OBAMA'S VIETNAM

In "Charlie Wilson's War", a pro-Democrat telling of the Soviet Union's loss in Afghanistan, U.S. House Representative Charlie Wilson (D-Texas) leads a covert operation called Operation Cyclone with the intent of handing the Soviet Union a defeat on par with the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. By arming the Mujahideen, (who would later morphed into the Taliban), Senator Wilson hoped to turn the tide against the Soviets. With the help of Ronald Reagan who praised the mujahideen as "freedom fighters", Charlie Wilson increased funding for the covert operation up to $500 million dollars and helped the future Taliban to secure Stinger missiles that are now being used to down our own helicopters. The film is an obvious attempt by the Democrats to write the history of the fall of the Soviet Union with a more Democrat involved spin.

But weren't we hearing from those same Democrats that we (meaning the U.S.) were paying for our involvement in Afghanistan when we were attacked on 9/11? How is it that Charlie Wilson can be praised by the Dems and Hollywood when much of our problems in that region stem from his involvement? The Democrat Party, it seems, is a bit schizophrenic when it comes to the issue of Afghanistan.

The history of Afghanistan is littered with the bodies of past conquistadors. One by one they overran Afghanistan only to find that holding Afghanistan was far harder than capturing it. In recent history, the Afghani people have seen 5 different Constitutions (not including the present) under different governments that have all failed. Now, the U.S., under President Obama, are stuck with the task of trying to do what has yet to ever be accomplished; establishing a secure government in one of the most fractured and tribal regions in the world.

From the beginning, Afghanistan has been a problem for Barack. Early in his presidential bid, Obama caught grief for his statement that, if he had the chance, he would call in an air strike on Osama Bin Laden with or without Pakistan or Afghanistan's approval. Interestingly enough, Obama has succeeded in killing one of Osama Bin Laden's sons.

President Obama now finds himself in a situation that very much mirrors the one the U.S. suffered in Vietnam. Only now the consequences of leaving are far further reaching and dire. As much as the Looney Left would like us to simply pack our bags and leave Afghanistan, that option isn't really even on the table. Unlike Vietnam, where the consequences of our actions were suffered by the Laotians, Cambodians and Vietnamese, the fall of the Afghani Government to the Taliban could lead to the fall of Pakistan, a nuclear armed country. The prospect of radical fundamentalists controlling between 10 and 50 nuclear weapons is very frightening indeed, and Obama knows it.

As the left continues it's move away from President Obama and his sudden realization of the depth of the problem in Afghanistan, I predict a continuation in his popularity drop. For Obama, it must be a perplexing problem. How does one get a group of people, in this case the far left, to understand something they never wanted to hear. That war is sometimes the only answer. The left will never understand that it is simply not the same for a country like Israel to have nuclear weapons as it is for a country like Afghanistan. (Strangely, they do understand back-ground check for hand guns, just not for nuclear weapons.) For the Democrat friends of Charlie Wilson, the answer must be clear; sometimes you must do what keeps the world safe. For the rest of the Democrats, it must be mind-boggling; how can this left-leaning president sound more like a Republican war-monger every day? For President Barack Obama it must be even more incredibly difficult; do you chose to do what you promised to do, to the people that helped get you elected, or do you do what you know in our heart will keep the country safe and then watch your approval ratings fall and fall. With dwindling support and very few good options, this could very well be the war that destroys the Obama presidency. H.C.