Obama’s War
About that speech, I heard it refered to by one Obama fan as “steadfast.” Once you get past the stealth Bush-bash, the excuse-making, the subtle apologies, and the overall half-heartedness, I guess. There was the steadfast decision to nickel and dime the commander in the field, and the steadfast timetable. I’d hate to be a grunt in some remote outpost, wondering where the other 10,000 guys are when I need them, or a commander in Bagram checking my watch.
To paraphrase another go-lite advocate, you don’t go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army your president and his political advisors send you with. You don’t, contrary to widespread public opinion, get to choose your wars. They choose you. You just get to choose what you’re going to do with them. With this surge, Afghanistan is indisputably Obama’s war now, to win or lose.
This is the date history probably will mark as the day he took it over. But he’s owned it for a while, put his political stamp on it a long time ago, spent the last 10 months mulling it … because strategy considerations did not begin in September, a month after McChrystal dropped his report in Obama’ lap. They started in a matter of weeks if not days after he took office, settled on counterinsurgency and an escalation in March, it’s all been a matter of details since then.
Theoretically 18 months is a reasonable surge window, though as they say, the enemy gets a vote, and it would be a lot more reasonable if he was filling the full troop request.
So what happens in 18 months, if the Afghan forces aren’t quite ready or the government’s shaky and the Taliban and al-Qaeda are still coming on. Sayonara, Afghanistan? Obama’s running for re-election at that point. Maybe he gets lucky and the tide’s turned. If not, is an “epicenter of violent extremism” not such a big deal anymore?
Some sidenotes about the speech: The Iraq-distraction bit ought to be the last gasp of the “inherited” line, though I doubt it. I noticed he didn’t mind saying “we” when he got to the Iraq success part — the part he not only inherited, but is now putting to work in Afghanistan.
It was nice to see him tackle the idiotic Vietnam comparisons, though I’d be happier if he actually had reflected on the relevant truths of Vietnam … that a successful counterinsurgency could have been mounted, that the Viet Cong were not popular, just feared, and that Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia suffered a horrible fate because American politicians abandoned them.
But speaking of history, it was nice to hear him say, after that big global apology tour and the assorted excuse-making that began this speech, that America is a decent country that as made the world a better place:
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, and markets open, and 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.
OK, then the wheels loosen on that bus a little, too:
We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.
Not-so-subtle shift from “have not” to “will not.” Is he saying we did claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because of their faith or ethnicity some time recently? I don’t remember that. Whatever. The speech devolves back into blah blah blah after that, as one of the most willfully partisan and divisive presidents of recent years starts decrying divisive partisanship, and I’m out of here, God Bless the United States of America.
A lot is being made of Obama’s dithering defense. No big rush, no one was going before 2010. I’m prepared to accept … I don’t have any choice in the matter … that for political reasons he needed to put on a show, though I’d like the record to show that it started 10 months ago. Too bad it ended up short-sheeting the field commander. So here’s the commander, compliments of a lefty.
Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent crows:
So much for the “dithering” critique. Here is a statement just released by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, expressing full support and confidence in President Obama and the weeks-long strategy review.
“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address
are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.“The NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) objective is equally clear: We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.
“The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of the
international community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan — a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.“We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future.”
If the GOP really thought it could drive a wedge between McChrystal and Obama or use the general as a cudgel against his commander in chief, this ought to provide an end to such illusions.
I think at this point the GOP and everyone else is hoping to use McChrystal as a cudgel against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
But you’ll notice McChrystal doesn’t actually address the “dithering,” or the lenghty review, either to put the one to bed or to express full confidence and support in the weeks … months, if you prefer, it took weeks just for Obama to look at the report … that it took to conduct the review.
That’s incidental to the fact that Ackerman apparently isn’t familiar with the practice of “saluting and saying yes sir” once the civilian leadership run its flag up. McChrystal is a soldier, not a pol. Short of resigning in protest, he would be insubordinate and worse, betraying his soldiers, f he did anything but embrace it and make a go of it.
And that’s pretty much what we all have to do now. Salute and say yes sir, and make a go of it. Because he is the president, he is sending more soldiers to war, and it was his decision about how, when and for how long that will be. A few actually do have to salute and go do it. The best thing the rest of us can do is encourage him, the Congress and everyone involved to make it work, and make it count. Because even if the president didn’t say so, the goal isn’t getting out. There is no acceptable outcome short of success. Getting out comes after that.
Big news and view roundup at Small Wars Journal.
Right reax:
Open threat at HotAir plus McCain, “Success is the real exit strategy” … the old guy clearly never heard that Churchill speech, “We have an exit plan on the beaches. We have an exit plan on the landing places. We will never stick around!”
via Surber, Chris Matthews: West Point is Obama’s “enemy camp.” You know, that guy might be crazier than Charles Johnson … nah.
via Gateway, Krauthammer and Hayes have an O speech smackdown. Also, cut-and-run countdown.
Powerline: War strategy or legal argument? … Legal argument.
To be precise, the speech sounded to me like a slick lawyer trying to sell a dubious settlement to a skeptical client or, in this case, set of clients.
Paul at Powerline notes that a specific nod to the Iraq surge’s success was a critical omission. As in, the United States military knows what it is doing and deserves our unreserved support. Points off for partisanship.
Kristol gives Obama the benefit of a doubt, notes he’ll have nearly doubled the troop presence in Afghanistan, is willing to be encouraged and declares him for better or worse a “war president.” But he wonders where the inaugural “you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you” rhetoric was when it came time to pull the trigger.
In-between reax:
Moderate Voice asks a lot of questions and does a mega-media roundup.
Lefty reax:
Andrew Sullivan liveblogs. A testiment to snippy cluelessness. Hard to imagine he was once onboard with all this. This part is telling. “the GOP position is that the new strategy is great because it means more troops and war, but not great because, well, the president is a patsy who is not interested in staying there indefinitely.” Not that he thinks the right are a bunch of Kligon warmongers … that he thinks war is a political decision can be turned on and off, just like one’s political beliefs. His, anyway,
Five Thirty Eight: Commitment to a July 2011 withdrawal is politically risky. What if he can’t. Well, they he either looks dumb or callously craven.
Taylor Marsh, who’s worried about the women of Afghanistan, apparently gets it:
Even in three paragraphs you can tell this is a political layout, not a strategic or regional one.
Not a bad way to go out, with a lefty I can agree with. Here’s your big fat Memeorandum roundup.
(Care to comment? Use the “contact” link to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand. Include your preferred screenname and temporary password. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, meanspirited rightwingers all welcome. This is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)
Topics: Afghanistan,Obama
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:30 pm Comments (9) on Tuesday, December 1, 2009
9 Responses to “Obama’s War”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 am
A very good analysis.
The dithering is mercifully over, but giving McCrystal 3/4′s of the so-called ‘moderate risk’ strategy is not encouraging. Coupled with that is the 18 month deadline which compounds the problem because some of those forces won’t be in theater for 6-8 months and the then the drawdown starts 10-12 months thereafter. Has Obama guaranteed failure?
Several other observations:
1. I felt Obama’s delivery was borderline shrill.
2. While the cameras panned the crowd, several cadets were noticed dozing off after only 20 minutes into the speech. Could it be their BS meters were pegged?
3. There was no mention of the real enemy’s name, i.e. jihadists, radical Islamists, etc. We can’t defeat what we cannot name.
4. I watched MG Robert Scales (Ret) explain in 2-3 minutes on FOX as to what and where the operations would be focused. Succinct and knowledgeable and noticeably missing from the speech.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
[...] president and our military in their efforts. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Jules Crittenden on this: And that’s pretty much what we all have to do now. Salute and say yes sir, and make a go [...]
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I clicked over to Obama’s speech after a while and caught the part where he was explaining in his whiney-voice how we can’t keep affording these wars. Clicked off, after that. Reading excerpts today, I conclude that Obama’s speech was exactly what I figured it would be, and that he actually did tell al-Qaeda and the Taliban exactly how long they have to hang on until we’re gone.
Naturally, General McChrystal said what a soldier is supposed to say when his CiC makes a decision, but I keep hoping that the general, understanding the kind of CiC he has to deal with, asked for more troops than he thought he could get in the hopes that he would, at least, get what he needed.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
[...] –Jules Crittenden has a long post that needs to be read completely and an excellent roundup on this speech. Here’s a small taste of his post (but be sure to check out his roundup as well): About that speech, I heard it refered to by one Obama fan as “steadfast.” Once you get past the stealth Bush-bash, the excuse-making, the subtle apologies, and the overall half-heartedness, I guess. There was the steadfast decision to nickel and dime the commander in the field, and the steadfast timetable. I’d hate to be a grunt in some remote outpost, wondering where the other 10,000 guys are when I need them, or a commander in Bagram checking my watch. [...]
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
What really bothers me is that Obama’s decision to commit fewer troops than requested does not seem to be based on any military or even budgetary consideration. One gets the impression that if McChrystal had asked for 30,000 troops, Obama would have given him 20,000, if he had asked for 20,000 he would have been given 10,000, and so on. I would like to hope that McChrystal fudged his troop “budget” knowing that Obama was likely to arbitrarily lower it, but in my heart I know he didn’t. He gave Obama an honest assessment, and got middle management hackery in return.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 12/02/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“in disputably”
One word or did you mean to have two?
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I’d just like to point out that Obama is trying to simultaneously do two things that are linear — fight the war and end the war. He constantly mixes and merges those two things.
I do hope at the next press conference someone will ask him if the USA will withdraw in 18 months if the outcome is in doubt.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 am
What’s fascinating is the insistence by so many liberals, “NO, he’s not REALLY committed to leaving! He’ll stay if the situation, well, warrants it.”
You’d be amazed at how much emphasis is placed on the phrase “conditions on the ground” with regards to withdrawing.
The problem, however, is that it’s a meaningless phrase. You could use that to justify withdrawal if the situation improves (“We’ve done our job, we can leave now.”), if the situation deteriorates (“It’s just not worth staying, we’re leaving now.”), or even if there’s no change (“We’ve stabilized the situation, and Karzai’s still a corrupt idiot, we’re leaving now.”)
For many liberals, Obama remains the ultimate blank slate, upon which they can project whatever they hope for.