In August 2011, after a conspiracy that lured in members of our Seal Team Six with other heroic Americans, the Taliban set up an ambush and murdered them.

Following those brutal attacks, President Obama’s strategy has been to hasten negotiations with the Taliban. Additionally, the Obama administration has now not only offered to release known Taliban terrorists from detention, but has already released some and additionally offered to legitimize our sworn enemy by furnishing them a princely office in Qatar.

In return, Obama’s agents defend that they are being tough on the Taliban by demanding that they not use the office to raise funds to support their terrorism. That is a bit reminiscent of the Clinton-Albright demand of North Korea that if we give them nuclear technology, they must promise to use it for electric generation and not weapons.

According to many Afghans, all of these and other Obama Administration actions give substantial credence to the Taliban claim, supported privately by some Pakistani leaders, that the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan and is now begging them for negotiations. One Taliban leader who was released from detention by the Obama administration for medical and end of life purposes, is now back in command and recently demanded on Afghan TV that since the Americans have now lost and are begging for negotiations, Afghans disloyal to the Taliban must come ask forgiveness and for safety from the Taliban.

A Northern Alliance leader says that of the more than 800 Taliban detainees that have been released, he is now seeing many of them fighting, killing and terrorizing again. Yet, the Northern Alliance leaders are being effectively shut out of the plans for the way forward, while being demonized by the American government they helped.

The State Department even went to extraordinary links to attempt preventing the writers from meeting with the Northern Alliance leaders. We were able to meet, with some help from foreign friends, but clearly the Obama administration and its comrades mean for our allies to stay under the bus when they throw them there.

In late 2001-2002, the Taliban were defeated with less than 500 Americans embedded with the Northern Alliance, but now the Taliban is stronger while we have more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan. Though Vice-President Biden says the Taliban are not our enemies, American soldiers in Afghanistan say the Taliban are still creating IED’s, firing bullets, firing rockets and doing all they can to kill Americans, so it seemed to them that the Taliban certainly think they are our enemy. This points straight to the fact our military is not the problem; its their commander in chief who is the current weak link in our chain of command.

To date, the U.S. nation-building experiment in Afghanistan has produced instability, violence, skyrocketing drug production, widespread corruption, fraudulently rigged elections and the general disapproval of this new government by its own people. Under the U.S.-approved, Afghan Constitution, President Karzai appoints all governors for the provinces, all mayors, police chiefs, the slate for one third of the Senate candidates, and even a segment of the Class 1 teachers in the country. He even has power of the purse that the U.S. President does not have. Clearly this is a formula for heightened corruption, while isolating and ignoring many ethnic groups that make up the very essence of Afghan society.

Many with first-hand experience fighting the Taliban say they are dependent on Pakistan for their marching orders, strategy, and weaponry. In the meantime, President Karzai’s regime has dropped every pretense of appreciation for American sacrifice in blood and treasure as demonstrated by his recent threats to align with Pakistan, Iran and China even as we continue to prop up his government. From Karzai’s perspective, he may well see the Taliban and Pakistan as holding his fate in their hands once the U.S. pulls out.

At the same time, the U.S. is pouring billions of dollars into Afghanistan that comprises the largest portion of the Afghan government’s own budget. U.S.A.I.D. alone is pouring $3.6 billion a year into the country for aid and projects while the money often fails to get past corrupt government officials with 80 percent going to Taliban areas and a tiny fraction going to areas where our allies reside.

The Afghan leaders have become increasingly enriched as their contempt for us has continued to grow. At President Karzai’s encouragement, we have politically and militarily undermined the natural and historic barrier to the Taliban, which is the non-Pashtun peoples of the North, Central and Western parts of Afghanistan. As these non-Pashtun communities were weakened, their leaders were undermined by U.S. support for Karzai and his concentration of power.

The critical next step should be to insist on a new Constitutional Loya Jirga, or convention, that will draft a new constitution enshrining federalism as the new form of government. This would break the Taliban’s ability to dominate Afghanistan by strengthening those communities opposed to the return of the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies. It would give Afghans the kind of hope that our founders provided Americans 225 years ago with our Constitution.

We should insist on local elections of Afghan governors and mayors who may then select the police chiefs. Electing regional leaders would serve to eliminate the conduit of corruption built into the present system, while at the same time giving the governing authority back to the people who are now being disenfranchised.

This course would establish the basis for a political system that allows each of Afghanistan’s ethnic communities to retain their identity and protect them from the Taliban’s violent ethnic repression, brutality and regressive domination. The resulting political framework would also enable trust and goodwill to be built between Afghanistan’s diverse communities as each community would have a direct and important say in its own future.

Perhaps we should even consider support for a Balochistan carved out of Pakistan to diminish radical power there also. Surely, leaving Afghanistan to the same terrorist thugs who enabled the September 11th attacks is the very definition of insanity.The way forward should not include the current Obama plan of putting our future in Taliban hands that are covered with American blood.

Washington, DC – The two presidents – Karzai and Obama – were on stage together in the East Room of the White House for forty minutes on May 12. They each talked about how they had differed in the past and how committed they are to going forward together. Both leaders expressed great hope in their mutual “quest for peace” and the forthcoming “Peace Jirga” or “reconciliation talks” to be held in Kabul at the end of this month. Neither leader – nor any of the journalists present – mentioned a “cease fire” or the unseen skunk at their picnic: Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.

Mullah Mohammed Omar, secretive head of Afghanistan’s Taliban movement, is one of the most wanted men on Earth. His sanguinary regime sheltered Osama bin-Laden’s Al Qaeda as it prepared for the 9-11-01 attacks. The U.S. government’s “Rewards for Justice” program has a standing offer of “up to 10 million dollars” for information resulting in his capture or confirmed death because he “represents a continuing threat to America and her allies.” Now, thanks to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Mullah Omar may be a key factor in the upcoming “Peace Talks” trumpeted by Messer’s Obama and Karzai at their joint White House press conference.

Both heads of state avoided reference to the ISI or Mullah Omar as they gushed about the “Consultative Peace Jirga,” that starts in Kabul on May 29. And each president spoke glowingly about “commitment” to an “Afghan-led peace process” that will allegedly produce a negotiated settlement among Afghanistan’s warring parties – and the country’s neighbors – meaning Pakistan and Iran. Mr. Karzai announced he wanted to consult with “thousands of Taliban who are not ideologically oriented, who are not part of Al Qaeda, or other terrorist networks, or controlled from outside in any manner troublesome to us.”

Mr. Obama observed that the peace talks will include those who have “a respect for the Afghan constitution, rule of law, human rights, so long as they are willing to renounce violence and ties to Al Qaeda and other extremist networks.” An awkwardly worded joint communiqué vaguely noted U.S. “support for an inclusive process that includes broad representation from across all of Afghan society – both men and women – and takes into account their concerns and priorities.”

All of this sounds very promising to the so-called “International Community” and the self-declared mainstream media. It makes the striped-pants set all warm and fuzzy to see two leaders who last month appeared to be very much at odds, now standing side-by-side to pledge their troth. And of course, the forthcoming “Peace Talks” mean diplomats, not warriors, are about to have their day. Unfortunately, none of this takes into account ISI plotting about the role they intend to play in Afghanistan’s future, the part being played by the ISI’s long-time ally, Mullah Omar, or the near-total lack of intelligence on what’s really happening on the ground on either side of the Af-Pak border.

This lack of intelligence was evident last week in the aftermath of the failed Times Square bombing on May 1 when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proffered a blunt indictment of Pakistani cooperation with the U.S. Her stunning comment: “I believe somewhere in this government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is (sic), where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban is (sic)…” created a diplomatic firestorm.

Hopefully, Ms. Clinton was dissembling, because intelligence sources here in the U.S. and Afghanistan inform me that Pakistani officials know exactly where Mullah Omar is: in the hands of the ISI.  This should not be news to the U.S. Secretary of State.

Last month, while I was still in Afghanistan, rumors were circulating that the ISI had detained Mullah Omar in Karachi on March 27, and placed him under house arrest in what they call “community care.” American operatives say he has since been transferred to a secret ISI lock-up under the Pakistani euphemism: “institutional care.” According to several reports, all of this information was confirmed to U.S. officials by a senior Pakistani military officer “several weeks ago.”

“Why would the ISI take down ‘one of their own?’” I asked. The answer came in a mixed metaphor but the meaning was clear: “The ISI intends to be in the driver’s seat when the ‘Peace Talks’ get underway in Afghanistan later this month. And the ISI officers calling the shots know Mullah Omar is the best bargaining chip they have.”

None of this bodes well for the “Consultative Peace Jirga,” on which Mr. Obama has now placed his imprimatur. Some of those watching preparations for the “peace talks” predict a call for an immediate, Vietnam-style, “cease fire” as a pre-condition for the conference – and a demand to grant Mullah Omar – Osama bin-Laden’s closest ally – safe haven in Saudi Arabia. If the O-Team agrees to any of this, it will be akin to putting perfume on a skunk.

Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and Afghan President Hamid Karzai Meet With then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

The issues surrounding the general election in Afghanistan were basically that it was poorly administered and security concerns were rampant as the Taliban tried to disrupt and influence the voting. Afghanistan with its 100,000 NATO forces does not have sufficient combat power to secure all of the provinces. It’s that simple. We had twice that amount to secure elections in Iraq, a country 1/3 smaller than Afghanistan, with 8,000,000 fewer citizens, and with far more infrastructure. For the Afghan runoff, there would have been no measurable difference in troop levels or international assistance from the first election, and so Abdullah Abdullah, the only viable contender to Karzai, pulled out believing the fix was in. Allegations of corruption and intimidation are just that, allegations, but should have been addressed. They weren’t.

Had Obama made a decision even 2-3 weeks after McChrystal’s report was delivered, the ready brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division could have been rolling out the door just as they had done in response to General Petraeus’ surge request for Iraq. Another brigade from one of the Army divisions such as the 101st Airborne, could have deployed shortly afterward. Such a move would have given General McChrystal and the UN election officials an additional 9,000 troops on the ground to address election concerns and deploy to sensitive areas where most of the voter issues were alleged to have occurred.

In other columns I’ve argued that there is not a full commitment from the U.S. Governmental departments to assist our troops as they focus on Afghan governance, security and economic progress. These two brigades could have been deployed with a commensurate level of effort from an inter-governmental team from the Departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury to apply a ‘full court press’, if you will, toward the governance and economic lines of operation that are so critical in this fight. But there was none of that.

The Obama team should have had planners embedded in General McChrystal’s team this spring and summer so that parallel planning could have occurred, meaning when the McChrystal plan was delivered on 30 August to the President, the president and his team would have already worked their way through most of the issues and have their convictions in place, ready to make decisions. Even a phased response would have been adequate, such as, “Look, we know we’re going to send something, so let’s get two brigades in before winter while we debate some of the finer points of this counterinsurgency strategy.” Boom, the president pulls the trigger and he’s got paratroopers heading to Afghanistan to make a difference in the runoff and to get set before the winter locks in much of northern and central Afghanistan. He appears decisive and in command. Instead, the image he is portraying, unfortunately, is that he is playing politics with the lives of our troops, a dead letter if there ever was one.

Unfortunately, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that it appears the Obama administration had another election in mind, this week’s series of state elections. His calculation, it now seems, was to stay on the fence, not give away his base, while at the same time, tantalizing those that are strong on defense with feigned pensiveness. He was smart by half. Instead, of appearing firm and decisive, the American people revolted and rated him as timid. Instead of pulling voters along with him, he was trounced in states such as New Jersey and Virginia where the voters spoke mightily about Obama’s use of deployed troops as political tools. The Old Dominion voted nearly 60%-40% for Republican Bob McDonnell and a full Republican ticket for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General. This from a state Obama carried by a wide margin just a year ago. How’s that working out for you, Mr. President? See what happens when you even whiff of abandoning our troops?

So, Obama’s strategy to stall until after the U.S. elections had precisely the opposite effect than his team was pursuing. The weekly roll out of his talking heads commenting on the ruminations of counterinsurgency versus counter-terrorism strategies, or wanting to know the details of provincial leaders, or how hard the national security team was working, have all been received as inexcusable delay, and rightly so. His team can toil all they want, but in an era that demands government accountability, let the record show that nine weeks after delivery, they have produced no response to McChrystal’s plan.

At a very minimum, had Obama acted with minimal prudence, he would have been able to secure the runoff and create the perception of a more valid government going forward in Afghanistan. Now, because of political calculations, mismanagement and incompetence, the Obama Administration has devalued Karzai and has made future progress in Afghanistan harder. The ‘harder’ part gets translated to the troops who have to execute the best they can in the face of Obama’s indecision.

While the Obama administration may be ambivalent to the sacrifices of our soldiers (and deeds speak much louder than photo ops here), it is undeniable that the American people love our troops. Play with their fate, Mr. President, and you play with your political future.

By focusing on the U.S. elections as a deadline not to be preceded with a decision on Afghanistan, the president guaranteed two election losses within less than a year of his taking office.

Abdullah Abdullah’s resignation from the Afghan election runoff is a result of Obama’s lack of sense of urgency toward Afghanistan. The U.S. electorate’s rallying cry for strong leadership this Tuesday is a referendum on Obama’s lack thereof.

I’m reminded of my 13 months in Afghanistan as the deputy commanding general for the joint task force when, in January of 2007 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates showed up at Bagram Air Base fresh off a brutal round of planning and approving of the surge in Iraq. In a small gathering of leaders he asked, “What do you need to stem the Taliban surge this spring?”

We showed him a detailed, well reasoned plan that mandated another full brigade combat team. We would have liked more, but the facts were that Iraq was the main effort and the Army and Marine Corps had little left to give.

Within a week we had a decision that our request was approved and the troops were flowing.

That’s leadership.