POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

More reactions to Mr. Obama’s new Afghan strategy

Judging from some of the reactions to the President’s West Point address last night, I can say that he’s finally achieved his desire to be both post-partisan and transnational; because on both sides of the political spectrum, and the Atlantic, there seems to be a consensus that his speechifying failed to hit the mark and that there are fundamental, and perhaps even dangerous, flaws to his announced strategy.  Also, I’m not alone in my opinions of the speech, both before and after his address.

Lest I be assailed as a wingnut provocateur, I’ll start with this surprising reaction by Joan Walsh, a contributor to Salon and a regular on Chris “Tingle” Matthews show Hardball :

At the moment he needed all of his persuasive powers, Obama gave the worst major speech of his presidency. I admit: I expected to be, even wanted to be, carried away a bit by Obama's trademark rhetorical magic. But I wasn't, not even a little. I found the speech rushed, sing-songy and perfunctory, delivered by rote. I despise the right-wing Obama-Teleprompter taunts, but even I wanted to say, Look at your audience, not the damn Teleprompter, Mr. President. Obama looked haggard, his eyes deeper set, and I believe this decision pained him. But I'm not sure even he believes it's the right decision. Neocon Danielle Pletka Tweeted happily mid-speech: "So far, could be Bush speaking" and later, approvingly: "count me gobsmacked." That makes two of us. Rep. Maxine Waters spoke for me on "Countdown" tonight when she opened her remarks by telling Keith Olbermann: "I'm very saddened."

Gabor Steingart Writing in Der Spiegel was even more blunt:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

Wow…That’s pretty tough stuff.  And just as I predicted last night, prior to the President’s speech, he didn’t use the word victory; which left The Dailey Beast’s Tunku Varadarajan wondering, “…would it kill him to endorse winning?”

But even tougher still is Colonel Ralph Peter’s thesis, that Mr. Obama is actually setting our military up to fail:

President Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but he'll "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Then why send them?

If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?
 Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?

Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.

He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam.

Obama's right about one thing, though: The Afghans "will ultimately be responsible for their own country." So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn't begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?

Does the 2012 election ring a bell?

What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

And not only myself and Colonel Peters think that the President’s a priori timetable is a recipe for disaster.  From McClatchey (hardly a locus of wingnuttery):

President Barack Obama's effort Tuesday night to reassure Democrats who oppose the deployment of another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to emphasize a U.S. exit strategy to pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reform his corruption-riddled government could backfire.

The Taliban, al Qaida, their allies and their patrons in Pakistan and the Middle East, as well as America's partners, may think that Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011 signals a lack of U.S. staying power and dilutes any incentives for insurgents to switch sides or negotiate a political accord.

"It's a big mistake," a U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said of Obama's announcement that a U.S. withdrawal would begin in 19 months. "It just tells the Taliban and everyone else how long they need to last."

Indeed, this last observation is indicative of perhaps the most dangerous possible outcome of the strategy Mr. Obama outlined last night.  In the haste to have a timetable of withdrawal presented simultaneously with the announcement of the necessary troop build-up, an effort to avoid any possible comparisons to the “quagmire” of Vietnam, he may have inadvertently put into motion the same kind of ignominious defeat suffered in 1975; when the North Vietnamese, having patiently waited for effectively all of the US forces to be withdrawn as promised, finally swept into Saigon and achieved their long sought victory.

So it seems that in his desire to reassure his political base on the far left, Mr. Obama may have actually succeeded in the Vietnamization of the Afghan war; an outcome that would be cruelly ironic indeed…

Let me be very clear.  This is an outcome I do not want to see come to pass.  I want only what is best for our nation, our fellow Americans putting it on the line in the field, and our NATO and Afghan allies.  I do not believe in the politicization of war, nor of scoring cheap political points on the backs of our troops, nor of disingenuously using foreign policy issues as a cudgel against my political opponents.  And, I’m sad that I can’t be sure that the President’s speech last night wasn’t aimed at mollifying his political base; especially when Mr. Obama, among others, decried so loudly what they perceived as the politicization of the DOJ during the 2008 campaign. This is an arena where he could have developed a very real working relationship with Republicans across the aisle; and where his goodwill may have set the table for compromise on his domestic agenda as well.

Again, let me be very clear.  I fully support the President’s decision to deploy the additional reinforcements to Afghanistan.  General McChrystal is on record as believing he can accomplish the mission with the additional boots on the ground.  And, while I have my reservations about the declared timetable of withdrawal, I am encouraged by Secretary Gates walk-back of that schedule’s immutability during testimony today before the U.S. Senate.  It is my wish that Mr. Obama be the President under which this war is won!  But, there can be no replacement for victory, nor will any euphemism for such suffice.  While the sophistry of political correctness holds sway in some societal circles, it is not applicable to armed conflict.  In war there are but three real outcomes; victory-like in WWII, defeat-like in Vietnam, and stalemate-like in Korea.  In Afghanistan, and the war on terror, there is only one acceptable option.

Victory!

UPDATE: Karl "that magnificent bastard" Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, pretty much agrees with the points I make; especially about how Mr. Obama can freeze out the anti-war left and pass any required legislation to support his Afghanistan initiative with a coalition of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.  Now that just might be Change! I could believe in.

Rocketman