An American Lion

The man who has never played a positive, thoughtful role in American foreign policy goes all Vietnam on us:

Sen. John McCain said any added military deployment in Afghanistan smaller than the 40,000 troops reportedly requested by the top U.S. commander there "would be an error of historic proportions."

Asked whether he thought the war in Afghanistan could be won with fewer troops than Gen. Stanley McChrystal has reportedly requested, McCain said, "I do not."

The Arizona Republican, who was defeated by President Obama in the 2008 presidential election, spoke in a wide-ranging interview that aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

"I think the great danger now is a half-measure, sort of a -- you know, try to please all ends of the political spectrum," McCain told CNN chief national correspondent John King. "And, again, I have great sympathy for the president, making the toughest decisions that presidents have to make, but I think he needs to use deliberate speed."

Disregarding requirements that have been "laid out and agreed to" by Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen "would be an error of historic proportions," McCain said when asked whether 10,000 or 20,000 additional troops in Afghanistan would suffice.

We have no statesmen. We have the likes of McCain, who last fought in Vietnam and learned absolutely nothing from the experience, other than how to parlay his tragic experience into political office.

These men want to send American troops into an escalating battle without even giving them the proper weapons to use against the enemy:

It was chaos during the early morning assault last year on a remote U.S. outpost in Afghanistan and staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine had quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

And these lawmakers--these incompetent members of Congress who still cannot perform basic oversight and compliance, especially now that the Democrat party controls the White House and both houses of Congress--want to escalate the war? They want to hand tens of thousands more troops over to a failed strategy of COIN?

When the likes of John McCain advocates for more war, more defense spending, more killing and destruction, remember one thing--no one has taken the time to ensure that our troops have adequate personal weapons, body armor, or basic equipment. That's the most devastating aspect of this discussion--the lawmakers want their continuing, permanent war but they haven't taken a moment over the last eight years to even issue a rifle that can stand up in combat.

Update on Sunday, October 11, 2009 by Norman Rogers

How do you know you're in trouble? When two different U.S. Senators, a Democrat and a Republican, who have never served in the military, are able to speak out and be taken seriously as they advocate sending more U.S. troops into combat in Afghanistan:

Senator Dianne Feinstein told me this morning that President Obama must approve General McChrystal’s recommendations for an additional 40,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

“I don’t know how you put somebody in, who is as 'cracker jack' as General McChrystal who gives the president very solid recommendations and not take those recommendations if you are not going to pull out,” Feinstein told me on ’This Week.’ “If you do not want to take the recommendations then you put your people in such  jeopardy.”

Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss agreed with Feinstein and said, “I don’t think there’s any question on whether he’s going to have to. I think it’s the right thing to do.”

“It’s a very fractious government over there…and not much stability,” Chambliss said. “To slow down the Taliban, that means to prevailing militarily and obviously that’s where the additional resources in the form of troops comes in. That’s where McChrystal has recommended and I think the President has got to follow his commanders on the ground.”

Pardon me if I don't stand with the likes of Feinstein, Chambliss or the inimitable Senator John McCain...