Options
Print
10 Comments
Post a Comment
Email
Why Is He Sending Them?
· Friday, October 1, 2010
WASHINGTON -- From the beginning, the call to arms was highly uncertain. On Dec. 1, 2009, commander in chief Barack Obama orders 30,000 more Americans into battle in Afghanistan. But in the very next sentence, he announces that an American withdrawal will begin after 18 months.
Astonishing. A surge of troops -- overall, Obama has tripled our Afghan force -- with a declaration not of war but of ambivalence. Nine months later, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that this decision was "probably giving our enemy sustenance." This wasn't conjecture, he insisted, but the stuff of intercepted Taliban communications testifying to their relief that they simply had to wait out the Americans.
What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn't have his heart in it. One who doesn't really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground -- meaning, the political cover -- for failure.
Until now, the above was just inference from the president's public rhetoric. No longer. Now we have the private quotes. Bob Woodward's book, drawing on classified memos and interviews with scores of national security officials, has Obama telling his advisers: "I want an exit strategy." He tells the country publicly that Afghanistan is a "vital national interest," but he tells his generals that he will not do the kind of patient institution-building that is the very essence of the counterinsurgency strategy that Gens. McChrystal and Petraeus crafted and that he -- Obama -- adopted.
Moreover, he must find an exit because "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This admission is the most crushing of all.
First, isn't this the party that in two consecutive presidential campaigns -- John Kerry's and then Obama's -- argued vociferously that Afghanistan is the good war, the right war, the war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror? Now, after acceding to power and being given charge of that very war, Obama confides that he must retreat lest that very same party abandon him. What happened in the interim? Did it suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan War all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack George W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting Democrats from the charge of being reflexively anti-war?
Whatever the reason, is it not Obama's job as president and party leader to bring the party with him? This is the man who made Berlin coo, America swoon and the Nobel committee lose its mind. Yet he cannot get his own party to follow him on what he insists is a matter of vital national interest?
Did he even try? Obama spent endless hours cajoling and persuading individual members of Congress to garner every last vote for health care reform. Has he done a fraction of that for Afghanistan -- argued, pleaded, horse-traded, twisted even a single arm?
And what about persuading the country at large? Every war is arduous and requires continual presidential explication, inspiration and encouragement. This has been true from Lincoln through FDR through Bush. Since announcing his Afghan surge, Obama's only major speech that featured Afghanistan was an Oval Office address about America leaving Iraq -- the Afghan part being sandwiched between that and a long-winded plea for his economic policies.
"He was looking for choices that would limit U.S. involvement and provide a way out," writes Woodward. One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning. More charitably and more likely, he is simply a foreign policy novice who didn't understand what this war was about until being given the authority and duty to conduct it -- and then decided it was all a mistake.
Fair enough. But in that case, what is he doing escalating it?
Sen. Kerry, now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, once asked many years ago: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Perhaps Kerry should ask that of Obama.
"He is out of Afghanistan psychologically," says Woodward of Obama. Well, he may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.
Some will not come home.
(c) 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Navigation
Subscribe
Syndicated Radio Host Michael Reagan: "The vision and legacy of the Reagan Revolution flourish on the pages of The Patriot Post." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
Arnold Ahlert: Catholics vs. Obama
Michael Reagan: White House Website Gone Wild
Ken Blackwell: I'll Have Another
Jeff Jacoby: The Peace Process Battered Israel's Reputation
Victor Davis Hanson: The Bad/Good Idea of Removing Assad
Michael Barone: Cocooned Liberals Are Unprepared for Political Debate
R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Great Debate
Cal Thomas: The Media's Religion Deficit
Larry Elder: Why Jeremiah Wright Matters -- Still
Ben Shapiro: First, They Came for Cory Booker
Ann Coulter: Figures Don't Lie: Democrats Do
Burt Prelutsky: A President Not Fit for Man or Beast
Navigation
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
Steve Dickinson
It's tragic that the electorate is, by & large, not paying much attention to this, given the anxt over economic & domestic issues. But for those with loved ones in theatre, this is of paramount importance. Is Obama doing all he can to WIN? A 'yes' answer means he's doing all he can to protect those same loved ones.
Survivors can deal with the loss when the answer to that question is 'yes'; when it's 'no', faith in our commander-in-chief is lost. Remove the withdrawal date, Mr. President! Support the troops, Mr. President!
Posted October 1, 2010 at 7:09:02 AM
g.wegmann
A wise man once said "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.Obama is too beholden to his leftist supporters who helped him get elected while damning the "Bush war in Iraq"to really support our troops.He has said numerous times that "victory" is not on his agenda. So we are in an Vietnam situation in Afghanistan. A meat grinder with rules of engagement that would get a general court martialed if he order them without being directed by the commander in chief!
Posted October 1, 2010 at 9:15:31 AM
karl anglin
What convinces is conviction. Believe in
the argument you're advancing. If you don't
you're as good as dead. The other person
will sense that something isn't there, and
no chain of reasoning, no matter how logical
or elegant or brillant, will win your
case for you.----Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1972)
Posted October 1, 2010 at 12:05:42 PM
Mac
The ineptitude of the feather merchant blares like a siren in the night. As a 30 year Navy guy, my heart and prayers go out to the troops who are doing their sworn duty while their "commander-in-chief" doesn't know how to do his.
Posted October 1, 2010 at 12:14:00 PM
MoeLarryCurley
We train and equip our military to win with overwhelming power, yet tie their hands with suicidal rules of engagement. We need to prosecute this war and quit worrying about nation building. We did no nation building in Viet Nam and that country now prospers from their own accomplishments without the help of the US Taxpayer.
Personally, I'd like to see reporters and lawyers access to the battlefield denied. This political correctness is inherently dangerous to our troops in harms way.
Posted October 1, 2010 at 1:38:37 PM
TJS
The aim of Democrats is pacifism, and once at war their aim is to see the US defeated. There is no "good war" to a Democrat. Remember, we had Vietnam won, when the evil North Vietnamese resumed their invasion of the South. The Democrats cut off funding for the B-52's which were ready to pound Hanoi into powder and forced the North to withdraw.
Each US soldier costs $1 million per year. For the price of one US soldier, we could buy the cooperation of 1,000 Afghans, where per capita GDP is $1,000 per year. We should be schooling two million young Afghans to be soldiers, cadets for freedom and prosperity. If we had started that 9 years ago the job would be done by now.
Posted October 1, 2010 at 7:36:41 PM
D. Grant Chee----
Soldiers soon sense a senseless sell-out. Morale and confidence soon suffer in the ranks; when the enemy is emboldened by the soldiers CinC....
Posted October 1, 2010 at 8:02:12 PM
BT
The Soviet Army had political commissars who's task it was to follow the troops into battle and "encourage bravery" by shooting any who lagged behind or attempted to flee. I fear our Dear Leader has become such a commissar. Also, remember that the commissars followed the troops thereby never placing themselves in harms way.
Coward.
Posted October 2, 2010 at 10:15:28 AM
Pamela Heckel
Is ineptitude treason? Who nominated this man to be President? Who voted him into office? Who benefits? Follow the money.
Posted October 4, 2010 at 10:50:15 AM
MichaelSSEC
Dr Krauthammer is still writing as though Obama is merely incompetent. That's false.
Obama is intentionally losing in Afghanistan, just as he is intentionally throwing away everything we gained in Iraq. Why?
Simple. These radicals believe America is the cause of every major problem in the world and that in order to elevate other countries it is first necessary to weaken America economically, militarily and politically. Every defeat for America is a victory for the rest of the world.
We see this in Obama's own rhetoric. He admits that he views himself not as an American, but as a "citizen of the world." Thus he sees America as the rest of the world sees us -- too wealthy, too powerful, too strong, too influential. It's not fair for one country to have SO much power for SO long, so weakening America is simple justice to these radicals. A weaker America finally allows other countries to compete "fairly" for the first time in living memory.
That's Obama's goal in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Europe, in Asia and most especially here at home. Can there be any other explanation for his policies, like canceling most of NASA's mission and replacing it with "outreach to Muslims"? If not to weaken and demoralize America, then what on Earth could the reason be?
Posted October 14, 2010 at 12:38:07 AM