistan with the same lack of success.

Now these are Obama's wars, despite the amazingly annoying practice of Bush haters to continue to call them Bush's wars. Obama must end them. Obama has shown no inclination to do anything very different so far. He won't do it but it's pretty simple: get the heck out. That's how you end them. Occupation is no longer an option for a civilized country. Too much publicity. Scandals and brutality are inevitable. Even the Russians would have difficulty and they don't care what anybody thinks. To occupy or impose a Pax Americana as President Kennedy phrased it during his inaugural address requires force and plenty of it. No matter how gently one tries to use such force it is always resented. Resentment is the best reaction to hope for. Insurgency is more likely.

Don't do it. Don't occupy. We currently occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither occupation will work well for the United States. We need to leave ASAP. No boots on the ground.

President Obama to receive the Nobel Peace prize: is this a hoax?

When I wake up I use my Palm TX to connect to the Internet via WiFi. While still in bed I check e-mail, then The New York Times online. I usually don't comment on breaking news but what I read as the lead story so shocked me that I wrote this almost immediately.

President Barack Obama had been voted to receive the Nobel Peace prize.

What?

My immediate thought was that it was a hoax. When I got up I checked CNN, which was also reporting the story. That confirmed it. Who could fool both The Times and CNN?

The Nobel description of why Obama had won was pretty vague. I had thought that the recipient had to actually do something not merely talk about it. This is not Obama's fault but this prize is at least a year early. Maybe the Nobel voters should have waited for at least one of the following:

- peace between Israel and the Palestinians

- Iran to stop its nuclear program

- Obama to figure what he will do in Afghanistan

- climate change policy to be implemented.

I can think of some prominent people who are more than a little miffed about this:

- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

- former Presidents:

---- Bill Clinton

---- Carter, who waited decades to receive his Nobel Peace prize

---- Bush the elder, who presided over the end of the cold war

---- Bush the younger, who clearly was a target

- Senators John Kerry and John McCain who lost the last two presidential elections.

Wow! What next? Sports writers vote Obama manager of the year? Voted into the baseball Hall of Fame as the greatest Chicago White Sox fan of all time? An Academy Award?

Wow!

The right wing nut professional talkers will be apoplectic. Maybe that was considered, to see whose head would explode over this.

It also puts pressure on Obama to not use military force ... anywhere. How bad would that look, for a peace prize winner to implement shock and awe? It appears that part of the intent is to attack Obama's predecessor, George Walker Bush. I think this is unfair. I never confused Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney with the enemy.

Bush was popular among most Americans for his reaction to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks because he was right and because his statements made common sense:

- if you're not with us, you're against us

- better to fight terrorists "there" rather than here

- if you harbor a terrorist, you'll be treated as a terrorist.

I have long thought that if Bill Clinton had been president when we were attacked those same words and actions, including invading Iraq, would have been applauded by many of Bush's critics, most of whom could not get over the disputed 2000 election, which they felt was improperly awarded to Bush by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court panicked. It should have let the Constitutional process play out. The majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives would have elected Bush president and the new Senate would have elected Al Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman vice president. Dick Cheney would have been an advisor, probably with less influence and Bush would have been more constrained. Wow, that's quite a digression.

So, President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace prize. Wow.