Rarely do I compose a pure op-ed, as I’m doing here. Consider this one a “Mata vents!” moment. Comments or mass readership? I crave none of these save the grateful release of putting some thoughts and reactions to paper… er keyboard.
So take a pass if you wish, I shall not be offended. But I thought I’d add to Curt’s perspective of the Commander in Chief’s performance tonight at West Point. With somewhat of a twist… I’ve never seen a Commander in Chief so defensive.
That defense was not aimed so much as trying to calm the Afghans (most likely not tuned in with the lack of HD TV’s and satellite dishes), as it was trying to explain away his behavior to both our military, and to his own party. And to do that, Obama had to rewrite his own history back to pre-Congressional Senate days.
But first, let me say this. I applaud the POTUS for sending troops, and not just acquiescing to his Michael Moore extreme left base by picking up American troops and equipment, and bolting the Afghan sand box. This is the correct thing to do, and I’m glad he did so.
On the other hand, I don’t want to hear any more BS from those about “not enough troops” during the Bush era. Obama is indeed sending troops. He is not, however, sending the amount of troops his commander on the ground requested for the job. One may argue Bush did the same. However most of those who were recommending more troops in Iraq were not the Bush appointees, nor the prime generals heading up the ground war strategy. Either way, the “not enough troops” argument has been seriously neutralized by Obama’s current decision. Remember this date in time as the “gotcha” moment for the BDS sufferers.
This evening, there is no doubt Obama knew he was up against one tough room. There were no breaks every other line in the speech from adoring crowds, hanging on his every word and gesture. As the cameras scanned the crowds, expressions ranged from grim and focused to bored and sleepy. Applause bursts, only on a few select lines near the end, were half hearted and appeared – via camera views – to eminate mostly from the front rows filled with Obama’s hench men and women.
And I’m proud our West Point cadets gave a standing ovation for the Commander in Chief…. whether his speech was impressive and inspiring or not. He is… whether adored personally as Bush was, or not… still the Commander in Chief. Even if the man does not deserve our adoration, the position of commander of our military demands our respect.
This eve was a different man… gone was the attempt to exude charm, razzle dazzle with what some consider an extraordinary oratory skill to inspire hope and excitement. This evening, this man did not accomplish rallying the troops… or, I daresay, the nation. Instead the face of this POTUS was stern, nay defiant, thru most of the very long oratory.
As is usual when Presidents speak – including Dubya – I long to scream at the TV. That act, today, could garnish Congressional censorship were I there in person. But unlike Dubya – who’s guilty of bad presentation of vital facts that would have strengthened support for his decisions – I wanted to scream at this unbelievable self-focus by Obama during this speech, and his distorted vision of recent history. The opening minutes of this speech were first defending himself against the “dithering” charge.
This was not only a waste of time, but set the tone for the rest of the schpiel. “Get to the point”, I wanted to say. We don’t care about how you feel about these decisions to command an army at war… no more than you cared about how Bush felt, shouldering these same responsibilities. At least Bush spared us lengthy speeches about psuedo-emotions, meant to qualify those decisions.
After getting thru Obama’s opening excuses… we get to whatever heart of the matter is there. Which was, essentially, nothing. In short… what Obama proposed as a “new strategy” differs little from Bush in Iraq. Obama’s “new strategy”, in fact, differs little from his “old strategy” in March. Indeed tonight’s speech incorporates much of the same phrasing and points of his “new/old strategy” speech in March.
But, of course, if you’re Keith Olbermann, it was nothing short of revolutionary in military leadership. To the ” former sports jock turned twisted political-socio talking head, all you need to do is say that you’re sending in troops… and as of this date you’re withdrawing those troops. Voila… magically you are no longer the war President and cut a different figure in the long history of Commander in Chiefs.
Easy mark, Olbermann is. I guess he chose to miss that dictated-by-events-on-the-ground caveat that the left so love to hate. And I’m not sure that telling your opponent that you’ll play the game until x date before picking up your marbles and leaving is such smart strategy. But let’s not mess up the moment with details and facts, eh?
I will say in this case, I tend to believe Keith has room to be celebrating. Obama – a man apparently clueless to anything in military theatre strategy – has thus far shown his willingness to cut his losses when his political butt hangs in the breeze INRE military/foreign policy matters. But there’s much this eve that is very disconcerting to me. And not the least of them is this penchant for making every situation about “me”… Obama… historically the first African American President, just in case you forgot.
Some of the points that borderlined on eliciting hysterical laughter from me, were they not so downright political self-serving in nature:
Obama Dec 1: 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.
~~~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.
When talking about America’s successes under the prior administration, there is always a “but” that accompanies any Obama nod of approval of this now-defunction WOT. But it’s even more interesting that this Commander in Chief only evokes the int’l NATO effort (the “not America’s war” slogan he’s taken on) only in context of his own reign of power for political convenience.
Afghanistan was always a int’l coalition/NATO effort. And in fact, NATO began taking charge of the security of Afghanistan early after our initial arrival, and had complete control of all territories by summer of 2006. Yet, in Obama’s somewhat self-serving vision, it’s “not just America’s war” today, but back then it’s all America’s war and fault.
You simply cannot have it both ways. It’s been NATO then, and NATO now. But this fact is left out as yet another “me” moment… a way to elevate and redeem himself in front of the military he commands.
Point two… AQ and the Taliban did not suddenly immigate to Pakistan after the US/NATO war. The Taliban was created by Bhutto’s Pakistan regime, and the Taliban/AQ and similar minded extremists in Pakistan shared common goals and battles… despite what name they called themselves that day. The fact that Obama knows little of the history of Islamic jihad movements in this region of the world is embarrassing enough. For him to tout this ignorance to the world… most better educated than the POTUS himself to history… is nothing short of breathtaking naivety. To assume that jihad presence in either Afghanistan or Pakistan commenced with the US/NATO presence in that region is akin to modern astronomers insisting the earth is the center of the universe
Point three… Obama is not some magic man coming to the rescue with the troops for Afghanistan. This increased troop request has been considered and debated since it started back in 2006. And, in fact, it was a bone of contention to increase the US footprint of the NATO mission instead of demanding that the NATO allies step up their own support. This was the quest of both Bush… who did add more troops (much to the chagrin of Obama and ilk)… and McCain. Both of then advocated holding NATO’s feet to the fire while keeping a watchful eye on the theatre’s events.
Yet look back at history. What were the chances of getting a Dem controlled Congress – as of Jan 2007 and at the height of Afghanistans deterioration – to commit to more troops? Most especially since what they craved was utter failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan. War theatres’ failures were electoral victories dancing in their heads. Obama… already announcing his leap for power… was among those who would have been reticient to support troops if he wanted the party nomination.
To insinuate troops not being provided in that time period was an ignored request which only he… a knight on white horse… dares to fulfill… is simply rewriting of history. Where was his voice rising above his party in those days?
In fact Obama has become so good at rewriting history… most especially his own… it may behoove this Commander in Chief to remember that it was a Candidate Obama who insisted we could get NATO to step up to the plate only last July to supply those same troops. This was after his first tumultuous steps as a Jr. Senator in 2006 where he thought the US should first increase their forces…. until he figured out that putting a US face on that int’l force wasn’t such a bright idea after all.
Thus the self-portrayal to these young cadets and a WH cast of thousands (appointees) of himself as a knight on white horse – complete with the accompanying manure – is suffocatingly hard to endure.
But what about that adding troops bit… especially in light of the “dithering” accusations?
Obama Dec 1: 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.
“… never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010…”. I’m not sure if that is arrogantly dismissing McChrystal’s August requests. But let’s let that go for a moment and discover what differences this elongated “review” has culminated in, contrasting with his March “new strategy”.
Obama Mar 27, 2009: I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.
At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan Security Forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.
For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. Those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 – and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.
Today is a “new strategy”? Hard pressed to tell. Not only does it contain the predictable “blame Bush” language, it sniffs suspiciously of the March strategy, which sniffed suspiciously of the Iraq Surge strategy. In fact, tonight’s the CinC’s three prong approach was less specific, and more philosophical in nature than his more substantive March strategy speech.
But we do know he again stresses training Afghans to secure themselves…. and that progress is subject to events on the ground. And this differs from Bush’s Iraq policy how?
In fact, when one compares the Obama “new” strategy vs Obama’s “old in March”, tonight’s speech seems filled with empty, repetative phrasing, with a few rah rah patriotic phrases thrown in that the troops could actually feel comfortable applauding.
Obama is not only on the defensive in front of his military audience, he has to go on the defensive with his own party base.
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.
Cool your jets, Obama. Teddy “this is another Vietnam” Kennedy is resting comfortably at Arlington in the company of genuine heroes. But it’s a stretch to say Afghanistan was the source of the 911 attacks merely to differentiate a Bush’ian point of view dripping from the lips of Obama… his political nemesis. Technically we were attacked by Islamic jihad who were housed in all parts of the world… including those training on our own soil in the years before.
Nor was it the brutal, merciless Taliban – in charge of Afghanistan – who attacked the US. It just so happened that the AQ heads were given the nod to hang out in that dust bowl after wearing out their welcome in other digs. And they did so, ultimately, much to the Taliban’s chagrin… who witnessed their own historic fall from power predicated by fellow jihad brethen.
I say this not because I don’t support the entry into Afghanistan, and taking out the Taliban. Quite the contrary. But I find it so disingenuous for Obama to evoke 911 in this fashion, and ignore the tenacles of jihad that stretch virtually to all points of the middle east and western world. Indeed, Obama remained very defined in his Afghanistan battle… AQ is the sole named enemy. The Taliban merely are in his way to that enemy.
This continued malfunctioning definition of an enemy will be the death of us all. The enemy is not merely al Qaeda. The enemy is the global Islamic jihad movement, bent on forcing all Muslim apostate leaders and countries, and eventually the west, to succumb to their archaic interpretation of the Koran.
The last rewriting of history, and dichotomy of this POTUS, comes with his – again – touting of imagined accomplishments. And in this instance, it’s two fold: First, some sort of fantasy that Obama’s presidency has resulted in altered international relations. And the second, even more offensive, is that we… the US.. have somehow become more “humane” with his presidency.
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.
If one looks around, Iran is only more emboldened. N. Korea is less contained. Hamas and Hezbollah restlessly rearing as stallions onto the scent of a mare. This POTUS most certainly has reached out to the Muslim despots, and refuses to see his hand slapped like a disobedient and precocious child.
As for our allies, one would hope it’s impossible for a single President to destroy long term relationships with our traditional western allies such as the UK, Australia and Israel. Instead, there is almost a condescending amusement at the gaffs of this President diplomatically, combined with an undercurrent of anticipation. They see in this POTUS a status equalization… a leader who feels the US should be humbled, and thereby removed from superpower status to an equal on the international stage. Any decline in US power elevates others to a higher plateau.
The last comments about “living our values”, however, I found the most offensive of all. This nation has always been humane, generous and giving. We never lost it when we defended ourselves in past wars, and we never lost it when dealing with underhanded Islamic jihad thugs who played by no rules.
Bush, and every President before him prohibited torture. For the purposes of politics and power, what is “torture” has been redefined, scrutinized, and exploited in a world of instant news and an atmosphere fostering the death of a “need to know” mentality.
All in all, I consider this speech another “all about me” moment for Obama. Lacking substance in detail, incohesive, and falling far short of what our commanders on the ground expect, he spend quite a lot of air time defending himself instead of talking about defense of the nation. I expected no less from this embarrassment of an Oval Office occupant.
But I will rejoice in the small things…. there will be some calvary on the way. Not enough to do the job as easily, but then our military doesn’t need require “easy” for victory. And it is in them… not this single term, self-puffed up wonder… that our future lies.
So hear hear to the POTUS. Thank you for at least sending some, and for attempting to stand up to your own party. May you be rewarded for those efforts by, over time, inheriting some of the courage and convictions of those you command.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
President Obama has relented and given the order to deploy more troops. The number is not as important as how they are used and that remains to be seen, particularly with regard to rules of engagement and in coordination with ISAF/NATO troops. We shall see.
The one thing I think can be said with some degree of certainty is that it won’t matter how many troops are put on the ground unless Pakistan can gain control over the safe havens within the northern autonomous tribal areas. If Obama had 200,000 troops to send and the means to sustain them in Afghanistan, the Taliban would go to ground in Pakistan until the troops were withdrawn. Both al Qaeda and the Taliban must be kept under constant pressure inside Pakistan. This is a challenge Obama could meet with discreet diplomacy directed at key figures in Pakistan in order to support his overt military effort. I should add here that Obama’s tentative time line for removing troops 18 months from now is fool hardy and makes about as much sense as appointing a tax cheat to be Secretary of the Treasury. Quite frankly, I don’t think he can afford to stick with either.
We’ll see if he can make Afghanistan work. I hope he tries and succeeds but I really have the feeling that his speech at West Point was intended to maintain the support of his base during the health care debate. I worry that this was a half-hearted measure meant to buy time at home instead of a commitment to win what he once called a “war of necessity”. Again, we shall see.
It was hard not to notice that the speech Obama gave tonight lacked the certainty that was central to his campaign rhetoric about Afghanistan. But I think he has come to a crossroad and has decided that he can no longer afford to ignore his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief. Once those troops are on the ground and the winter weather has given way, we’ll see how Obama reacts to the inevitable rise in casualties as the tempo of the war increases.
Remember that few plans, if any, remain unchanged once contact with the enemy is made. He will almost certainly be pressed for more resources once again, the “pledges” from “allies” will not be made good in each case, and his fortitude will be tested. I do believe that his failure or success in Afghanistan will define him more so than any of this social programs. I hope he can see that.
tfhr, you said:
ala what we did with Musharraf? The same Musharraf demonized by the Dem party and their puppet media? Musharraf whom Obama described as “… a dictator in Pakistan who failed to serve the interests of his own people…”? I think it’s a great idea. But will be hard to justify setting up another Musharraf, considering their prominant assault on the now ostracized Pak leader.
Totally agree… thus why I said Olbermann probably has much to celebrate. Obama will cave in the face of difficult military victories and the subsequent nation building in it’s wake. Iraq would not be where it is today had we listened to Obama and his party in 2006, 2007, 2008…. etal
However I may agree to disagree that Obama’s ultimate legacy of failure will come from Afghanistan. To destroy this nation economically will live vividly in the minds of posterity. This backyard failure will outstrip a loss in a nation so distant, and who also proved to be impossible to tame by even the mighty Russian forces.
That was fookin great!
I predict Olberman will now title him, The greatest military mind evah! (No matter what he proposed) CodePink will have the vapors, and the military thinking they’ve just been sent on a sabotaged mission.
I love “Mata vents”. It should be its own category, and “let’s have more Mata Vents, please”.
Spot on in regards to the historical revisionism. It crafts the narrative of the war(s) in his favor, keeping those who don’t know any better, in the dark in regards to the actual historical record (which you shine light on).
It irks me to no end each time he makes inane statements like “the military alone can’t solve the problem”. Duh! I see it as another one of those sly subliminal/overt slams at the previous administration, as if the military option was the only option vigorously and solely pursued.
President Obama must be the king of strawman statements.
We will have an exit date of 18 months? Why not just say, “I officially declare we give up, and in 18 months Afghanistan will become Vietnam 2”?
Obama = fail
Great observations. . .Well written.
He missed an opportunity to inspire the nation. He made the speech about himself…once again. . .along with try to please everyone. . .wage the war and let’s leave. Definitely not Lincolnesque!
I also detected him more reading than speaking tonight. . .almost like he was not convicted in what he was saying. Sounded like his Saturday morning broadcasts where some weeks he delivers as more of a speech reader than giver.
Tonight’s speech. .definitely not infused with his usual rhythmic pattern of speech and overused verbal punctuations.
Although, I thank him for sending the extra troops — he is still tying the military’s hands with all the PC red tape — making it harder and less safe for our troops to wage the war and bring it to a successful conclusion.
Great vent Mata!
“On the other hand, I don’t want to hear any more BS from those about ‘not enough troops’ during the Bush era.”
Mata, I have a question: why it is “BS” to point out the obvious: we did not have enough troops there during the Bush years? If we did have enough troops, the Taliban would not have regrouped and strengthened the way they did, now would they?
This is where we were in June 2008. We had 32,000 troops on the ground, NATO had another 14,000, and Obama had not yet been named the Dem nominee:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/27/afghan.fighting/index.html
Quote:
“The Taliban is likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008,” the report said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that one of the reasons for the increase was that more people are “coming across the border from the frontier area [of Pakistan].” Gates said he hoped a newly announced Pakistani effort to clamp down on Islamic militants in the country’s northwestern tribal districts would improve the situation in Afghanistan.
“The ability of the Taliban and other insurgents to cross that border and not being under any pressure from the Pakistani side of the border is clearly a concern,” Gates said.
* * * * *
So, in essence, there were about 46,000 coalition forces on the ground in June 2008. We now have 68,000 American soldiers (after Obama added 14,000 earlier this year), with another 34,000 to be added. In other words, the US commitment will go from 32,000 in June 2008 (seven years after the war started) to 102,000 by the end of the Obama escalation. If you have to more than TRIPLE THE TROOP COMMITMENT to do the job, then you did not have enough troops in the first place!
When conservatives refuse to admit the obvious (that Bush/Cheney mismanaged Afghanistan), you lose credibility. It’s like Bush after Katrina, praising Brownie for doing “a heck of a job” as the facts on the ground belie his incompetence. It is not “BS” to say there were not enough troops when the Pentagon tells you “Hey, we need more troops!!”
@ braininahat —
Your handle explains why you got this wrong. Have you ever heard of “Augustine’s Rule”? It is named after Norman Augustine, an engineer who headed a defense contractor. The Rule states:
“The time to complete a task expands to the amount of time permitted to complete it.” In other words, no matter where you set the deadline, that is how long it will take to complete the task. We tried the entire “no deadline” approach in Afghanistan under Bush/Cheney . . . how’d that work out so far?
The reason Obama wiped out McCain, and did it by winning military heavy former Red States like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, was his pledge to change things from the Bush approach. If we wanted to have a GOP conservative approach to Afghanistan, we would have had a “President McCain”, now wouldn’t we? Obama is the commander in chief, entrusted to make these decisions because . . . well, no one was comfortable with a President McCain, a VP Palin chirping in with “I can see Afghanistan from my house at the Naval Observatory”, or the likes of nutcase John Bolton calling the shots.
Indeed, I think the main reason there is so much anger at Obama from the right on this is because of the obvious — he said back in 2007 that there were not enough troops in Afghanistan (back when we had about 28,000 men there), the military told him in 2009 that we need over 100,000 men there, and now he is actually going to SOLVE THE PROBLEM that Bushie mismanagement created. And it frosts conservatives like hell to see Obama solve another problem that they ducked.
B-Rob – I think that you might be forgetting the fact that we were not allowed to send troops across the border into Pakistan, plus some of the terrorists fighting now in Afghanistan have come over from Iraq. The bad guys reconstituted in Pakistan. You make some valid points, but I feel you ought to rethink a bit.
Anyway, my original point in commenting here was to say, “great job, Mata” – your analysis is wonderful – I couldn’t agree more.
obama has got to be the epitome of the most condescending – it’s-all-about-me – progressive I have ever seen. He makes me ill when he re-writes history to his own purpose and then expects the populace to blindly believe him – he really does believe that we are all stupid or ignorant. He is nothing short of an embarrassment and disaster as a leader of our country and the free world.
B-Rob…FU and Your rant.
Cleaning my rifle and Punks like You are Safe only because Real Americans ignore You.
Nuff Said.
Well said ThomNJ, thank you!
@B-Rob:
I’ll pile on with ThomNJ regarding your comment: “…we did not have enough troops there during the Bush years? If we did have enough troops, the Taliban would not have regrouped and strengthened the way they did, now would they?”
The Taliban did not reconstitute in Afghanistan, B-Rob. The northern autonomous territories in Pakistan have provided the Taliban with a safe haven. That has been a problem all along and until it is addressed effectively the Taliban and al Qaeda will simply wait out any troop build up that threatens operations in Afghanistan, mount harassment attacks, and wait for the day to return in mass.
Attempting to distill this down to some sort of partisan political debate is pointless and even damaging. The war is on and America finally awoke to that fact on 9-11. It isn’t a war in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a global war against an enemy that does not negotiate or tolerate those that do not share their narrow view of the world. We’ve been confronted with this reality since at least 1979. What had been lacking until eight years ago was the recognition that we were in the fight of our lives. I still don’t believe enough Americans realize this and consequently we can still see that our politicians feel they can introduce half measures in the conduct of the war while they turn their full attention to domestic politics.
@MataHarley:
Failing in Afghanistan will ultimately threaten Pakistan with collapse. Pakistan has nukes. We also have the Iranians on the verge of becoming a hostile nuclear power. Afghanistan is wedged between these two lunatic asylums and a collapse there will only encourage Iran to hasten it’s bid to expand it’s influence beyond that which it already abuses as a regional power and exporter of terrorism. Looking at the time table that Obama has artificially introduced along with the troop increase and comparing that with some of the predictions regarding Iran’s progress with developing nuclear weapons visa vis Israel leads me to believe that both Afghanistan and Iran, pardon the pun, may reach critical mass around the same time. If the lid comes off of Afghanistan, Obama will have even less influence than he has now with regard to Iran. I would liken it to having your brakes fail on a steep, steep grade.
I do believe that Obama’s domestic political gambits are dishonest and deliberately damaging schemes that seek two goals above all others – the primacy of his political party in the short term and the long term advancement of socialism. I think he will fail. The potential for great harm is undeniable but I do believe it can be stopped and reversed. Most of us that comment here in these threads have been around long enough to see the pendulum swing back and forth across the political spectrum and while this is farthest I’ve seen it tilt to the left in my life, I fully expect a correction that will resemble the backlash inspired by Jimmy Carter.
After all, this is Jimmy Carter’s second term, in my opinion, and the issues that first arose during his original tenure, namely Iran’s revolution and Afghanistan’s descent into Islam’s hell, have now festered to the point that America can no longer ignore them. I look forward to seeing less and less of Barack Obama’s face on magazine covers but the fight that his ahead will be grim even if Pakistan’s government can be made to carry on an effective fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda.
I won’t dare use the term “tar baby” but now that Obama has signed off on an increase in troop strength, he is going to either win or lose. He cannot walk away from the fight despite the unseemly suggestion that many on the left believe that it is still possible to do so.
Now let’s see.
This is our strategy. We’re gonna’ send over 30,000 more troops into the Afgan conflict. Then in 18 months we’re gonna’ surrender and run home with our national tails between our legs. But, best of all, we’re gonna’ tell the enemy our plans at the inception. Man, what a piece of military genius! I suppose that’s gonna’ lull the Taliban into a false sense of security until we drop the big one on ’em, Hillary.
braininahat, I agree. As a 69 year old with 22 years military service this was a first for me. The CIC joins the battle and surrenders in the same speech. Now they can issue our soldiers one round of ammo and three white flags. Bring back Dimmy Carter. Iran isn’t the only nation ran, down the tube, by a freakin idiot. I’ll be damned if I’d serve one day under the fool. Go AWOL, refuse to deploy, it’s better than getting shot ,by the numbers, in the CIC’s plan. What’s was it they called it when you line up the troops and shoot every 10th man, decimated?
Bless you, Mata for sitting through that interminable drivel. Anbd, thank you for your insight – well said! It’s to the point whnever Mickey Big-Ears comes on, I either hit the mute button or change channels – even a test pattern has more information!
He didn’t just go to West Point, he went to the “Enemy camp”.
And you Libs wonder why we hate your freakin guts, consider you insane, traitorous, and ignorant of all things military.
Waiting for liberal outrage at this disgusting comment by Mathews in 3.2.1…
Oh wait. It’ll never come. Deep down, they all agree.
Wow…. actually surprised anyone pounded thru this lengthy rant! As I said, sometimes venting the steam is just a mental release, and I thank you all for reading and commenting. It was above and beyond the call of blog’dom. LOL
b-rob:
Still sticking with the story that it’s a US managed war and not a NATO war, eh? Well, when the brain cell is surrounded with mortar walls, there’s no blasting thru with reality without some serious fire power. You are, and remain, a veritable bottomless pit of revisionist history talking points.
Again you are willing to make Afghanistan a US/Bush war under the last administration, and blindly accept Obama’s “it’s not America’s war” under this regime. I will say again, you cannot have it both ways.
Nor are you informed on the morphing factions of “Taliban”. Are you aware of the original Omar Taliban and the “new” Taliban? Probably not. Are you educated enough to know each factions’ attitudes towards AQ? Which becomes even more interesting because you probably haven’t a clue as to which of these factions was gaining the upper hand, the different quests and goals for each, and with whom they allied. But that’s another story.
Let me point out… yet again… NATO has had full charge of security of Afghanistan since summer of 2006. NATO determines military strategy by committees and panels, and utilizes ROE’s that my granddaughter would find embarrassingly imbecile. NATO is, and has always been, a joke of a fighting force. Personally I wish Afghanistan *had* been a US operation with coalition because we wouldn’t be where we are now if we were.
But no… it’s people from your party who insist we do everything as an int’l community. Perhaps you’ll point out any stellar successes and accomplishments of NATO and the UNSC and their worthless chits called resolutions? However for you to take NATO’s failures, and blame them on the US, in indicative of your political bias and hatred for this country.
Obama has been campaigning since the beginning of 2007. Named a nominee or not, he was not about to buck his party’s anti-war ‘tudes and base by escalating wars. Somehow I missed his loud voice insisting we add more troops for a surge during that time. Probably because he was too busy with his cohorts to quash the Iraq Surge.
In fact, the disingenuous, self-serving POTUS-wannabe changed his tune from “add more troops” from when he walked the the Senate chamber doors as a newbie, to “get NATO to add more troops”. Why… again I say… to insure it was not a US face on a NATO mission. Even Obama’s promises he could cojole the allies into more active participation was a flat on his mug failure. This is, apparently, difficult for you to understand.
Now, Bush did send more troops after repeated attempts to get NATO allies to step up to the plate. Hear much applause from your progressive side for that? The Dems have held full power in both chambers since Jan 2007. Somehow I missed their voices crying loudly that we should be sending more troops.
Instead they wildly danced on the hopes that both Iraq would fail (which it didn’t in spite of their efforts to insure that failure), and that Afghanistan – the “Bush” war then and today the “NATO” war – would worsen so they could fool voters like you with false promises of withdrawal. It was merely a ploy for political power, and you fell for it hook-line-sinker.
I will not mince words. To play with national security for political power is beyond despicable.
So now you want to play the “not enough troops” game… right on the heels of your hero NOT SENDING ENOUGH TROOPS. Chutzpah. That shit misses the fan on this site, with our more educated FA community.
There’s a big difference for the “not enough troops” between Obama and Bush. Bush’s direct commanders of the Iraq strategy (NOT the NATO strategy as that’s a NATO call) gave him their recommendations, and that’s what advice he chose to take.
On the flip Obama’s chosen commander on the ground gave him his advice, and Obama chose to listen to other voices instead…. most of them focusing less on victory and more on political repercussions. To ignore your chosen commander’s advice, who breathes the dust daily with the troops, in order to listen to Axelrod and Rahm’bo’s whispers instead, you’re a political animal… not a commander in chief.
But then, when you’re draining your political capital at untold speeds, and playing a risk all game for the domestic restructuring of America, there’s a careful balancing act required for media consumption. Last night was a free airtime opportunity to sing his own imaginary accomplishments…. a fence walking circus act for self promotion – all for media consumption.
I’d say go blow your off-tuned sheep’s horn of revisionist talking points over at Huffpo or KOs, where you’ll be appreciated for your witless devotion to a distorted view of recent current events.
~~~
Absolutely agree, tfhr. Failure in Afghanistan is not an option… just as failure in Iraq was not an option. Without Musharraf bucking his own, giving tacit nods to questionable American aggression on Pakistan soil or joint raids, we are subject to the corruption of the current regime there. They’ve tried multiple truces with the jihad movements since the 90s… all a failure. They only have increasing aggression, even more corruption within the gov, intel and army ranks, and terror assaults to show for their efforts.
At some point, they are going to have to bite the bullet and start working as a more dependable ally with the western world if they want to maintain their own form of government, and not become yet another Sharia law dominated Muslim nation. Until they make that decision… ally with the hated west, or succumb to terrorist rule… we are caught between a rock and a hard place. And we no longer have a Musharraf to aid us in the cause under the surface.
But Afghanistan is a whole different ball of wax than Iraq. Clear and hold will ultimately prove to be fruitless until a nation building endeavor happens to give villages and tribes a reason to unite under a central government. Right now Kabul provides nothing to the remote regions… no infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etal. They have no reason to be loyal to Kabul. Their survival depends on local leadership alone. And without security, what few natural resources they have to exploit will remain untapped. No civilian businesses will come into that nation and operate under terrorist threats constantly.
Obama is against nation building. But without nation building, the military endeavors and all the “diplomacy” in the world will still fail. The tribes will return to being ruled by who has the largest weaponry and ammo caches in their villages. And they will still live in 3rd world poverty.
I agree, Mata, about the applause. It almost seemed to me they were given flash cards to applause toward the end what, two times besides the very end? It looked very stiff at best. I would add another facial expression I saw on their faces, though. I saw grimness, yes, but also fear of what this CIC was going to do (or not do) for them to be safe. Maybe I read my own emotions into it, don’t know.
And, if I have to hear him say “Pawkeestawn” for 3 more years I may have to stop listening to him–which is not an easy thing to do in and of itself, but a necessary chore if I want to know how my country will be affected by this president’s decisions.
BTW, does anyone wonder if the 30K more troops are going in as NATO types, or joining the few thousand that actually are under US command?
i.e….. who gets to set the ROEs for these additional troops?
ick, Patvann… you soiled my thread by evoking the name of Chris Matthews???
Shower needed…. badly… now.
Mata, excellent as usual, read every word, every link. How you manage to remember everything is amazing!
About those “sleepy” cadets. It was mentioned this morning that a mom called FOX to tell them the cadets were seated at 4 pm and had to wait in their seats until the speech. Then, Spiegel Online had this to say:
and then they get nasty:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html
It irritated Rummy enough to come out of a three year self imposed silence:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/rumsfeld_responds.asp
And, a few more reviews:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/12/almost_everyone_hated_obamas_a.html#ixzz0YZ41ywXK
Some interesting links there, Ms. Missy… as usual. And thank you for your kind words. But then my pointing out this was just another exercise in O’narcissism is hardly a revelation, eh? I think what affected me the most was his stiff and angry/defiant demeanor in front of our military. Apparently community organizer (who’s job is to spread discontent) is a better niche for him than head cheerleader (who’s task it to rally support and inspire)….
Rummie’s response is correct. There was no request for troops up to 2006. After the summer fait accompli of the NATO/ISAF assumption of security over the most remote regions, leaving only 8-10K troops operating from the DOD’s deployed still under US command and the rest under NATO’s ROE nanny control.
As for subsequent troop requests, they were focused on forcing NATO’s feet to the fire, as I was posting on my old Sea2Sea site back in Sept 2006. This battle with NATO countries ignoring the call continued on thru 2008. And as I pointed out to billy bob, there were no Dem Congress members demanding Afghanistan escalation making headlines. Least of all Mr. Ambitious-with-no-experience.
Stephen Haye’s comments linked in your same Weekly Standard blog link are even more interesting, as they well document this non-existant request for troops that was ignored…
Another interesting review of history was Hayes’ reporting on this “Obama review” which is basically a reconstruction of the Bush review.
But then, they can’t expose both assessments without revealing that they haven’t an original thought on Afghanistan, and that they are coming to the same conclusions as the Bush admin, can they?
Lies lies and more lies. And all for what? To keep Obama elevated on some glass pedestal in the media’s eyes… thereby continuing to keep the rose colored glasses on the nation’s citizenry.
oops… our vision is improving daily. May not need those 60s bifocals anymore.
BTW… another little walk back thru the clouds of history for billy rob… That 30K number? Not even Obama’s idea, but a carry over from the previous admin’s strategy. From Jan of this year, while the Big Zero was still recovering from his Inaugural galas: “Obama seems unlikely to widen war in Afghanistan”
BTW… listening to Gates and his expectations in Afghanistan, I can understand why Obama kept him around. What a mealy mouthed loser…. as he proved himself to be today in the Senate hearings up against McCain. This weasel quality makes him a good fit for the Zero admin… which then makes me scratch my head about why Bush attempted to appoint him in 2005 after Rummie, and eventually got in the following year. Never liked the guy…
Thanks Mata, excellent analysis.
n.b.:
1. The courtesies demonstrated by the Corp of Cadets would have been the same for any guest speaker or dignitary, or else
2. Any comparison to Vietnam can only be valid if posed around a scenario including failure of the U.S. Government’s leadership and a lack of political backbone therein that was paid for in lives, and not only American lives. Reflect for a moment on the sickening photos from 1975 of the “evacuation” of Saigon, the state of southeast Asia when we left, and the deaths thereafter.
3. The enemy gets a vote about when you can leave the battlefield
@MataHarley:
I almost forgot about Gen. Lutz’s task. It was Jim Jones that asked that it be kept quiet and, Obama also kept Lutz in the fold. None of this was revealed until Rahmbo was out squeaking on the Sunday shows about how the right questions were never asked when defending the dithering. Mean old Cheney spoke truth to power and as usual Cheney became the story instead of lies this administration were foisting upon the public.
I think it was said Bush picked Gates for another one of those easy confirmations that were so necessary at that time.
@ MataHarley —
I have a simple question that will tell me everything I need to know about you and partisanship —
Do you think Bush did a good job in Afghanistan?
No, I don’t mean just the initial invasion. I mean the whole thing, from 2001 to January 2009, when he left office. What grade would you give him?
And do you think there were enough troops?
Face facts — if we had had enough troops during the last seven years, we would not be needing to TRIPLE THE US FORCE over the last two years. That’s right . . from 32,000 up to about 100,000 when Obama gets finished.
The commentary on this board exposes exactly why the American people (the real THINKING American people) lost all trust in the GOP and its ilk. There is much name calling but absolutely no introspection. Sad what the movement Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley began has devolved to . . . .
My… “everything you need to know” about me? How omnipotent of you, billy bob. Quick, he says… does two and two equal 5, or 3 and a half? Tell me your answer, and I know all about you… LOL
Ah if but the world truly functioned in your black/white simple mentality.
I think Bush’s major Afghanistan mistake was to acquiesce to the liberal progressive mentality… i.e. you… and let NATO get anywhere near Afghanistan. That’s my largest beef. I never wanted… nor ever want in the future… an int’l force to take charge because they’ve a history of being proven failures.
From 2001-summer 2006, there were ample NATO troops and a small contingent of US troops under the DOD/OIF command. The problems that lead to the increasing jihad problems were not with troop numbers, but because there was no reason to have national loyalty to a central government in Kabul that didn’t do squat for the outlying tribal areas. Does this sink in for you yet? Bad guys gone, but why be loyal to Kabul… so far away… when all your local services and benefits came from the guy with the biggest guns and ammo stash in the village. They provide cash for poppies for food. They provide protection. They also install Sharia law and terrorize the town. Where’s Kabul? What can they do? Come in… kill them again, and wander away. No schools, no roads, no jobs, no infrastruction like roads/power/fresh water. No hospitals. And definitely no protection.
Bottom line in Afghanistan… who needs Kabul outside of Kabul’s city limits? No one. The big zero’s major flaw. There is no victory without first… security. Can’t get the central govt making cash and exploiting their few resources if no civilian business will set foot inside the country since their contractors will be beheaded or kidnapped.
Second…. infrastructure and a reason for supporting a central government. Don’t know what you hot shot lawyers call it, but we dumb citizen types call that nation building and reconstruction. Some private and some govt funds, assuming mining natural resources and businesses/manufacturing will commence. In other words, we have the heart and caring to want to bring Afghanistan into the 20th Century, even tho we are well into the 21st.
After 2006… despite beating back the bad guys, it steadily degraded from there with NATO’s ROE. They couldn’t secure it. Troops or not, Afghans trained in security or not. You can’t live there in squalor with the rest of the inhabitants and just be security. There needs to be economic growth. In other words, not only was Kabul useless as a central government, NATO ROE were a pile of manure for security.
So the tribes/villages got security… from the village thugs and jihadis. They used the poppies cash crops for food, and the jihadis got their baby caliphates.
With the demise of security, there was a need for more NATO troops… repeated requests of which the allies simply ignored, or refused. To increase the US footprint merely put an “empire US” face on the “int’l” force. And within mere months of the security decline, the Dems owned both chambers of Congress. Did you hear your buds cry for more troops? Did you hear your hero zero POTUS demand more troops? Of course not. What were the chances of Bush getting significantly more than the 7000 he *did* put in without your incessant whining? And as the Pentagon defense spokesman I noted above from Missy’s links firmly stated, we had the troops to send… even with the Iraq surge ongoing.
Answer? Zip… nada.
Was that Bush’s fault? Nope. NATO war, NATO troops, and a whiny Dem Congress who didn’t want to escalate jack shit…. Afghanistan *or* Iraq. It behooved them to incite failure for political expediency. Afterall, an election was around the corner, and they had a good chance, after fostering years of hatred for Dubya since 2004, for a clean sweep at power.
Would I have appreciated if Bush had simply made it a US mission without int’l acquiescence at that point? Absolutely not. And listen to your types whine even more about Bush’s “empire”? Nope… let NATO reap what they did not sow. Let Congress take the heat for their double speak. They were thrilled to see deterioration in Afghanistan. They convinced you, and others, that it was a US war, not a NATO war… and you bought that line with all the “hope” and “change” you could muster. They wanted power, so they fed you lies, and you handed them power. Congrats, oh “real thinking” American….
We can give the eunuch in chief credit that he’s now trying to re’educate you to the same reality all along.. that this is “not America’s war”… because it’s a NATO endeavor. How politically convenient for that instant change on inauguration day. feh
Frankly, I am not happy even today to see our troops head off to foreign soils to serve under any others’ command but US military leaders. You can take NATO and UN peacekeeper blue helmet types and keep them for some tough job… like maybe parade control. They are utterly worthless, and I resent our soldiers being ordered by others.
Love that “when Obama gets finished” bit… Guess you missed the fact that I posted above where the 30,000 is a Bush figure they were working on, and now taken into Obama’s admin as originally theirs. What a laugh…. Not an original thought in his head, eh? And too insecure (rightly so) to give credit to the previous admin officials who did their homework.
So bottom line… I have no beefs with Bush on Aghanistan. I do, however, have a beef with NATO on Afghanistan. And I have an even bigger beef with Congress… which you can claim as your own since Jan 2007. And that includes all the economic problems and spending that goes with it.
And I have a real beef with you and your tunnel vision focus on talking points instead of facts. Getting a bit testy about the eunuch in chief, are we? So shall we peg who is the “real thinking” American, and who is the partisan now?
Ya know what I have a beef with?
This feckless POS president.
I read and listened to his whole speech (bad as it was).
He set a “done” date, but gives himself an out with the “conditions” quip.
McCrystal is asked about this end date this morning, and he publicly swears the president has July 2011 as a goal, not an expiration date. Tells his co-commanders this also with the CNN TV crew in the tent in Afghanistan while he’s saying it….this morning.
The senior Republicans get this same response during hearings from Gates and Hillary…This morning.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/02/mccain-grills-gates-how-fixed-is-this-2011-timetable-for-withdrawal/
Baghdad Bob this morning wasn’t absolutely sure at this mornings presser….
But the president is a bold faced lying piece of garbage. The date is set in stone, and Baghdad Bob has the chisel. Baghdad says the Liar in-Chief told him this afternoon.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5868282.shtmlent.
Whatever Bush did or didn’t do in Afghanistan, he never told the enemy when to take back the territory gained, and never told them how long to rest-up before they do.
Letter to US Ambassador to Cambodia John Gunther Dean:
Think of “goal” as the goal line on a football field rather than the fund raising goal of the local charity bazaar. In the former case, if you do not meet your goal by the expiration of a given time, you have failed. Making the one yard line nets you nothing but a lot of expended effort. In the latter case, if your goal was $1000 and you raised $999, you did extremely well. The generals understand the former definition. I am not sure the CinC does.