Strategic Errors in Obama’s Af-Pak Policy
The president has been too naive in our dealings with NATO countries and not aggressive enough in attacking Taliban strongholds.
Much of the mainstream media has labeled our new president a strategic thinker or an intellectual. No doubt he is educated and articulate. However, after seeing the results of our president’s first trip overseas, it is clear that he is making some critical strategic mistakes that could have lasting effects on our foreign policy and national security.
Joe Scarborough, in a Tweet (a post on Twitter for those not up on microblogging) on April 8, asked: “Another question for Republicans: Though we are all upset with his economic plans, can we not admit he had a good trip overseas?” Mr. Scarborough, let me assure you that we are not just upset with his economic plan.
For all the talk of Obama’s “best and brightest” advisers (a harkening back to a president elected nearly a half-century ago with a far different approach to everything from taxes to American military power), we have yet to see a stark, visionary approach to the foreign policy issues this president needs to confront. From reading the transcripts of his remarks in London, France, and Turkey, we can discern that he wants to be more engaged globally. But there is no real substance or meaning as far as how he defines this engagement. On April 3 in Strasbourg, the president repeated a line he often states: “This is our generation. This is our time. And I am confident that we can meet any challenge as long as we are together.” Very beautiful language, but again there is no substance behind the empty rhetoric.
With our brave service members in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, it only makes sense that his foreign policy priorities focus on both those nations. Unfortunately, the president failed to articulate how we will win in Afghanistan. He laid out the added 21,000 more troops he will send to the country and tasked many of those troops to embed with the Afghan National Army to help train them. Also, his plan consists of sending a civilian “surge” to the country to assist with economic development and legal issues. However, he made no statement as to their role in development or how we will guarantee their security.
The highlight of the president’s Afghanistan strategy is the economic aid package of $1.5 billion a year for five years. Again, no oversight is given to our taxpayer dollars handed over to a Pakistani government on the verge of collapse. The president assembled his key national security advisers — his best and brightest — and this is the best they can come up with?
He never discussed an effective counterinsurgency effort against the Taliban. He never mentioned that the Taliban in Pakistan, run by Behtullah Mehsud (more brutal than Mullah Omar’s Afghanistan Taliban), has called for attacks against our country. He makes no reference to the Taliban and al-Qaeda attacking our supply lines throughout the Torkham Gate between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Vice President Biden has said we are in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda yet he renounces fighting the Taliban, suggesting that these two things are reconcilable. He recently said on CNN that only 5% of the Taliban are extremists and 70% are persuadable. As usual, the media forgot to ask him where he got these numbers and what Taliban he was referring to.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Sergio Rodriguera Jr. is currently serving in Afghanistan as a special forces liaison officer to ISAF headquarters and is a former counterterrorism advisor at the Department of Defense and the Department of Treasury.
![]() |
![]() |
Podcasts | PJM Home |





PJM Home


Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
5 Comments
1. Meryl:His long range goal was never to actually have to govern.
His goal was twofold: to win the election and to impose his ideology on the United States.
The inconvenient truths that his ideology contains many “strategic errors” and “unanticipated consequences” is not a serious issue as far as he and his handlers are concerned.
Apr 15, 2009 - 1:28 am 2. jeremy:I think we’re setting the bar too low for Obama, we should expect him to accomplish more than he has, if we don’t…he won’t!
Apr 15, 2009 - 8:20 am 3. Richter:Obama has articulated his strategy in detail:
Talk to 95% of the Taliban, that are smart enough to promise cease-fire in
Apr 17, 2009 - 2:10 am 4. BC:exchange for the complete dominance over Afghanistan. The Taliban have no
reason to use force. They just have to act like reliable guys and the WH
Press Corps will do the rest
Perhaps he will apologize to OBL, The Prez. (apologizer in chief) seems to be quite good at apologizing to everyone in the world.
Apr 17, 2009 - 11:09 am 5. Yaakov Watkins:Isn’t he doing another apology tour in Mexico and where ever he is today….
If you read some of the foreign press, you will see that there is a lot of skepticism about Obama.
Apr 19, 2009 - 7:53 pm