« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Empty Sophistry, when directed at the War in Afghanistan, is still Empty Sophistry

Mission Accomplished - Just Don\'t Ask How.

Shortly after taking office in 2009, President Obama declared that a new strategy was forthcoming for the Afghan war.  Over six months later, after weeks and weeks and weeks of “thoughtful deliberation” (and a few dozen rounds of golf), Obama used an awkward 45-minute appearance at West Point to boldly announce…that he was going to implement what amounted to the same strategy that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates had prepared just before the January 20, 2009 change of command. Bold and cutting-edge, that.

Now, as America winds down its Iraq obligation and feckless NATO blunders about 10,000 feet over North Africa, the President has another Afghan announcement to make.  This one, though, is supposed to represent great news for the American people: the nearly ten-year war in Afghanistan (which may as well still be on the Dark Side of the Moon as far as many Americans are concerned) is ending, and we’re declaring ourselves the victors!

The details, as with every public pronouncement Barack Obama has made since he burst onto the national scene in 2004, are strikingly absent from this self-gratifying speech that Danielle Pletka has called “a campaign speech-cum-Hallmark card.”

For example, Obama declared: “Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. Thanks to our men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals.”  Just what those goals are, and how we are “meeting” them, isn’t important; all the American people need to know is that things are so great in Afghanistan that we’re declaring, and sticking to, a strict timetable for the withdrawal of every one of our troops.

Never mind the fact that, once Obama has accomplished the promised withdrawal of the first 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, there will still be more American service members deployed there than at any time during the Bush presidency.  Also never mind the fact that Afghanistan’s freedom and security post-US withdrawal appears to rely on a national defense force that can’t seem to work out its frustration in any other way than murdering western soldiers and civilians.  The important thing to know is, Obama says we’re “starting our drawdown from a position of strength,” and that “Al-Qaida is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11″ (an interesting assertion, given the pressure they were under immediately after 9/11, when the fury of the U.S. military was being unleashed on AQ’s safe haven and on those who had provided it to them).

As Pletka put it, this speech was:

a pablum-filled address that told the American people “we are fulflililng our commitment” (how?), “meeting our goals” (which ones?), “starting our drawdown from a position of strength” (in the East?), but “huge challenges remain” (duh).

The president spoke of the goal of denying safe haven to al Qaeda, but didn’t outline how that will be done in the provinces in which we have not yet begun to fight due to troop shortages. Rather, we are simply to “take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.” Apparently, “the light of secure peace can be seen in the distance.” Seriously, who writes this stuff?

Further, buried in the middle of the 2,000-word speech was the declaration that the “political settlement” which is necessary for “peace [to] come to a land which has known so much war” will include the Taliban.  Yes, that Taliban, in case you were wondering – the same al Qaeda-harboring terrorist organization that tyrannized Afghanistan and created a safe haven for international terrorists until we drove them from power after 9/11.

This naturally brings us to the question of just what the goal in Afghanistan was and is – a question to which the answer was clear nine-plus years ago, but which has gotten hazier and hazier as Americans have increasingly focused on other things, like the war in Iraq, the war in Libya, and the worst economy and president since (at least) Jimmy Carter.  If the goal in Afghanistan was to permanently remove the Taliban from power and to destroy the al Qaeda terror network – or at very least to render them impotent in Afghan and international affairs – then inviting the Taliban back to the table in an effort to extricate ourselves from a decade-long war is tantamount to declaring almost total defeat.

If, as has been said more recently, the goal was to “punish al Qaeda and the Taliban,” then that mission could have been declared accomplished by November 2001, and we all could have been spared the effort of, and the rhetoric which has accompanied, the Global War on Terror.  If, on the other hand, the goal was to permanently remove the Taliban from power, neuter or destroy al Qaeda, and leave behind an Afghanistan that was domestically stable, secure, and free of terrorists, and which wasn’t a threat to its own free people, to its neighbors, or to the rest of the world…well, how many more decades do you have to give?

Rather than address these questions head-on, of course, Obama declared tonight to be Arts and Crafts time and threw together a few of his favorite creations: Straw Men.  He said:

Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America’s engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America overextend ourselves, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.  We must chart a more centered course.

This “more centered course,” apparently, means more drone attacks on high-value targets around the world (“When threatened, we must respond with force — but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas”) and more “leading from behind” while we, the UN, and NATO make fools of ourselves in months-long air campaigns that fail to unseat a single tinpot dictator (“When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we are doing in Libya”).  Personally, I would like to have seen one of Obama’s straw men come to life and debate him over such a ridiculous statement.

At around the three-quarters mark of his speech, Obama suddenly made a pivot to domestic economics and “nation building here at home.”  This non sequitur seemed absurdly out of place in what was ostensibly a foreign policy speech (albeit one which was very light on the “policy” portion of that), and sends a fairly clear message that Obama simply lacks the capacity to focus on foreign and domestic affairs – particularly when caught up in the most important activity of all: campaigning for reelection.

As with the portion of his Afghanistan speech that actually dealt with Afghanistan, the portion of Obama’s Afghanistan speech that (inexplicably) dealt with the U.S. economy was vague, lacked specifics, and glossed over intricate yet important issues.  However, that which can be gleaned from his economic contents is an example of how rigidly ideological and truly tone-deaf this president is. His words:

Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource — our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war.

In other words, (1) the economy is Obama’s 9/11, and therefore the country should rally to his far-left economic policy as it did to the flag in the days after Taliban-harbored al Qaeda terrorists attacked the American homeland; and (2) the policy to which we should all rally is one of pure government investment in, and control over, innovation, production, infrastructure, and overall economic direction.  “Obama’s 9/11″ or no, that’s not a prospect that many people are going to be hopping on board with at this post-stimulus, over-9% unemployment time in America.

Whatever you do, though, don’t forget tonight’s declaration of success in a war whose purpose most Americans have long forgotten — just don’t ask how that success was achieved, how it’s being defined, or how long it can be expected to last.

COMMENTS

  • Bill S

    .

    • acat
      • acat

        While Obama may be declaring victory .. to me, words. Just words.

        We’ve not won Afghanistan.

        Mew

      • jlsankot

        Remember when he said he is not “comfortable” with that word?

        Wonder how long it’ll be before we are back in Afghanistan full force because this guy lets our enemies know exactly what the “plan” is.

        • edintexas

          We need the Emperor to come down to Gen. Petraeus and sign the surrender. Guess we might as well forget about “victory” in Afghanistan, there’s no Emperor. Oh, wait, that was Japan and WW II. Oh, wait again, it wasn’t the Emperor “coming down” to General MacArthur. Never mind.

  • Tbone

    whose pants now fit better.

    • Bill S
      • Tbone

        But, the bulls is a nice add.

  • Flagstaff

    In this case, it probably gives him too much credit. He said everything about leaving, but not what he planned to do before we leave.

  • rcatheart

    or does Obama always look extremely uncomfortable whenever he has to give a speech of a serious nature?

    You know how some people can’t get through a funeral without laughing, and if they have to give the eulogy, they have this sort of pained, “I’m extremely uncomfortable and I’m trying not to smile” look on their face? That’s how Obama looks to me during his “serious” speeches. Watch the very beginning and very end of these type of speeches – this one, the OBL one, SOTU, etc… You can see him visibly put his game face on, and then “relax” in “thank God that’s over” kind of way.

    I honestly think it’s because he knows – just like everyone else – that he’s way out of his league here. He can give a nice fancy schmancy campaign speech when everyone is fainting and getting tingles up their legs and no one really cares what he says. But give a serious address about a serious issue facing the nation, and he can’t do it because he honestly doesn’t “feel” serious, he doesn’t “get” the gravity of his job and these sorts of attendant responsibilities.

    I think he’d have the same look if the stock market dropped 1000 points one day or we had another 9/11 or somebody got assassinated. He just doesn’t “do” serious.

    It bothers me. You’re the President, now, dude. Of the United States. Not your high school class. Not your fraternity. President of the United freaking States. Pull it together, man!!!!

    • blooch

      He hid from General McChrystal for months in 2009, avoiding even a meeting with his top man in Afghanistan.

      The situation room for the bin Laden takedown was probably the closest Obama has ever been to a General, and the longest time he has ever spent in the same room with one. Look at that picture. He’s shriveled up like a vampire sitting by a sunny window.

      Obama knows what he’s doing is only good for him, and he doesn’t care. But he can feel the heat of contempt, and it burns him.

    • mspector

      Obama has built his political career on high-flown phrases and improbable visions of what could be. He is not a realist, not a pragmatist, not a problem-solver.

      He is now presented with a tidal wave of problems that demand realistic, pragmatic answers and he has nothing to offer. Stemwinding rhetoric fails in this type of situation.

      And so he proceeds on foreign policy, continuing to lead from behind, hoping against hope that events will create an escape hatch. On the domestic front he barges ahead through regulations and executive orders without heeding the economic realities and overriding altogether the demonstrated opposition of the majority of Congress and the American people to what he is doing.

      2012 is almost coming too late.

  • septembergurl

    same position as Lyndon Johnson in 1967/68. Having escalated a war begun by his predecessor (for entirely political reasons), Obama is caught between those who would like to win and those who would like to get out. His line — getting out AND winning — is not feasible.

    Let’s recall that when Obama entered the Presidency he inherited 1 1/2 wars — a succcessful war in Iraq that was just beginning to wind down, and a deteriorating war in Afghanistan. As I recall, Bush had agreed to a small escalation in Afghanistan (10,000 troops) as he was leaving office having (correctly in my view) resisted a troop increase. His general there, David McKiernan, had dragged his feet on escalation and was cashiered and replaced by MacChrystal. At this point, Obama convened a seminar which lasted several months while various issues were hashed out, at the end of which Obama concluded that abandoning his pledge to put more troops in Afghanistan would be more costly to him politically than escalating the war. In other words, it was a purely political decision, and the withdrawal timeline he imposed rendered the campaign and the war, unwinnable.

    So, having inherited 1 1/2 wars, Obama now stands, three years later, with the US fighting 4 wars — Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen. A war won by Bush, an unwinnable war, an illegal war, and a secret war. Add in the dramatically increased drone strikes against targets in Pakistan, our “ally”, and you have 4 1/2 wars.

    Obama, however, seems to think he can run for re-election as a peace candidate. This is clearly what he hopes to accomplish by pulling troops out of Afghanistan no matter what the situation on the ground.

    The truth is, however, that it doesn’t matter what Obama does. Whether he chose to stay the course, or escalate, or de-escalate — he will be held responsible for whatever the end of our involvement there is — almost certain to be very bad.

    The biggest irony in all this is that Obama’s best (maybe only) chance of re-election, given the craptastic economy, is to run as a War President, as Bush did in 2004. But, as we know, Obama is much too smart to figure that out.,

  • bcomber38

    The msm will allow no bad news about obama.They don’t question him about any of his bad decisions.How overt can you be without being embarased.

    • edintexas

      In order to really be embarrassed (as opposed to others thinking/saying you have been embarrassed), one has to have a conscience. The MSM will never be embarrassed.

  • jiminga

    of the speech and my reaction was….virtually every sentence was a lie, including “following the rule of law”. Thank God it was only a 15 minute speech because I almost lost my voice screaming at the TV.

    Empty sophistry, empty words, and just plain lies.

    • edintexas

      I know what my reaction would be (similar to yours), so I simply refuse to watch Dear Leader.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Never, and I mean never has a President of our great republic so poorly articulated our goals and strategy. Not in war, as Commander in Chief, nor as our governments chief executive with respect to our economic strategy and addressing the ills of this nation.

    To know where you are going, one must always remember where they have been. That?s not superfluous or some type of accoutrement to the dialogue. It is a critical, necessary part of the reasoning and thus explication a President must provide.

    A President does not always do what is popular; he must do what is right and best for our nation as a whole. War is not a political tool, which one uses for their reelection or parochial purposes.

    Good, fine, valorous men are fighting and dying because they believe in the cause. They believe in their commanders. They believe this new age of terrorism is spawned by the likes of people such as the Taliban and their liege who are willing to attack Americans and destroy our way of life. They are not fighting to temporarily beat back the Huns so they will live to fight and attack us another day. They are fighting to destroy them, permanently, and ensure that anyone else believing they can attack this great nation and her citizens will pay the ultimate price.

    This ?speech? only makes us less safe. It tells our enemies that engagement is only the ourgrowth of a political end game and if they can outlast the political whims of an ineffective, liberal with self-serving motives, they will live to fight another day.

    What an absolute, embarrassing, disgusting, illogical and dangerous campaign speech this was. I am curious if the MSM will realize and track the ill effects that will needlessly be experienced by our troops?

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      in which Obama, early in his presidency insisted to his military advisors and generals etc that politics would determine the troop levels and withdrawal strategy.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        http://www.examiner.com/law-politics-in-atlanta/obama-absorbing-attacks-afghanistan

  • Marcus_Traianus

    He is comes from a group that does not believe in a distinct American society. A society that has it’s own culture, values traditions and nuances. He believes that anything “uniquely” American is inherently bad becuase it is intrusive, offensive and dismissive to other traditions and cultures.

    Obama therefore yields, dissembles, apologizes and bows to everyone he believes we have offended over the years. He is clueless when it comes to fixing the economy because he inherently believes that capitalism is bad. Accordingly; how can one seek to cure the ills which confront them if they believe the very existence of a condition is a sickness unto itself? Rhetorically, they can’t.

    Obama can’t lead as Commander in Chief because he does not believe in our unique authority, traditions or use of power as a tool for our country’s protection. Conversely, he see’s that authority as an outgrowth of an obtrusive, arrogant, ignorant country that will not submit to the whims of a global “community”. He will get good men killed because he is an ideologue driven by vapid, parochial whims and has no respect for men who would give their lives for a cause in which he does not personally believe.

    That anyone, who can actually think and reason for themselves without the lens of politics, would actually support this man is extraordinarily vexing.

    • runner12
  • titofrancona

    America + Mil. Ind. Complex = Endless War

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • ron8072

    I honestly tried to watch and listen to Our Dear Leader last night. After only about 15 words or so into his newest campaign speech, he invoked the old Blame Bush excuse. Was I the only one to notice? I was spitting and cussing so loudly, I had to change the station. Has this idiot ever done anything wrong? Wait, to his elevated mind, the answer is a resounding “Are you kidding ME?” His August Self cannot imagine anyone thinking he is capable of doing other than perfectly understanding any problem and then correctly pointing a finger verbally at the real problem , BUSH!
    America in total and particularly the Tea Party had better wake up and realize that next summer is too late to react to this Enlightened Idiot. All of America should be marching in the streets NOW.