Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (0)

Obama's West Point speech

 

President Obama's presentation was lackluster. The troop surge is welcome to anyone who wants to see an end to Afghan violence - but Obama's going to stick to his rash pre-election pledge. The troops will come home in July of 2011, before the next election. This will not guarantee long-term security. For Afghans who want to live in lasting peace, it insults them. The Taliban will vacation in the hills, drinking goats' milk and idling the time away till the troops are gone, then descend upon Kabul like a whirlwind of death.

 

Obama admits that "our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” yet gives a deadline for disengagement. Short-term solutions never strengthen global security.

 

As speeches go, clichés delivered in a halting soporific monotone do not create a rallying point for a nation. “Mr. Peace” sounds like "The Grand Old Duke of York" preparing to march his troops "to the top of the hill, and march them down again." Good luck to those troops, they will do fine. But empires' dreams have died in the rough terrain of Afghanistan. After all the dreams, Obama himself will be tested to destruction in that hostile land. Reality always wins.

          - Adrian Morgan 

 

We went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were protecting Al Qaeda operatives responsible for 9/11. To the extent that the Taliban continue to protect Al Qaeda, we should continue to fight them. But we as a nation don’t have the financial resources or military personnel to devote to rebuilding Afghanistan. Interestingly, the Washington Post has a story in Wednesday’s paper about the Communist Chinese regime’s growing involvement in United Nations peacekeeping. Actually, the paper reports that only about 2,150 Chinese military and police personnel are deployed in support of U.N. missions. The Post reports that “while increasingly willing to let its soldiers don the blue helmets worn by U.N. peacekeepers, China has shown little enthusiasm for the U.N.-sanctioned mission that currently matters most to Washington -- the war in Afghanistan.” The Post suggests Beijing’s reluctance has something to do with NATO’s role in Afghanistan. A better explanation is that the communists who run China have a better sense of their own national interests than U.S. leaders. At this point, the mission is a noble but lost cause. It would be so under Obama or Bush or any other U.S. President.

 

If President Obama gave some of the past great speeches, they'd probably read:

 

"...we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor for eighteen months..."

 

"Never give up, never give up, never give up for eighteen months..."

 

"Don't give up the ship for eighteen months..."

 

"Ask not what your country can do for you; but, ask what can you do for your country for eighteen months..."

 

"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight for eighteen months..."

 

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender for eighteen months..."

 

"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated for eighteen months to the great task remaining before us"

President Obama's speech was yet another pathetic example of his governing principle in action: political expedience. There was something for everyone. The war in Iraq left the Iraqi people with "a chance to shape their future," but it was a bad war. The Pakistani government is going to be a partner with us, but we are concerned that they are not doing enough. The Afghan government is going to control its future, but we think they are corrupt. We're going to put more troops on the ground, but we're going to quickly pull them out. The bottom line is this: by obfuscating his actual position here, President Obama is planning to cast all blame on the men and women of the military, President Bush, and the Afghan government for failing to get the job done. It's gutless and it's reckless.

I was disappointed to hear another politically-motivated speech instead of one firmly based in our vital national interests with the goal of utterly defeating our enemy there. For Republicans, Mr. Obama promised 30,000 troops (albeit a fraction of what General McCrystal needed) while at the same time, for Democrats, he promised to begin to draw down in 18 months. If this is his idea of being a wartime president, all I can say is I'm glad he wasn't around during WWII."

 

It seems the White House is not in it to win, but they want to at least try not to lose. The timeline and the number of troops seem unrealistic for the task at hand. Nevertheless, the military has accepted the mission.

 

The real issue now...is where will we be six months from now? If the war turns a corner, Obama will pretty much get to fight the war his way. If it does not look like progress is being made...support will evaporate and pressure to pull the plug will be great. In six months, however, we'll have not even finished getting all the new troops in the field.

 

Regardless of what happens in the months ahead...winning in Afghanistan is a vital US interest. The administration should treat the issue that way.

 

President Barack Obama managed to upset Democrats who want to end the war, and Republicans who want to win the war. Change you can believe in?

 

There are two major problems in the Middle East so far as national security is concerned. First is a nuclear-armed Pakistan under siege by a local Taliban and a staging area for al Qaeda. The second problem is Iran that is striving to become a nuclear power. The U.S. cannot allow the latter, but appears to have sub-contracted the problem to Israel whose entire existence depends on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. Afghanistan will be the same as before we invaded after 9/11 as when we leave at some point. It has always been a sinkhole into which empires have wasted men and treasure. 

 

While President Barack Obama and the Democrat-run US Congress are willing to spend trillions of dollars on everything from "shovel-ready projects" to government health care, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Obama's Administration have requested a draw-down of 32 percent in the 2010 fiscal year defense budget. It seems when it comes to national security Obama and the Democrats suddenly become frugal.

 

Barack Obama, JFK Getty Images; AP Photo The speech wasn’t bad. But Obama failed to inspire, let alone satisfy. Ken Allard asks: Whatever happened to “pay any price, bear any burden?”

 

From the doodles on my notepad while waiting for the president’s speech to begin:

 

There once was a young Prez from DC

Who said to his generals, "Let's see?

We can send you more troops

And NATO human-rights groups

But Afghan war brides? Oh PUH-leeze!"

 

The good news was that the speech really wasn’t all that bad. The bad news: It wasn’t even remotely reminiscent of Winston Churchill—maybe not even Walter Mondale. OK, it’s hard for a single speech to appeal to multiple constituencies without sounding mildly schizophrenic. But Obama’s gifts as a world-class orator were wasted in the tangled logic of a strategy that was supposed to clarify things. It did not: a vague, defensive, too-clever-by-half effort that neither inspired nor satisfied.

 

I’m kidding? Let’s see: The fight in Afghanistan is vital to the security of the United States and all mankind. And if we lose, it might even give those Islamic extremists next door in Pakistan control of their own nuclear weapons. But guys, no later than July 2011 (just in time for the congressional elections) we are SO OUTTA THERE! Senator Lindsey Graham acidly observed that it sounded as if the troops might be leaving before they even arrived.

 

There has been a great deal of blather by the chattering classes about off-ramps and exit strategies, overlooking the fact that Patton would have argued that the entire point of war is making the other fellow have an exit strategy. The president may have felt obliged to appease his own left wing. But what has become of the Democratic Party that produced the young JFK—who rallied the country to “pay any price and bear any burden” in defending freedom? Could the party possibly be haunted by memories of the Vietnam-Cold War-Bosnia-Iraq its leaders never knew?

 

A necessarily anonymous Army buddy, a self-described K-Mart Kipling who opposes this war, wrote this tonight:

 

He sent our troops to the Kush,

Where they can’t find a green bush,

For while the mission was vague,

And IEDs sure were a plague,

Our president had covered his tush!