View Full Version : OBAMA: Afg Speech
Warrior-Mentor
12-01-2009, 19:06
December 1, 2009
Remarks of President Barack Obama
The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
United States Military Academy at West Point
December 1, 2009
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
Warrior-Mentor
12-01-2009, 19:07
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
Warrior-Mentor
12-01-2009, 19:08
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
Warrior-Mentor
12-01-2009, 19:09
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.
America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.
Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.
It really pisses me off when I hear him say "tahl-ee-ban" and "pah-kee-stahn". He's from Chicago for pete's sake!
Or is he???? :D
What the heck? Our "allies" just get a lazy Afghanistan? How about some respect for "Av-ghan-ee-stan"?
Poser.
I wish he would say "Pakistan" like everyone else (Pack'a stan, not Pock'istahn))and not with the accent. I know, I know, that's probably the way it is suppose to be said/pronounced, but it bugs me. I also know that my .02 on this is trivial, but i can't be the only one.
dirtyshirt
12-01-2009, 19:16
W-M,
I posted without looking first,but you have it right here in your thread;in the first THREE minutes,he mentions "Islam.....Worlds great religions"....yada,yada yada.
What is with this guy?!? He is pushing this "Islam Good" down my throat to the point of almost trying to brainwash people,I mean,who is he trying to convince?!?
"It aint me babe...No,No,No,it aint me babe".
maybe I just saw it or took it wrong.
anyone else??
Okay, i apparently am not the only one.
So we're going to surge and then withdraw in 18 months? Didn't LBJ try this? Bomb for a bit then stop? Cheez, what message does this send to the enemies and to our allies?
Justifying a war by how much it costs?
My dad used to say that "money can't buy integrity".
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents.
We are constantly reminded that Islam is a great religion (This was President Bush's public position as well) that has been hijacked, distorted and defiled. How has the Quran been distorted and defiled? It is also interesting he chose to use the word innocent, since Islam does not consider infidels innocent.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam
Distorted and defiled? Well, then...as soon as the Haj is over, I'm sure that Mullahs around the world will declare jihad on those extremists. Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath. :rolleyes:
Ahh….the great Politically Correct falsehood that is taught everywhere - that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and has been hijacked….LOL… yet unlike other Religions of the world, Islam is unique - in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system - that mandates warfare against unbelievers. If we can’t define our enemy, how can we develop a proper war doctrine
How have they defiled this wonderful religion you may ask...
Mohammed was a warrior prophet and taught that muslims must meet the unbelievers in battle and invite them to accept Islam or accept second class status under Islamic rule or there would be war. Allah commands that non-muslims must be either killed or subjugated (9:29) and this is a great religion??
http://www.weaponofmusicaldefense.com/thelibrary/Putting_Koran_9:29_into_context_-_Understanding_Muhammed_by_Ali_Sina
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
The Islamic state OBL & Ayman al-zawahiri want today is no different than the Islamic state described in the Koran and Mohammedan Islamic tradition. What is so great and tolerant about institutionalized discrimination and second class status - if you can afford to pay ?
The terrorists are not bastardizing Islam, they are working from a broad tradition within Islam and the sooner this is recognized by muslims and non-muslims, the sooner people of goodwill from both camps will find positive ways to deal with it...
Bring back Coughlin...
To be fair to the POTUS and to the United States Government at large, the reaction from the Liberal and International community to the condemnation of Islam would be extremely negative and would undermine United States foreign policy. If we must lie, let us lie with a smile.
I was not any more pleased then the rest of you at the way in which the President worded that part of his speech. Apart from that, however... the fact that the President dedicated a considerable portion of the speech to explaining why we were fighting in Afghanistan was immensely important. Also, he clearly stated that we would be withdrawing in a responsible manner. This is his back door to explain why we aren't going to be withdrawing from Afghanistan a few years down the road. What he said let off some pressure, and buys us valuable time in the war.
There were bad parts, yes. There are things said that I must disagree with. I must say, however, that this was the first time that the President spoke and I felt I was listening to an American leader. Obama has plenty of time left in office, and I have reason to believe this will not all be time wasted.
My two cents.
///Edited Note: I am yet to read a detailed outline of the plan. I would very much like to read such an outline. If it is true that McCrystal thinks this plan can work, that definitely bolsters my confidence. I hold him in high regard.
I believe President Obama has set a trend of doing the bare minimum to get by. No matter what was said during the speech, the actions speak louder. I don't even want to be around people that do things half-assed much less have them as my CiC.
I did not see strength in his attitude.
If only a SGM gave the speech..... :lifter
To be fair to the POTUS and to the United States Government at large, the reaction from the Liberal and International community to the condemnation of Islam would be extremely negative and would undermine United States foreign policy. If we must lie, let us lie with a smile.
Why compromise our principals - it is akin to saying Shariah is healthy for women.
IMO - Appeasement along with reinforcement will only strengthen their resolve….
Its possible to hold a position without either condemning them or kissing someones ass...
...you just don't praise them. Only mention them if your case and point warrants it. If your case isn't strengthened by heaping praise, then why would you put undue wear and tear on the teleprompter?
As far as I can figure, the reason the statement on Islam was placed so early in the speech was to disarm hostile reactions to the later talking points. This was a smart thing to do. Maybe I was mistaken in not recognizing the President's comments as praise. I had interpreted the third paragraph of the President's speech as a mechanism to put a scope on the conflict. Will re-read in case I missed something.
As said in Billy L-Bach's tag line, diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you find a rock. In this particular situation, refrain is vital to success. Going gung-ho is not the answer. Long term viability is the goal here. There will be consequences to our actions. If we speak softly, we stand in a much better position than giving a rebel yell and making nations which are cooperative with us turn their backs.
While yelling out may be tempting, it is not what we need to do. Refrain is most needed when it is most difficult.
…we stand in a much better position than giving a rebel yell…
That’s what us southerners do best,….....right ? :D
Blitzzz (RIP)
12-01-2009, 23:13
It took him 88 days to regurgitate his same old crap
Needs to change his teleprompter.. Grief.
After all these years, I thought Jimmy Carter was weak.
A new LOW.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Strategically countering "The Narrative."
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-02-2009, 06:33
Strategically countering "The Narrative."
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I was actually encouraged by "The Narrative" op-ed Friedman wrote. Seemed he was actually waking up ...say "Hey, wait a minute, where's the voice of the "moderate" Muslims to counter Bin Laden. Why aren't they protesting this barbarianism?"
That's impressive for a liberal writer for the New York Times... they say a neo-con is a liberal that just got mugged. Perhaps he's starting to realize why islamists have asked him to bend at the waist...
craigepo
12-02-2009, 09:10
I'm sure most of you are already subscribed to stratfor, but they have an interesting take on what a future strategy in Afghanistan should be. If I can figure out how to paste a damn link.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091201_obamas_plan_and_key_battleground?utm_sour ce=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091202&utm_content=readmore
The Reaper
12-02-2009, 09:35
I'm sure most of you are already subscribed to stratfor, but they have an interesting take on what a future strategy in Afghanistan should be. If I can figure out how to paste a damn link.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091201_obamas_plan_and_key_battleground?utm_sour ce=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091202&utm_content=readmore
IMHO, the author is an idiot.
"The NVA was a light infantry force."
"The ARVN — and the U.S. Army on which it was modeled — was a much heavier, combined-arms force."
I am sure that will come as a great surprise to the ARVN forces who were overrun by NVA armor in the Easter 72 and April 75 campaigns.
TR
IMHO, the author is an idiot.
"The NVA was a light infantry force."
"The ARVN — and the U.S. Army on which it was modeled — was a much heavier, combined-arms force."
I am sure that will come as a great surprise to the ARVN forces who were overrun by NVA armor in the Easter 72 and April 75 campaigns.
TR
Lets not forget Lang Vei and the night of 6-7 Feb 1968. Tanks, what tanks?
craigepo
12-02-2009, 09:56
I think the gist of the article was expressed in this final paragraph:
"Therefore, Pakistan is important not only as the Cambodia of this war, the place where insurgents go to regroup and resupply, but also as a key element of the solution to the intelligence war. It is all about Pakistan. And that makes Obama’s plan difficult to execute. It is far easier to write these words than to execute a plan based on them. But to the extent Obama is serious about the Afghan army taking over, he and his team have had to think about how to do this."
uboat509
12-02-2009, 10:17
On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.
SFC W
Warrior-Mentor
12-02-2009, 12:49
On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.
SFC W
Seems the Cadets were briefed to respond "enthusiastically"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html
But since they weren't drooling over the "One"...
It hurt the feelings of Chris "I-Have-a-Thrill-Running-Up-My-Leg" Matthews...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzdhYTY0MDRiYTBlYjVkOTAwMjE2YWM5OGU5OTg1MDA=
It took him 88 days to regurgitate his same old crap
Needs to change his teleprompter.. Grief.
And in other news our esteemed :rolleyes: Senator Dick Durbin-D IL stated that since POTUS took time to mull over sending troops he would take the same time to mull over funding for that purpose. Way to support the troops, jackass!
LongWire
12-02-2009, 20:36
On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.
SFC W
I was surprised to see at least one cadet and a female E-7 chewing gum!!!! :confused:
Dozer523
12-02-2009, 20:52
I was surprised to see at least one cadet and a female E-7 chewing gum!!!! :confused: Just curious . . . But, do they let pretty girls attend that vocational school? ;)
It seems that Rummy says differently!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/02/rumsfeld-rejects-obama-claim-troop-requests-denied-afghanistan/
:lifter:lifter
dadof18x'er
12-02-2009, 21:42
Just curious . . . But, do they let pretty girls attend that vocational school? ;)
look at this cadet....
On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.
SFC WThe last time I saw so many collegians with expressions of disinterested annoyance was during the last century when I stood before a lecture hall of undergraduates and (politely) chastised members of my discussion sections for venturing out into the cold December morning, with wet hair but without sweaters or jackets the week before a final exam that was going to be brutal.
"What's the point," I asked. "Of working so hard the whole semester to risk getting ill just before the final?"
One student snarked back "Thanks, dad!"
But back on topic, his choice of venue and stiff delivery did nothing to change my skeptical view of the president's oratorical skills.
Warrior-Mentor
12-03-2009, 05:45
look at this cadet....
If you read the link that came from, he was reading while waiting for the President. I've been to a Presidential speach before. They pile you into the room 1-2 hours before the start time. There's nothing to do, but sit there and wait. This cadet was smart enough to plan ahead. If you look, he's wearing a CIB, so clearly prior service. Guess his real world experience provided him with a little common sense. Why sit and waste time when you can get something done?
The Afghanistan timeline President Obama outlined Tuesday calls for the 'surge' of 30,000 new troops to abate after only 18 months. That time frame is consistent with what GEN McChrystal has called the 'decisive' period of the war.
And so it goes...
Richard
Obama's Afghanistan Timeline Adheres To McChrystal Assessment
Mark Sappenfield, CSM, 2 Dec 2009
President Obama's decision to set a timeline on the "surge" of 30,000 new US troops into Afghanistan is consistent with a vehement assertion from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, in his battlefield assessment.
In urgent language, McChrystal stressed the importance of time in America's Afghan venture – suggesting that the next 12 months could well determine the success or failure of the mission.
The timeline Mr. Obama announced Tuesday night appears geared to providing McChrystal with as many boots on the ground in Afghanistan as soon as is logistically possible in an effort to turn the tide of the war.
The consistency between McChrystal's assertions and Obama's words Tuesday appears to provide a military rationale for the timeline, which has been criticized as a purely political ploy made with the 2012 elections in mind.
The timeline
Obama's timeline involves deploying troops to Afghanistan as soon as next month, and then beginning to scale back the surge in July 2011. That timeline essentially gives the surge 12 months at full strength in Afghanistan at the earliest possible date.
In his assessment, leaked to the press in September, McChrystal wrote:
"We face both a short- and a long-term fight ... but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive," he wrote. "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
Obama appeared to reference this idea directly Tuesday – using some of McChrystal's language almost verbatim – as he announced both the surge and the timeline.
"These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan," Obama said.
Backing McChrystal
The decision appears to mean that McChrystal's assertion that the "next 12 months" will be crucial is a fundamental tenet of US strategy going forward: Speed is of the essence, and the sooner America can get more troops to Afghanistan, the better.
Moreover, it also appears to sanction McChrystal's prediction that a robust US response can bring the insurgency to manageable levels by July 2011.
Under this scenario, tens of thousands of US troops would remain to deal with the remnant of the insurgency – McChrystal's "long-term fight" – since only the surge will begin to end in mid-2011, not the entire mission, which stands at 68,000 US troops today.
Moreover, it's clear that both Obama and McChrystal expect to have more capable Afghan security forces on line by 2011, which could lighten the burden on remaining US forces.
A senior administration official said Tuesday that the end of the surge does not mark the end of US involvement in Afghanistan.
The timeline signifies when the US and NATO "will begin to transfer our lead responsibility ... to Afghan counterparts," said the official, who gave the teleconference briefing on condition of anonymity.
The timeline does not, however, "specify the end of that transition process, nor will [Obama] specify the pace at which it will proceed," the official added. "Those variables – pace and end – will be dictated by conditions on the ground."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1202/p02s04-usfp.html
Warrior-Mentor
12-03-2009, 09:44
Guess the speech didn't go over so well...
Obama lost 0.6 in approval in one day since delivering it...
Right now he's at 49.9% Approve (Less than HALF the country likes what he's doing)
And at +5.6 RCP Average, he's at the lowest rating of his Presidency to date...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Guess the speech didn't go over so well...
Apparently not in some quarters...such as among his MoveOn supporters...;)
And so it goes...
Richard
Dear MoveOn member,
Last night, President Obama announced that he will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan—on top of the 68,000 who are already there.
MoveOn is its members, so after the speech, we asked thousands of members what they think of the president's plan. While some support his decision to send more troops, a significant majority think escalating the war is wrong. Where all of us agree is that we need to begin bringing our troops home as quickly and safely as possible. (You can see more detailed results below.)
As Sandy M. in Oregon put it, "Millions of lives will be tragically altered. Innocent people, by the thousands, will lose their lives. We have plenty of nation building to do, and it's in our country, not others."
While the president acknowledged that our commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended, we have to act now to make sure our representatives and senators hold him to that. President Obama said he'll begin withdrawing troops in July, 2011, but news reports are already suggesting that withdrawal could be very limited, so pressure from Congress will be key.
Congress could take up legislation related to the war this month, so we need to get the message to them quickly. Can you sign our emergency petition calling on Congress to end the war as quickly as possible? Clicking below will add your name:
http://pol.moveon.org/afghan_timeline/?id=18131-13679562-2VuiEsx&t=3
The petition says, "Congress must push the Obama administration to outline firm benchmarks and a binding timeline to bring all of our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible."
When we asked MoveOn members what they think about the situation in Afghanistan, they acknowledged the mess that George W. Bush left for President Obama. Still, nearly all MoveOn members agree that we must have a clear military exit strategy with a firm timeline so we can end the war quickly.
But right-wing hawks like Sen. John McCain are already pushing the President to continue the war indefinitely.2 In the face of this pressure, the majority of Americans, who oppose the war, must speak up.
The costs of this war are enormous—for the men and women of our armed forces who face injury or death, for Afghans who will suffer increased violence and civilian casualties, and for American citizens who are spending billions of dollars without being any safer. The administration and Congress have to hear from those of us who want to see the war come to an end.
Can you sign our emergency petition now telling Congress to work to bring our troops home? Clicking below will add your name:
http://pol.moveon.org/afghan_timeline/?id=18131-13679562-2VuiEsx&t=4
Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Peter, Lenore, Kat, and the rest of the team
P.S. We've been hearing from MoveOn members about Afghanistan for months now, so we wanted to get a sense of what people were thinking in the wake of President Obama's speech. So, since last night's speech, we've asked more than 50,000 randomly selected MoveOn members to let us know what they think about the President's plan.
There's no question the situation in Afghanistan is difficult, and MoveOn members, like all Americans, are wrestling with the lack of good options. But right now, a significant majority of us oppose escalating the war. We've posted the results of the surveys we ran at:
http://pol.moveon.org/afghanistan/post_speech_surveys.html?id=18131-13679562-2VuiEsx&t=5
And here's what some MoveOn members had to say:
"War is not the answer. We don't have the money. We need to get our own house in order."—Theresa T., Fort Bragg, CA
"A terrible waste of American and Afghan lives with slim chance of positive outcomes. If Americans are asked to fund anything with a new tax it should be universal healthcare not warfare."—Carol B., Port Hadlock, WA
"I respect President Obama. I respect his opinions and the information he has, that I don't. At the same time, I want us out of the war zone. I am very concerned."—Patricia D., Reno, NV
"I don't feel that it's possible to accomplish whatever it is we're trying to accomplish there, and I want the waste of lives and money to stop immediately."—Barbara E., Rock Stream, NY
"We need to keep our kids here, not send them to fight battles elsewhere."—Beth W., Gold Beach, OR
"We have too many problems here at home. Our national debt is huge. We do not need to be adding more to it."—Marietta H., Carson, CA
"I think this a very tough thing. We cannot run out on the Afghan people, but if they cannot rise to the occasion by 2011, then we should come home and be done!"—Peter M., Newbury Park, CA
dadof18x'er
12-03-2009, 19:45
If you read the link that came from, he was reading while waiting for the President. I've been to a Presidential speach before. They pile you into the room 1-2 hours before the start time. There's nothing to do, but sit there and wait. This cadet was smart enough to plan ahead. If you look, he's wearing a CIB, so clearly prior service. Guess his real world experience provided him with a little common sense. Why sit and waste time when you can get something done?
I wonder how much PT that cadet has done since his pic has made the WWW:eek:
LongWire
12-03-2009, 19:54
Apparently not in some quarters...such as among his MoveOn supporters...;)
Richard
With a name like that organization you cant figure that they would like standing still, or even supporting the status quo........
The rolling stone gathers no moss.
BoyScout
12-03-2009, 19:58
On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.
SFC W
My mom called me just to make sure I did notice. She paid more attention to that than what he said.
I wonder how much PT that cadet has done since his pic has made the WWW:eek:
Probably as much as he felt he needed. There is no organized PT during the academic year for cadets. They take a semi-annual APFT that becomes part of their academic grade for Phys Ed, along with an indoor obstacle course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzBPt0WQg7k) several times during the 4 years that also counts towards their Phys Ed grade. A cadet can choose to blow off doing PT, but as the saying goes you can't cram the night before for a PT test, so their grade would suffer, which has lasting effects in terms of branch and post assignment post commissioning.
As far as punishment, if the Chain of Command felt that was necessary, he'd walk the Area for a number of hours on the weekend(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_Point_Cadet_walking_the_Area,_May_98.jpg ).
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
NATO antes up.
NATO Pledges 7,000 More Troops for Afghanistan
Mark Landler and Steven Erlanger, NYT, 4 Dec 2009
Responding to American entreaties for more soldiers in Afghanistan, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, announced Friday that the alliance had agreed to contribute a further 7,000 “new forces” to the coalition there following Washington’s decision to commit some 30,000 American reinforcements.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/asia/05diplo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
But...:confused:
NATO Promises Troops, Some Members Stall
Der Spiegel, 3 Dec 2009
NATO has promised to send at least 5,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. The question is: Where will they come from? Some nations, including Germany, say they will not make any decisions until next year, while other nations are saying that their soldiers can go -- but not fight.
<snip>
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664990,00.html
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Address on Somalia (October 7, 1993)
Bill Clinton
After American soldiers were killed in Somalia, President Clinton addresses the nation regarding U.S. military involvement in Somalia. He outlines the goals for continued U.S. involvement, including protecting U.S. troops, securing the area, and keeping the flow of food and supplies open. Clinton stresses that the United States will only leave Somalia on its own terms, and the U.S. military must increase its strength so it can do its job and bring our soldiers home.
This transcript contains the published text of the speech, not the actual words spoken. There may be some differences between the transcript and the audio/video content.
Transcript
My fellow Americans:
Today I want to talk with you about our Nation's military involvement in Somalia. A year ago, we all watched with horror as Somali children and their families lay dying by the tens of thousands, dying the slow, agonizing death of starvation, a starvation brought on not only by drought, but also by the anarchy that then prevailed in that country.
This past weekend we all reacted with anger and horror as an armed Somali gang desecrated the bodies of our American soldiers and displayed a captured American pilot, all of them soldiers who were taking part in an international effort to end the starvation of the Somali people themselves. These tragic events raise hard questions about our effort in Somalia. Why are we still there? What are we trying to accomplish? How did a humanitarian mission turn violent? And when will our people come home?
These questions deserve straight answers. Let's start by remembering why our troops went into Somalia in the first place. We went because only the United States could help stop one of the great human tragedies of this time. A third of a million people had died of starvation and disease. Twice that many more were at risk of dying. Meanwhile, tons of relief supplies piled up in the capital of Mogadishu because a small number of Somalis stopped food from reaching their own countrymen.
Our conscience said, enough. In our Nation's best tradition, we took action with bipartisan support. President. Bush sent in 28,000 American troops as part of a United Nations humanitarian mission. Our troops created a secure environment so that food and medicine could get through. We. saved close to one million lives. And throughout most of Somalia, everywhere but in Mogadishu, life began returning to normal. Crops are growing. Markets are reopening. So are schools and hospitals. Nearly a million Somalis still depend completely on relief supplies, but at least the starvation is gone. And none of this would have happened without American leadership and America's troops.
Until June, things went well, with little violence. The United States reduced our troop presence from 28,000 down to less than 5,000, with other nations picking up where we left off. But then in June, the people who caused much of the problem in the beginning started attacking American, Pakistani, and other troops who were there just to keep the peace.
Rather than participate in building the peace with others, these people sought to fight and to disrupt, even if it means returning Somalia to anarchy and mass famine. And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave,
(cont'd)
It is my judgment and that of my military advisers that we may need up to 6 months to complete these steps and to conduct an orderly withdrawal. We'll do what we can to complete the mission before then. All American troops will be out of Somalia no later than March the 31st, except for a few hundred support personnel in noncombat roles.
If we take these steps, if we take the time to do the job right, I am convinced we will have lived up to the responsibilities of American leadership in the word. And we will have proved that we are committed to addressing the new problems of a new era.
When our troops in Somalia came under fire this last weekend, we witnessed a dramatic example of the heroic ethic of our American military. When the first Black Hawk helicopter was downed this weekend, the other American troops didn't retreat although they could have. Some 90 of them formed a perimeter around the helicopter, and they held that ground under intensely heavy fire. They stayed with their comrades. That's the kind of soldiers they are. That's the kind of people we are.
So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.
Let me express my thanks and my gratitude and my profound sympathy to the families of the young Americans who were killed in Somalia. My message to you is, your country is grateful, and so is the rest of the word, and so are the vast majority of the Somali people. Our mission from this day forward is to increase our strength, do our job, bring our soldiers out, and bring them home.
Thank you, and God bless America.
greenberetTFS
12-04-2009, 14:06
Its possible to hold a position without either condemning them or kissing someones ass...
...you just don't praise them. Only mention them if your case and point warrants it. If your case isn't strengthened by heaping praise, then why would you put undue wear and tear on the teleprompter?
Billy,once again I think your right on..........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
I know you lads saw this:
~ Chris Matthews Says Obama’s West Point Speech Was At “Enemy Camp”! ~
http://www.mediaite.com/online/chris-matthews-says-obamas-west-point-speech-was-at-enemy-camp/
and this:
A Call to Arms So Ambivalent and Dispiriting
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMERPosted 12/03/2009 06:42 PM ET
We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills — for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.
We shall never surrender — unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on "the need to maintain balance in and among national programs" and then insist that "we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."
The quotes are from President Obama's West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was — a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.
Which made his last-minute assertion of "resolve unwavering" so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan "a war of necessity." On Tuesday night, he defined "what's at stake" as "the common security of the world." The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?
Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan ?
Nonetheless, most supporters of the Afghanistan war were satisfied. They got the policy, the liberals got the speech. The hawks got three-quarters of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted — 30,000 additional U.S. troops — and the doves got a few soothing words. Big deal, say the hawks.
But it is a big deal. Words matter because will matters. Success in war depends on three things: a brave and highly skilled soldiery, such as the U.S. military 2009, the finest counterinsurgency force in history; brilliant, battle-tested commanders such as Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal, fresh from the success of the surge in Iraq ; and the will to prevail as personified by the commander in chief.
There's the rub. And that is why at such crucial moments, presidents don't issue a policy paper. They give a speech. It gives tone and texture. It allows their policy to be imbued with purpose and feeling. This one was festooned with hedges, caveats and one giant exit ramp.
No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge — Iraq 2007 — with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat.
His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching — and salutary — determination.
Obama's surge speech wasn't a commander in chief's, but a politician's, perfectly splitting the difference. Two messages for two audiences. Placate the right — you get the troops; placate the left — we are on our way out.
And apart from Obama's own personal commitment is the question of his ability as a wartime leader. If he feels compelled to placate his left with an exit date today — while he is still personally popular, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and even before the surge begins — how will he stand up to the left when the going gets tough and the casualties mount, and he really has to choose between support from his party and success on the battlefield?
Despite my personal misgivings about the possibility of lasting success against Taliban insurgencies in both Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan , I have deep confidence that Petraeus and McChrystal would not recommend a strategy that will be costly in lives, without their having a firm belief in the possibility of success.
I would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success.
And this commander in chief defended his exit date (vs. the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."
Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets — some of whom may not return alive — but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.
Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
It took him 88 days to regurgitate his same old crap
Needs to change his teleprompter.. Grief.From a historical perspective, domestic politics for worse and for better have always played a role in American military history. My concern is that the current president, like previous presidents (namely, L.B. Johnson and W.J. Clinton), is allowing domestic politics to trump other considerations.
Call me cynical, but I wonder if someone in the White House has a .MPP file that has Gantt charts comparing the critical path of the implementation of the new plan for Afghanistan with the critical paths for the campaign schedule for the 2010 midterms and the 2012 elections as well as the president's political agenda for the coming year.
The eighty eight days' delay could thus reflect not only the understandable desire for the administration to develop options, to debate plans, and to consult allies, but also a political calculation to push "windows" of anticipated success and potential setback to more favorable time periods.
For example, according to the president's speech, the soonest more soldiers will be deployed will be the "early" part of 2010. This time table means that many American civilians who do not know any better (myself included:o) will fail to understand that members of the armed services and their families are going to be affected during the 2009 holiday season. MSM news stories on this subject will not distract consumers from advertisements over special holiday shopping deals at Best Buy, Old Navy, and Target.
Hence, what ever the many legitimate reasons for the delayed decision, the announced time table allows the administration to focus on its alleged priority of economic recovery (the president is preserving the holiday shopping season--his speech came after, not before, Black Friday), to assert that it is focused on the needs of Americas' warriors and their families, and to claim to be doing something about Afghanistan.
(FYI, a schedule of the 2010 primary elections is available here (http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/vaghandout3.pdf). Is it just a coincidence that the Illinois primary takes place during the same window of time when soldiers, Marines, and airmen will be deployed?)
We have re-entered the era of "microwave" politics and the associated "microwave" foreign policy...
...a "good" baked potato takes a while to cook correctly, but you can stick a potato in the microwave for 6 minutes and call it good.
Call it what you want, it isn't "baked" potato, just a hot potato.
...as long as the dinner guests get a hot meal without having to wait.