In regard to President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan this week, I thought he made the cardinal error of basically telling the Taliban that if they keep their heads down for the next year and a half they can pretty well count on us being out of Afghanistan before he is up for re-election in 2012. It is immoral to tell troops to die in a struggle that the Commander-in-Chief has clearly written off, and I think that is the reality behind Obama’s speech. Rule one of fighting a war is to win it, but I suspect that is not Obama’s intent. But for the political consequences of Afghanistan quickly becoming terrorist haven number one, I doubt if Obama would do anything other than withdraw all American troops as quickly as possible.
At any rate, as a war speech by a President I would rate this a solid D. If he wants examples of better speeches, he might try something like this minus the cussing.
Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal has Lincoln adopting a similar policy to Obama’s during the Civil War:
The indispensable Iowahawk gives his interpretation of Obama as war President here.
Our enemies are not idiots. Based on the evidence I think they have reached the obvious conclusion that Obama is weak and vacillating. They will now act accordingly. We are in for interesting times.
It’s common sense that you don’t say we’ll execute a war until a given date then go home. As you point out, the enemy will lay low and plan for the day they can do as they will. More subtle, and in line with your comment about the immorality of asking a soldier put his life on the line for no good end, is this. Near the end of a war, as one side becomes assured of victory, the soldiers on both sides start to lay low. Nobody wants to be one of the last guy to die. In war that’s not about victory, but about hanging in there to a point in time, how can soldiers be expected to fight to win?
Does winning in Afghanistan require bringing it into the Union as the 51st state? Cause if not I’m not sure I see the analogy.
Donald, did you support Bush’s surge strategy in Iraq? To be honest, I had a lot of misgivings about it, with its scheduled goals and completion date. But it worked. (No one ever confused me with General Petraeus, especially not when I’m doing pushups.)
I don’t think a surge is the right strategy in Afghanistan, but I’m not worried about the timetable aspect of it.
BA, the analogy is in setting a deadline on a war. It would have been a strategy of defeat if implemented by Lincoln, just as it is a strategy for defeat in Afghanistan.
Pinky, I supported a surge in troop strength starting in 2004 in Iraq, when the size of the insurgency convinced me we had insufficient troops on the grounds. The fact that such a strategy wasn’t implemented until 2007 was a tragedy and the Bush administration bears the blame for that. I thought setting goals and timetables was just as mistaken in Iraq as it is in Afghanistan, although I also knew that as long as he was President Bush was in office he would not abandon the task. I have no such confidence in President Obama.
“Never again war!.No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war. Just as the time has finally come when in individual States a system of private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the rule of law, so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international community. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that at the root of war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices suffered, legitimate aspirations frustrated, poverty, and the exploitation of multitudes of desperate people who see no real possibility of improving their lot by peaceful means.”
– JP2, Centessimus Annus
Of course Pope John Paul II could not have made that statement but for the Allies winning World War II. If the Allies hadn’t won World War II Tony I also have no doubt you would be either penning hymns of praise for the latest successor of Adolph Hitler or be dead or in a concentration camp as a political dissident. War is a terrible thing, but it is not the worst thing, as the Taliban taught the Afghanis during their period of misrule.
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2001.13.En?Opendocument
so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international community.
‘Urgently needed’ is rather different from ‘feasible’.
at the root of war there are usually real and serious grievances:
Emphasis on ‘usually’. (Quite apart from discerning, in the present moment, just who is aggrieved).
“But for the political consequences of Afghanistan quickly becoming terrorist haven number one, I doubt if Obama would do anything other than withdraw all American troops as quickly as possible.”
Afghanistan is looking more and more like Vietnam with each passing day. The Vietcong fled to the jungles of Cambodia & Laos where they knew the US was not allowed to pursue them just like the Taliban and Al Queda does to Pakistan. Obama won’t have to pull the troops out because he already put his “weasel clause” in the speech – “depending on conditions on the ground”. This war will go on as long as Haliburton, KBR et al’s stock prices rise.
Another Vietnam analogy – what South Vietnamese wanted to become known as a friend and ally to American troops when it became obvious we were going to leave? Once Saigon fell, those who had “collaborated” were killed in the thousands, or placed in reeducation camps.
There won’t be reeducation camps in Afghanistan – just brutal massacres of native Afghanis who are assisting us. Their families will also be targeted.
Our troops will get less and less vital assistance from the natives. And you can’t blame the natives for that. Who wants to paint a big bulleye on their own backs?
Donna V is spot on right I’m afraid, though I would add that the brutal massacres will not limited to those Afghanis who assisted us.
“Never again war!”
Then, as a consequence, never again freedom, nor any triumph of the good over the evil, until the Lord returns.
“No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people,”
…but which is, while undoubtedly the last resort, nevertheless sometimes the only resort to defeat villains who would destroy the lives of innocent people if no one slays, captures, disables, or deters them.
“…teaches how to kill,”
Sadly, yes. But when one kills the aggressor and defends the innocent person, is the horrible reality of becoming accustomed to killing MORE evil, or LESS evil, than the alternative; namely, the horrible reality of becoming accustomed to watching innocent persons killed?
“…throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing…”
Absolutely, and it’s tragic. (Good thing the Christian faith doesn’t call on us to do anything that might throw our lives into upheaval for the sake of others. Oh, wait….)
“…and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred,”
No argument there. In the case of Islamists in general and Al Qaeda in particular, though, I think the resentment and hatred are present regardless, in which case this observation reflects no new harms unique to engaging Islamists in warfare, and thus no argument against doing so.
“…thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war.”
This statement seems to view war as solely a sort of accident resulting from an unfortunate escalation of disagreements between two otherwise reasonable parties whose fundamental interests are not at odds.
But this, while sometimes the case, is not always the case, and certainly is not the case in the war between the West and Islamists.
To think that it is, is a form of willful blindness, albeit of a particularly endearing and well-intentioned kind.
It is in fact similar (in some ways) to that brand of ecumenism which states that there are no real differences between the Catholic faith and Protestantism or for that matter Scientology, and that if we just all defined our terms better, we’d see that we really all believe the same things and we’d all be taking communion together tomorrow.
“…Just as the time has finally come when in individual States a system of private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the rule of law,”
It has done that, but with exceptions, in some countries, but with exceptions. But it will not “finally” do that, wholesale, without exception, until the Lord comes back.
“…so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international community.”
Well, certainly. Let us by all means have progress towards improvement at all times. (But let us not be unrealistic about how much improvement has actually occurred. There is a difference between being a Peacemaker and being a sort of International Couéist.)
“Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that at the root of war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices suffered, legitimate aspirations frustrated, …”
Yes. As an exanple, I’d call the 9/11 attacks an injustice suffered, and the desire of the folk in the towers to live to see their families again, a frustrated legitimate aspiration.
“…poverty, and the exploitation of multitudes of desperate people who see no real possibility of improving their lot by peaceful means.”
Ah, well that’s a different matter from actual injustices or actual frustrated legitimate aspirations, isn’t it?
When one is down on one’s luck, one is tempted to steal. When one is feeling like the lowest guy on the totem pole, one is tempted to punch the highest guy, or even just the guy on the next rung up.
But that’s a temptation, of course; a temptation to sin. And when “punching the guy on the next rung up” means, in practice, killing a lot of civilians, it’s a particularly egregious sin, for which nobody can be justly cut much slack merely because, gee, they were really having a tough time with their civilizational inferiority complex.
Reality, reality, reality. Let us not get let our hopes for what will be, one day, detach us so far from what is that we make what is even worse through inaction, or ill-considered action.
he made the cardinal error of basically telling the Taliban that if they keep their heads down for the next year and a half they can pretty well count on us being out of Afghanistan before he is up for re-election in 2012
Or… Obama sends 30,000 more troops, pulls 300 out in July 2011, 500 in September, sends 2000 “training personnel” in November, keeps 100,000 troops there until 2017 when Biden takes office and ends the war.
OK, Morning’s Minion, so how do you explain this:
MOGADISHU, Somalia – The Somali government on Friday blamed al-Qaida-linked Islamic militants for a suicide bombing that killed 22 people in the capital, as government officials buried three Cabinet ministers killed in the attack.
The bombing Thursday ripped through a university graduation ceremony at an upscale hotel in Mogadishu, killing medical students, doctors, journalists and three government ministers.
What “real and serious injustices” did the Somalian government (to say nothing of those medical students, doctors, and journalists) perpetuate against al Queda? What sort of wicked Western imperialism drove the terrorists to set off a bomb which killed their fellow Muslims?
Al Queda is attempting to gain a foothold in the Horn of Africa. They and other terrorist organizations will go on killing and bombing and murdering people (mostly people who profess the same faith they do) not because of America, Israel, colonialism, resentment of Western oil interests or any other excuse you want to make for them, but because they have a twisted and ungodly idea of what God wants them to do.
“Biden takes office and ends the war”
Now you go too far restrainedradical! There are certain horrors the human mind simply cannot face, and a President Biden is one of them!
“When Biden takes office.”
Thank you, restrained radical, for the laugh, but you’re getting waaaay ahead of yourself.
According to a CNN poll (note: not Fox or Rasmussen, but CNN)48% approve and 50% disapprove of Obama. He can recover from that, of course, but I doubt the WH is thinking about 2017 at this point. They’re too busy sweating bullets over the 2010 midterms.
You’re not only counting your chickens before they hatch, you’re not even within sight of the farm.
RR.
You’re about as funny as Joe Biden 😉
The danger inherent in doing nothing is dramatically and tragically demonstrated in Rwanda, when the UN could have done something to stop the slaughter, but chickened out and stood back and let it happen.
Along with the Holocaust,the cry should be “RWANDA – NEVER AGAIN”
Genocide should be stopped if possible but I don’t think nation building in Rwanda would’ve worked either. Unless there’s a surrender it’s extremely difficult to nation build, at least not without resorting to brutal unjust measures.
“There are certain horrors the human mind simply cannot face, and a President Biden is one of them!”
Ah, but what if it’s President PALIN that ends up taking office in 2017 …. oops, that “thump” you just heard was probably Minion and Radical fainting in fright 🙂
Seriously, though, I can see where setting a deadline to end a war is counterproductive for all the reasons mentioned above. If you fight a war, you fight until you win, not until a pre-set clock runs out.
The $64 billion question, however, is what constitutes “victory.” In a conventional war that’s fairly easy to determine — when you have killed or captured all the enemy troops, taken over the enemy capital, and/or forced the enemy generals to sign a surrender document.
However, in a “war on terror” such as we are fighting, is there really any way of knowing when you have “won” in the conventional sense? And if not, then a war on terror becomes, by definition, unwinnable and without end.
How would you all define victory in Afghanistan? Does it occur when the Taliban are wiped out, or when a government agreeable to our interests is installed, or when? I’m not saying we shouldn’t be fighting this war, but simply asking how do we know when we have won?
Afghanistan has been a relative mess since before the time of Alexander the Great so my version of victory would be fairly modest. The elimination of the Taliban as a faction that has any chance of taking power. In the meantime we can do a great deal of good while we are over there. An Army sergeant from my town told me recently of how his unit built a school for female students in the village where they were stationed. Their mothers would come after school hours, wearing their black burkas, so they could study to keep up with their daughters! The sergeant, a very tough man indeed, choked up at the memory. These type of examples of our troops helping the Afghanis are commonplace. They receive zero press coverage, but are important for both the Afghanis and for our troops. The sergeant told me that they got permission from the village elders before they built the school, and the elders decided that since they had a school for the boys already that it was only fair they have a school for the girls. A quiet revolution is underway in Afghanistan, and, given enough time, that may help put groups like the Taliban out of business.
Alternatively, President Palin decides to send 200,000 more troops into Afghanistan. But unable to find it on a map, she mistakenly sends them to Argentina. When the liberal elite media run the story of her blunder, she responds, “You know, Joe Sixpack doesn’t know where Afghanistan is. You east coast media types need to stop obsessing over geometry. Smaller government is what we need to get government off our backs. Tax cuts for small businesses so they can put more money on the table. We’re a strong nation and we will win the war on drugs that started in Afghanistan. And when the fish swim, the turkey is done.” With that she flies back to Alaska to give birth to her grandson, Algebra.
Good one, restrained radical! Make a few changes, substitute the name “Reagan” for “Palin,” and it sounds like something I would have written in 1979. I enjoyed mocking Reagan for his stupidity in those days. ‘Cause all the cool kidz knew he was really dense. 30 years later, I realize now who the dumb ones really were.
I wasn’t politically aware in 1979, being that I was an infant. But I have read and seen some of Reagan’s speeches, accounts of him in private conversation, etc., and I have to say I’m not really seeing the connection with Palin.
You can be excused because of your infancy BA. I was 22 in 79 and Reagan was widely ridiculed as an idiot by his adversaries. Clark Clifford, Democrat establishment fixture since the Truman administration, summed up this attitude when he called Reagan, after he was elected President in 80, “an amiable dunce”.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/11/us/clark-clifford-a-major-adviser-to-four-presidents-is-dead-at-91.html?pagewanted=6
Mr. Clifford was merely repeating what was the common wisdom of the Left.
That this is still the opinion of much of the Left is evidenced by a simple google search of the phrase Reagan was an idiot.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=reagan+was+an+idiot&aq=0&oq=reagan+was+an+&aqi=g1
I have no doubt lots of people thought Reagan was dumb, when in fact he wasn’t. The fact that people were wrong about Reagan, however, doesn’t show that they are wrong about Palin. As the saying goes, they laughed at the Wright Brothers, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Here’s a bit from Robert Novak’s autobiography:
Compare that to Paln’s inability to say which newspapers or magazines she’s read.
An empty shell, no substance, ignorant, outright stupid, unsophisticated, dangerous – to the US and the world. Those were all very common charges leveled from the left. Well, it wasn’t just charges, it was worse. It was a total mindset, an accepted truth. It permeated every discussion or criticism. Hence he was despised all the more because the majority didn’t see Reagan that way, and the fact that Reagan succeeded burned them from the inside out.
I really think that is why many people, myself included, still think well of Reagan in spite of his faults. He was at root a decent man grounded in common sense and constantly attacked by those who were neither.
BA she rose from mayor to governor in one leap without a rich husband, being rich herself, no poltical connections and in the teeth of the party establishment. That demonstrates to me that Palin is much brighter than her critics believe, although I do hope they keep underestimating her.
BA,
Why didn’t they ask that of Hilary Clinton when she was running.
Palin already confessed that she was insulted by that question and refused to answer it.
Next.
I’m pretty sure Secretary Clinton could have sufficiently answered the question.
Though Clinton couldn’t accurately report her trip to Bosnia. This, however, is a question of her integrity and credibility.
Either way, I don’t think Sarah Palin would make a good President and I wouldn’t vote for her.
The point is why ask the question? It implies she’s a dimwit and Palin was upset about it.
She would make a much better president than the one we have.
I certainly don’t think we have a good President, but I am not so sure that I would find Palin to be anymore acceptable outside of the fact that she wouldn’t tolerate the killing of the unborn. A pro-life President can still run the country into the ground. I might be surprised, who knows.
I tend to be convinced prudential matters are not relative and are not unrelated to objective moral norms that cannot be agreed upon.
I think I’m in agreement with BA on this.
If anything, I agree with you Tito: the question shouldn’t have been asked.
Then we’re all agreeable!
😉
Why didn’t they ask that of Hilary Clinton when she was running.
For all I know they did ask her. It’s kind of a softball question (btw, when I watch the video of the exchange, Palin doesn’t come across as being offended; she comes across as not being able to answer).
BA she rose from mayor to governor in one leap without a rich husband, being rich herself, no poltical connections and in the teeth of the party establishment.
No offense, Donald, but this would seem to be a non sequitur.
The point is why ask the question? It implies she’s a dimwit and Palin was upset about it.
Asking the question doesn’t imply that she’s a dimwit. Her not being able to answer it on the other hand….
It takes intelligence to do that BA and other qualities. Good fairies didn’t descend and annoint her governor.
As for Mr. Obama, the subject of this thread after all, he is proof yet again that someone can be well-educated, and presumably well read, and still make a miserable leader.
Donald: Probably the most “book-smart” president we had in the 20th century was Wilson. And I think he was a dreadful president in many ways. Shows you how much book-smarts mean in that job.
A commenter on another blog said he thought Nixon and LBJ were the two most brilliant presidents of modern times, regardless of what one thought of their policies. Nixon was certainly a cagey operator, but I’m not sure about Johnson. He was very ruthless and he certainly knew how to work Congress. But I’m not sure it was brillance – perhaps more of a sure instinct for power.
Nixon is widely regarded as the smartest president of at least the last half century. A base level of intelligence is necessary but not sufficient to be a good president. Palin doesn’t meet that threshold. Judging by all the other things she’s said, it’s far more likely that she was unable to answer Couric’s question. I love this line from the Economist: “Up to a point, one can allow that she might be playing dumb as a deliberate strategy, but ultimately Occam’s Razor must slice.”
Palin spoke at the Gridiron Club’s winter dinner last night and was a hit. Barney Frank spoke for the Democrats:
http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2009/12/sarah-palin-guest-speaker-at-gridiron.html
People underestimate this lady to their political peril. Good.
Actually I don’t seriously believe, at this point, that Palin will be elected president in 2016, or anytime for that matter, UNLESS she gains some national government experience as a member of Congress or a Cabinet member. I was simply pointing out a possible scenario that was just as plausible as Biden being elected president 🙂
I don’t underestimate Palin’s cunning or charisma… that isn’t in question.
I listened to almost every interview she gave on the conservative media circuit, and she was struggling even with questions from friendly interviewers. Real softball questions.
In my view, Palin thinks she can “wing it” all the way to the top. She’s sure that the people who will be voting for her simply don’t give a damn whether or not she is well-versed in world affairs. She’s making assumptions about us that I don’t think are very flattering.
For once, and to my amazement, I agree fully with BA – this comparison to Reagan is silly.
I will say, to the shock of all, I agree with Joe and BA as well.
There. The world is now doomed.
No Joe the comparison to Reagan is completely apt. I have not seen a politician since Reagan with more raw political talent than Palin. As to Palin not being well versed in world affairs, once again that is precisely what was thought of Reagan at the time. Here is a link to a Saturday Night Live video after Iran-Contra broke which depicts Reagan as a mastermind rather than an out of touch buffoon. The humor of course is because the people who wrote Saturday Night Live assumed that Reagan was an out of touch buffoon and thus depicting him as a mastermind was humorous. The humor now from what we know after the fact is that Reagan was much closer to being the mastermind than the out of touch buffoon. I truly do hope that people will continue to underestimate and misunderstand Palin as they did Reagan. It will make things easier for her politically.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4174/saturday-night-live-president-reagan-mastermind
As to Palin not being well versed in world affairs, once again that is precisely what was thought of Reagan at the time.
This is an invalid argument, Donald. People may have thought Reagan wasn’t well versed on world affairs, but you only had to listen to Reagan to tell that this wasn’t true (for example, here is a transcript of a debate between Reagan and Senator Robert Kennedy in 1967; whatever you think of the substance of Reagan’s position, it’s clear that he’s knowledgeable about the subject). Listening to Palin, on the other hand, tends to re-enforce the view that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about (e.g., she had never heard of the Bush doctrine).
I have not seen a politician since Reagan with more raw political talent than Palin.
Really? Can you cite anything that would remotely justify such a position? Her sole political accomplishment of any note would seem to be that she won election as governor. That happens about a dozen times a year, and given that her primary opponent was the most unpopular governor in America at the time, I wouldn’t consider it an example of exceptional political skill.
Don, I don’t dispute Palin’s raw political talent, but I think it much more along the lines of another great talent, Bill Clinton. I don’t like Clinton, but politically he was a master. I think the two are more alike in that they play into a powerful and often times marginalized force within their parties. Basically giving them a voice. However, I think those two are different from Reagan. Reagan filled that role and much more. He not only appealed to it, but he actually systematically and capably defined it. I don’t see Palin having that ability and I’d argue the biggest problems facing the Republican party is they don’t have a credible voice to redefine, articulate, and advance a sound and appealing direction.
“Can you cite anything that would remotely justify such a position?”
Easily. In the face of opposition from the Republican establishment in her state, after she exposed corruption in the state GOP, she won the governorship in Alaska. The only time McCain was ahead last year was immediately after he picked Palin. Her speech to the convention was the best I’ve seen at a Republican convention since the Reagan acceptance speech in 80. Her crowds were massive, McCain’s lacklustre, except when Palin was present. McCain dropped 11% among white men in the final tally as opposed to Bush in 2004. Among white women his decline was only 4%. The only explanation for the difference is Palin. A neophyte on the national stage she clobbered Biden in their debate. (O.K. maybe that last one wasn’t difficult.) She accomplished all this while experiencing the worst press I can recall for any major candidate for national office in my liftetime. A defeated candidate for vice-president, she is the most talked about politician in the country. She owns the conservative base of the party, and is the only GOP national politician who elicits any enthusiasm.
Rick, Reagan was a conservative populist, just as Palin is. One of the key problems in the Republican party is a disconnect between what the base believes and the behavior of Republican elected officials, a disconnect which cost the Republicans the Congress. Democrat ineptitude and a lousy economy have given the Republicans a second chance in 2010. Palin has an opportunity to aid in a Republican landslide victory in 2010 and set herself up as the frontrunner in 2012 and I suspect that is her battleplan.