« Salahigate: Radicals in the White House | Main | I'm Leaving on a (Reasonably Safe) Jet Plane »
December 02, 2009
The Obama Doctrine
Charles Krauthammer on Obama's “rather strange speech.”
I'm worried that the strategy Obama lays out has nothing to do with winning this war and everything to do with exit ramps.
Note that Obama never once used the word victory in his speech.
No doubt the Taliban see a weak U.S. President who is counting on Afghan forces and the ISI, Pakistani intelligence services, to carry the real burden of the war.
If I were the Taliban I'd just bide my time, avoid costly battles with American forces, penetrate the Afghan police and army with sleeper agents, wait for Obama to withdraw—what a shock, just in time for the 2012 elections—and then lower the hammer on the already terrified Afghans.
Was it my imagination or did the West Point cadets look, y'know, less than enthusiastic about their Commander-in-Chief's speech?
Liberal talking head Chris Matthews must have noticed something because he labels West Point ”the enemy camp.”
One of the most astute analysis of Obama's speech comes from Der Spiegel:
One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
Click here for the entire article. This is a must read.
Posted by Robert J. Avrech at December 2, 2009 10:13 AM
Comments
Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.
1. No profanity.2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism. That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.
I believe it was Winston Churchill who, when asked about what it would take to defeat the Nazis, simply said "when we have victory".
That's all Obama would have to say - if he was serious about this war.
Amazing for the guy who said how critical this was during his campaign...
Posted by: Bill Brandt at December 2, 2009 11:23 AM
It is clear Obama is going through the motions because he knows to refuse the troop request would damage him politically with independents.
He is willing to let the lefties on MSNBC and in Congress moan and groan....but where are they going to go?
Thus we end up with a foot dragging response, replete with enough exit ramps.....read surrender...so he can wave the white flag in time for elections and not lose his base.
Posted by: Lance at December 2, 2009 12:07 PM
Lance, you're exactly right.
Axelrod has figured out it will help Obama to stand up to the left - a sister souljah moment. But whereas Clinton just made a speech, Obama is actually playing with people's lives to score a political point.
He's done just enough to say he tried, he really did want to win before he just had to pull out. He's already given everyone a date to declare the war lost.
I'm tired of hearing people say how he had no good options and that he inherited a bad war. Somehow he sounded pretty certain how to win the war when he was running for office and telling us a vote for him would solve all problems.
And Chris Mathews was right. Those cadets were all wondering if they were going to end up being sacrificed for a photo op. Of course, I wonder if it would be easier for Mathews to get his foot out of his mouth or a soldier's boot out of his posterior. I bet there were a lot of cadets that would have stood in line to find out.
Posted by: Johnny at December 2, 2009 01:51 PM
In my fairly extensive study of history in general and military history in particular, I have never before, in all of recorded history, come across an instance of a leader committing soldiers to war under the constraint of an arbitrary time limitation. Obama claims that the opposite of such a time limited constraint is an "open-ended" commitment. That is ridiculous. The opposite is staying in a fight until the conditions of victory are achieved. That is an event triggered limitation, not open ended commitment. The only reason it is not time certain is becasuse the enemy gets a say. You can compare Obama's speech on Afghanistan with FDR's speech on Dec. 9, 1941, to see the difference. It is striking.
What Obama is doing is an attempt to both honor his campaign rhetoric - that Afghanistan is the "good war" that we "must not loose," while attempting to placate a far left base that lives in permanent Vietnam protest mode. The two cannot be reconciled, but he is willing to bet the lives of our soldiers that they can. Many months ago, I wrote a post explaining with historical examples that the greatest danger in electing Obama or Clinton would be that they would make wartime military decisions based on political expediency rather than on internalized values. The travesty of announcing that we are going to go on the offensive for 18 months and then begin withdrawing forces is a textbook case of political expediency. Such decisions are inevitably bad in the long run, both for our soldiers and for our national interests. With that long lead in, I recommend this article from Raplh Peters for an itemization of all the implications of Obama's approach. Its insanity.
Posted by: GW at December 3, 2009 12:31 AM
Many people have said President Obama went to West Point for a photo op with the cadets -- something to show that he is "pro-military". Baloney! His going there and declaring an exit strategy was meant as a deliberate slap in the face! It was a "I'm in charge and you're not!" moment...
Posted by: ProphetJoe at December 3, 2009 05:43 AM