Nothing But A Pawn

If anything good came from the recent resignation of General Stanley McChrystal, it was the selection of General David Petraeus to take over running the War on Terror (as I still prefer to call it as opposed to “overseas contingency operation”) in Afghanistan.  His leadership in Iraq, particularly in carrying out the highly successful surge, makes the case quite well for his leadership in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, it won't be up to General Petraeus to determine how long our troops will be in Afghanistan.

Clifford Thies, writing at Libertarian Republican, opines about the recent decision from the G-8 summit in Canada in which it was announced that international commitment in Afghanistan will continue for another five years, and this on top of the fact that President Obama has in the past committed to a withdrawal of our troops beginning in July of next year.

My opinion on the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, when it comes to the withdrawing of our troops, has always been this: Finish the job there, and then bring the troops home.  Unfortunately, with President Obama's commitment to a fixed timetable of withdrawal and now the G-8's own fixed commitment to stay for five years, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind Afghanistan is being used as a pawn for political purposes; something which should've been made perfectly clear the moment the President began using the phrase “overseas contingency operation”.

The only thing I can say about this is a wishful question: Why can't we let General Petraeus finish the job and bring the troops home knowing we have accomplished our missions there?