Obama's Uncertain Trumpet
 

December 4, 2009
Uncertain Trumpet
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- 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 (versus 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?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

SOURCE:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...pet_99390.html

Note to POTUS, now this is a motivational speech by a leader:

WESTMORELAND:
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING HENRY V:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day

William Shakespeare

. . . The Taliban and Afghan peasants and Pakistani generals AND NATO allies get ambivalence.
. . . 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 --
. . . the doves got a few soothing words.
. . . Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal got their surge and a "Sense of Urgency" directed at the Karzi administarion
. . . and Charles Krauthammer * get to write thses kinds of articles sharing his "personal misgivings
. . . and the cadets got to be on television.

Everyone gets what they want. Maybe we should call the President, "Obanta" ;) This is going to be the best Christmas ever!

* "Krauthammer has emerged in the Age of Obama as a central conservative voice, the kind of leader of the opposition . . .cite http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22743.html

I think what the Taliban actually got from the POTUS was the assurance that we will be cutting and running, victory or not, with our tail between our legs, just like the Soviets, by a date certain.

Keep a little pressure on, put out some IEDs, generally lay low, and prepare for the march to return to power Aug 2011.

TR

I suspect / fear you are right.
But it won't look like cutting and running, we will declare victory, and our tail will not be between our legs.
As to your second point, I've wondered if this is the bad guy policy for the surge in Iraq. The surge is a success, we're departing. So what happen six months after the last American leaves and the place explodes? Or better yet they wait for Aug 2011 (as you mention) and renew the march in both places? Well, one thing that wouldn't happen (regardless of who was President) we're not going back to either place. My hope in Afghanistan is that the Afghan people will opt for peace after 30 years. Crossing my fingers we are both wrong.

Truth?
 

Anfd right after the last US aircraft lifts off the "Arab Street" will be dancing in the street celibrating the victory over the US and NATO - in having kicked them out of Afghanistan.

Truth is nothing when the MSM pushes propaganda. But then again, is the propaganda true? Who did win?

We are not going to be completely out of either country for a long time, unless something changes.

The real challenge will be accomplishing what needs to be done with the resources which will remain. Additionally, I wonder how many more brothers will die, and how many will die because of the Administration's policies.

TR

Perhaps the POTUS is thinking that by the time the terrorists in Afghanistan finish their regroup and build up, he will be coming close to the end of his term. This will then be the problem of the next administration. JMHO, but it would be consistent with the man who wants to please everyone and stand for nothing.

One wonders if the POTUS truly believes there is a terrorist problem. Why not say, "we will strongly revisit the commitment after twelve months or something to that effect? It seems so elementary that stating we will pull out in 18 months is such a tactical mistake.

It's another clear example of someone who has zero convictions other than general appeasement in order to be re-elected. The only good thing to come out of this is that we got to see TR post the Shakespeare quote from Henry the V again. Never get tired of reading that.

Personally, I'm a Churchill man...

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

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...

Best part starts at 8:50

LISTEN HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6llT2ZYg-4E

Team Special Forces - Motivational Speech
 

Not sure who this came from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9MeJPVykGY

I think all posts here are pretty much spot ON.
I also believe the intent to drive this country to a 3rd world state
is well within his capability.

It's an on-line gaming community - virtual SF group embracing the suck of slow pizza deliveries and mission reset buttons. :rolleyes:

Richard :munchin

That was the first thing that popped into my mind when I started to read your thread. The difference is Churchill was a leader and Barry is a fraud.

Deja Vu
 

Feeling first hand the indifference of my country upon my return from Vietnam I so much wanted my sons service to his country to be more like my fathers in WWII. Now as we are hell bent to give up everything that these men and women fought for in Iraq and Afghanistan my heart aches once again. The only thing that is missing is the contempt for those who served from there fellow countrymen.:(