Afghanistan

Our President made a major speech last night on Afghanistan. I didn't see it because I've seen enough of his speeches to know that it would be long on eloquence but short on substance. I do know that he announced: (1) an additional 30,000 soldiers would be committed to the effort and (2) he'd begin pulling them out in 18 months. What a mixed message that is. By announcing the withdrawal, it makes you wonder why he is even bothering with sending in more troops.

I'm sure the President used flowery words to say how committed he was to winning in Afghanistan. But his actions speak louder than words. The fact that it took him so long to make a decision on Afghanistan shows that his commitment to the effort there was wavering. The 30,000 additional U.S. troops is only 75% of what his generals told him it would take to be successful there. And by setting a date for the withdrawal, he is making it clear that the real objective is to be out of Afghanistan, regardless the outcome.

A couple of the commentators I heard on Obama's Afghanistan speech said that by giving our timetable for withdrawing all the Taliban needs to do is to lay low for a while and they can have their country back. But I don't think that will be the result; Obama's speech signals weakness. I'm sure the Taliban see blood in the water and they will be encouraged to redouble their efforts to kill Americans in their country while they can.

Despite the increased carnage I expect we'll see there, I predict we will be pretty much done with Afghanistan by the time the campaign for the next presidential election heats up in 2012. Obama will have "punched his ticket" as a war president and also have done the responsible thing of getting us out of this entanglement.

Our president talking war but not being serious about achieving a true victory makes me think of the first of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Revelation 6:2 says, "I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer" (NKJ). Most Bible scholars equate the First Horseman with the advent of the Antichrist. Notice that the horseman has a bow but there is no mention of arrows. His weapon is incomplete; more for show than for use. Now I'm not saying that Obama is the First Horseman of the Apocalypse, but I am saying that how he is handling Afghanistan foreshadows how the Antichrist will initially conduct himself.

Liberals always make every effort to avoid war but the end result is a worse conflagration than if they went "all in" from the beginning. It is certainly noble to not want war but acting as if you are committed to avoiding war at all costs is a weakness that others will exploit in this world. History has demonstrated that over and over. Liberals act this way because they do not understand the nature of mankind... "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJ). Liberals think that people are basically good and that if you can just reason with those out to destroy you than the conflict can be resolved. While this sometimes does work on an individual person-to-person level, it is flawed thinking when when dealing with representatives of nations or groups of people. In these cases group-think trumps personal reasoning.

People of this world want peace but most do not realize that there will be no peace until the Prince of Peace comes. Since the way of the First Horseman of the Apocalypse seems popular in our day, we surely don't have long to wait.