Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Sometimes the Fact That Nobody is Happy Does Not Equal a Good Solution

I listened to the first half or so of President Obama’s speech before I had to head into my kid’s basketball game.  I finally got around to reading the rest of it.  Overall, I was highly disappointed.  I saw no definitive objective or plan other than to start withdrawing our forces in July of 2011.  If that’s the case, we might as well withdraw now.  Power Line has a good analysis.

Earlier today I wondered whether President Obama’s speech about Afghanistan would sound more like a description of a war plan or a structured settlement of a legal dispute. What I heard tonight tilted decidedly in the latter direction. To be precise, the speech sounded to me like a slick lawyer trying to sell a dubious settlement to a skeptical client or, in this case, set of clients.

Consistent with slick salesmanship - as well as the president’s character - the speech was quite self-referential. Providing a potted history of our military efforts in the war on terrorism, Obama took shots at his predecessor and attempted to cast himself as the hero throughout. Thus, he patted himself on the back for opposing the war in Iraq, on which he blamed the current difficulties in Afghanistan.

Obama also patted himself on the back for bringing the war in Iraq to a “responsible end.” But he failed to mention the surge in Iraq, which was instrumental in turning the tide to the point that it became possible to speak of a responsible end.

The omission was odd inasmuch as Obama was pitching a similar surge in Afghanistan. This meant that the Iraq surge was more relevant to tonight’s speech than any other element of Obama’s potted history. Yet he was too partisan, and too embarrassed by his own opposition to the surge, to mention this vital decision.

It was therefore rank hypocrisy for Obama latter to decry the partisanship that has plagued the war on terrorism.

[...]

More importantly, Obama set July 2011 as the target date for beginning our withdrawal. Although he did add that conditions on the ground will be taken into account, it is difficult to understand how the U.S. will secure the support and commitment it needs from a critical mass of Afghans when they know, or have strong reason to believe, we will be starting to pull out only about a year after we have ramped up.

Indeed, Obama’s timetable threatens to undermine not just the first prong of his strategy (military) but also second and third prongs (civilian and Pakistan). With only a short-term commitment, we’re not likely to exert much influence on civilian behavior. Nor are the Pakistanis likely to be impressed by an America that’s more interested in a prompt exit, so it can save money and focus on domestic issues (points Obama emphasized near the end of his speech), than in defeating its enemies.

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2318 hrs
Foreign Affairs + Military + Politics + Politics - General

  1. The speech was typical, replete with the necessary pot shots at “the previous administration”. However, it did nothing to allay my fears in regards to this being an entirely political decision. The President knows that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. If he withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan he knows it will hurt his standing among moderates, and especially the blue dogs whose votes he needs in the Senate. Furthermore, he knows that if he were to follow the advice of the generals (whom he appointed) he would appear to be supporting the military establishment to the left.

    My fear is that we are now committed to sending another 30,000 of my peers into a meat grinder without a clear and definite objective for anything but withdrawal in a couple years. Telling the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that we plan to withdraw in a couple years does nothing to serve our interests. Why would they not just lay back and bolster their ranks while waiting for the American occupation to end? The way to win a war is not to hand the enemy an agenda which includes an end date, you need to take the handcuffs off the boys, and to be colloquial “let ‘er rip”. The job of the military is not to “peacekeep”, or “patrol”, it is to kill people and break stuff… The President has not made it clear to me that he understands this fact.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 0849 hrs


  2. I agree with the above comment that there must be some other definite objective than withdrawal in a couple of years. Else there will not be a responsible end.

    Posted by hämorhoiden on December 02, 2009 at 1059 hrs


  3. I no longer even bother listening to what this guy has to say because it’s always the same. I blah blah blah, me blah blah blah, Bush blah blah blah, I blah blah blah, Me, I, Me, I, I, Me.  And in the end what did he really say, because all I’m hearing is, I’m a puss who’s not worthy of the position I’ve been elected to. Boy are you people stupid, you’ll fall for anything. Saying this guy is worthless is giving him more credit than he’s due. This guy makes me think that maybe Biden wouldn’t be such a bad alternative.

    GEEZZZZ!!!!! These frikkin’ Liberals are driving me crazy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1131 hrs


  4. It’s funny,  I didn’t start watching until 7:33 central and I kind of liked what I heard.  I think I missed a lot of the stuff people are complaining about.  Also it was polar opposite of what he said in Europe.  He is the President for the next 3 years.  Pay more attention to what he does and not what he says

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1257 hrs


  5. I give him credit for doing the right thing, especially when the moonbat base of his party wants all troops out immediately.  And from today’s spin, it sounds like they’re getting squishy on the “hard” date for withdrawal.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1602 hrs


  6. I’m not so sure that more troops IS the right thing to do. Without a clear and win-able mission, they just wind up being an army of occupation. We saturated Vietnam with forces, but we never had a real military goal. We simply floundered with politically palatable goals and our troops wound up as targets. It seems that PBO is headed into a new mess with a similarly nebulous plan. The fact that he spent so much time in his speech attempting to mollify the usual suspects does not speak well for the end game in Afghanistan. I wish the troops well, but I fear that many may die for no real purpose. War is simply a political game for this administration and the troops are simply pawns for political gain in a game of chess played by a man still stuck in campaign mode.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1853 hrs


  7. GEEZZZZ!!!!! These frikkin’ Liberals are driving me crazy.

    Stir the pot.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1950 hrs


  8. What’s your point?  cool smirk

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 2123 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.