Monday, October 12, 2009

Afghanistan & Peace

President Obama is considering whether to send more troops to Afghanistan as requested by his military commander there. The word from the White House is that it will take several weeks for the President to make that decision. Why the delay? Either we are committed to the mission in Afghanistan or we need to begin withdrawing. It seems to me that there is something else going on that has not been made public yet.

The easiest way to increase the U.S. combat soldiers in Afghanistan is to send Marines. The current U.S. combat units in Afghanistan are primarily made up of Army Special Forces and Marines. There just aren't that many Army Special Forces available though they'd be the most effective for the type of conflict in Afghanistan. So that leaves Marines but I think there is something going on which requires Marines to be held in reserve.

It seems likely to me that if Israel attacked Iran nuclear weapons infrastructure that the the U.S. Navy would have to be involved to keep the shipping lanes operating in the Persian Gulf. And if the Navy anticipates such an action, they will want all their Marines they can spare to deal with land-based threats to their operations.

I also found curious the reaction President Obama had to receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. He was certainly surprised and, since he said it was more of an honor to the United States than himself, I think he may have been a bit embarrassed by it. Since President Obama has not been given to humility or praising the United States before, it seems to me that his humility this time was feigned to mask his embarrassment. So why would he be embarrassed? This prize for peace being awarded in the midst of the President preparing for war in the Mideast would be an embarrassment if the public found out. So much of what our President does embodies the spirit of the Antichrist; promising peace but bringing war.

I believe our president's propensity to pursue peace through appeasement is more likely to get us drawn into a conflict with Iran. This is the test that we have been anticipating similar to how the Soviets tested JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The difference this time is that the greatest immediate danger is not to the U.S. but to a third party ally - Israel. Since Israel can not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, they will have to strike first. Israel will do the dirty work in Iran attacking their nuclear facilities mostly from the air while the U.S. is in more of a supportive role logistically and taking actions to keep the ocean trade lanes open.

The United States can have plausible deny-ability with the world by being reluctantly supportive of Israel, honoring our treaties with them. After all we can say we were willing to give sanctions more time ignoring that Russia and China were not playing along thus making Israel out to be the lone perpetrator... indeed Israel is used to that perception. The president's liberal base will howl about our supporting Israel in attacking Iran but in they will not abandon him because he is still their best hope.

So war is coming in the Mideast. I don't see how it can be avoided given the situation and in light of Bible prophecy. The world pursues peace but it will elude us until the Lord returns. "For when they say, 'Peace and safety!' then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape." (1 Thessalonians 5:3, NKJ)


  1. I thought it was uncharacterist for President Obama to be so humble in receiving the Nobel Peace Prize! What you propose seems very likely to happen.