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?â€
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.
Smart Power! on Honduras. Obama; it’s a coup! CRS; not so much…
In recent days, the situation in Honduras has entered a new and in some ways more bizarre phase. Unfortunately, for Zelaya’s leftist supporters, it hasn’t been going exactly as they expected. It seems that the largest throng that man who had visions of Chavez like power can draw to his stronghold in the Brazilian embassy is around 85 people; and that’s with the UN catering the demonstration ! I wonder if Chavez is embarrassed by his role in this entire fiasco, both in assisting Zelaya in his failed attempt to stage a phony, and illegal, plebiscite that would be used to support his unconstitutional bid for another Presidential term as well as helping to sneak him back into the country.Â
What should be embarrassing to the US Department of State and the Obama administration is the shameful way they have openly intervened in the Honduran situation, as well as convincing other nations to join in the misguided sanctioning of the Central American nation. In fact on September 3  the administration formally cut off all aid to our ally, regardless of the lack of consensus as to whether a coup actually took place or not.
Well, the matter has been settled by the Congressional Research Service, the same body that discovered that Obamacare didn’t preclude illegal immigrants from participating in the public system, when they declared today that Zelaya’s removal from office by the authority of Honduras’ Parliament and Supreme Court was completely legal. And although unorthodox, as Honduras Constitution has no provision for impeachment, the arrest does not constitute an illegal coup. However, that said, his forced deportation by the military does appear to be against the law and is currently under investigation by Honduran authorities.
Well, that might just leave a mark. And it seems that all of the meddling, by an administration that made the point ad nauseum of their reluctance to meddle in the affairs of other nations, was based upon the flawed premise of a coup that never took place! Maybe Obama and the folks at State are being bombarded by the same mind rays and toxic gasses that Zelaya claims the Israelis are assaulting him with while he’s holed up inside the Brazilian embassy. Let’s hope that all parties come to their senses, quit repeating this tired, and now debunked, assertion of a coup, restore their aid, and look forward to recognizing the outcome of the legitimate, peaceful Honduran elections in November.
I mean, although Chavez is disappointed, I’m sure, that he can’t hang out the mission accomplished flag, he can smell the hope!, can you? Must be an affectation of all of the Smart Power ! that’s been excercised of late…
Smart Power! or The Sting..?
In a surprising announcement this morning, one that confirmed suspicions that began circulating on Tuesday evening, President Obama announced that the US would scrap plans for a missile defense shield for eastern Europe, essentially reneging on promises that the Bush administration had made that were intended to bolster the security of Poland, the Czech Republic, and the European Union. Instead the President pledged stronger and swifter defense systems, and said that based on Pentagon’s recommendations he would shift the focus to defending against missile threats from Iran that would be viable in the short and medium term. Although Obama’s statement was brief, speaking from Baghdad Vice-President Biden hinted at the logic of behind the decision saying “Iran is not a threat†and “I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat.â€Â But all are not in agreement on Iranian capabilities, pointing to their successful satellite launch; essentially a demonstration of missile technology that could easily be converted to military use.
Â
Reaction from overseas was mixed to be sure. In the Czech Republic, Social Democrat leader Jiri Paroubek and “activist†Jan Tamas expressed relief and called it excellent news; of course, both were major opponents of missile defense and loathe to the idea of foreign soldiers being stationed on Czech soil. Likewise, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen praised what he called, “A positive step†that would “improve the involvement of all NATO nations.â€Â And the decision was also hailed by Gordon Brown who said that, "Non proliferation remains a very high priority for the United Kingdom."Â
Â
As would be expected, the Russians were overjoyed with this development. Although Russia’s NATO envoy warned against “childish euphoria†over the announcement, Mr. Medvedev, Russia’s President, said that he appreciated the responsible move by the US and was willing to continue dialogue. State Duma foreign affairs committee head Konstantin Kosachev told the Associated Press: “The U.S. president’s decision is a well-thought (out) and systematic one. Now we can talk about restoration of (the) strategic partnership between Russia and the United States.â€Â But, they evidently weren’t quite pleased enough to agree to any new round of sanctions against Iran, perhaps one of Obama’s motivating factors in the sudden termination of this longstanding defense plan. Just today the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov, said that his country firmly opposes any new sanctions and believes that such a move would ruin hopes for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear situation. So, it looks like the Russians have accepted Obama’s olive branch, and repaid him by slamming the door in his face !
Â
On balance though there were more negative reactions than positive. Where to begin? Let’s start here at here at home. John McCain said he was disappointed with the seriously misguided decision, and warned that it could undermine US standing in Eastern Europe amid worries there of a resurgent Russia. Senate Republican whip Jon Kyl called the decision “dangerous and short sightedâ€, and warned that “it would send a chilling message to former Soviet satellites who had braved Moscow’s anger to support the systemâ€. And former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton blasted Obama, “It's just an unambiguously bad decision,†he went on to say, “Russia and Iran are the big winners. I just think it's a bad day for American national securityâ€. Even some of the Democrats are quietly asking the President just what we are going to get out of this concession.
According to Michael Goldfarb of “The Weekly Standardâ€:
This represents a complete capitulation to Russia's Vladimir Putin, who had demanded that the proposed deployments be halted as a price for improved relations. Ironically, the Obama administration, which is appeasing Russia in the hopes that Moscow will help put pressure on Iran, has made this mammoth concession just a few days after Moscow declared that it had no intention of supporting sanctions against Iran.
The consequences of this action in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine and in other countries that feel vulnerable to Russian power, will be disastrous. It is a major American retreat in the face of Russian bullying. And we will get absolutely nothing for it.
[emphasis-ed.]
Goldfarb also points out that the administration is being dishonest on their policy “fact sheetâ€:
The White House has put out a “fact sheet†on their policy of Russian appeasement/missile defense surrender. The fact sheet says that the new approach — focusing on SM-3 and sea-based systems (presumably in Turkey) — will “augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats.†That is a lie. This system will provide zero, nada, zilch protection to the U.S. homeland, providing only defense against short- and medium-range missiles to Europe.
The fact sheet says this system will protect “our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.†That is a lie. The system that was being placed in Poland is already operational in Alaska. These new plans will now take years of negotiations to implement and will necessarily be less survivable as they will not be underground.
There’s that unfortunate “L†word cropping up again; but I guess Goldfarb is just another racist, you know, as opposed to citing stubborn fats and inconvenient truths. Take a moment and read the whole thing; that the administration would feel the need to smear missile defense in order to justify appeasing the Russians is appalling.
David Frum makes a convincing argument that Obama is heading for a foreign policy disaster; it doesn’t take a preview reel to see that coming attraction.Â
In Eastern Europe, Former Czech and Polish leaders expressed a mixture of surprise, dismay, and angry resentment. Czech legislator Jan Vidim indicated that this development would negatively color future relations between the countries:
"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it,"
In fact Poland’s prime minister refused to take Secretary of State Clinton’s telephone call! And former Polish President Lech Walesa was quoted:
“American has always cared only about its own interests, and those of others only serve the US. Now we have another example of this,†he said in a television interview. “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing towards this part of Europe. We should reconsider our approach to the United States.â€
I’m sure the former leader of the famous “Solidarity†non-communist trade union, whose movement led ultimately to a succession of anti-communist revolutions in Eastern Europe, was especially pleased that the announcement of this historic double-cross coincided with the  anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland; 70 years ago on this day. I wonder if Obama prefaced his statement to the Polish diplomats by wishing them a happy Molotov-Ribbentrop day?
Meanwhile, according to today’s “Kiev Postâ€:
Diplomats here say Moscow hardliners could read the shield backdown as a sign of Washington's weakness. Far from doing the bidding of the United States, they may instead press for further gains to shore up Russian power in the former Soviet bloc.
…
Analysts are particularly concerned about Ukraine, which faces a presidential election next January. Most of Russia's vast gas exports flow through its territory and the country reluctantly hosts a large Russian naval base.
Russia has already rebuked Kiev for its "anti-Russian" stance and refused to deal with President Viktor Yushchenko, tactics which recall those used with Georgia in the period leading up to last year's war.
In a sign of the level of concern, one senior Western envoy here privately estimated the chances of a Russian military intervention in the Crimea over the next year at 50-50
[emphasis-ed.]
But perhaps some of the most startling reactions to this are found in the British newspapers; that have a more gloves-off style, and are far less worshipful of Obama than many of their US counterparts.
Nile Gardiner of “The Telegraph UK†thinks it’s all about appeasing Russian aggression:
This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defense of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defense installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.
[emphasis-ed.]
And Gardiner is not the only skeptic; Toney Halpin rips the President for selling out not only Eastern Europe, but indeed the entire EU:
By trading the loyalty of Poland and the Czech Republic to satisfy Russia’s security concerns, the United States is signalling that it no longer contests Moscow’s right to assert its interests in Eastern Europe.
Ukraine and Georgia’s chances of entering Nato over Russian objections have diminished further. The timing is disastrous for Ukraine in particular, given the Kremlin’s determination to reverse the pro-Western Orange Revolution and ensure victory for a pro-Russian candidate at presidential elections in January.
The Baltic States, already in Nato, will be feeling a chill as they ponder an even more assertive Russia. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been among the Kremlin’s most vocal critics but Nato’s new Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has declared a “true strategic partnership†with Russia his top priority.
The Bush Administration delighted in emphasising relations with the “new Europe†of former Soviet bloc countries, often at the expense of recalcitrant “old Europe†of Germany and France on foreign policy.
Mr Obama has shown that the US is no longer playing that game. He wants Russian help on Afghanistan and Iran and is leaving Europe to resolve its own relationship with Moscow on everything from energy security to historical grievances.
The Kremlin can barely believe its good fortune. Mr Obama has pressed the “reset†button to improve relations without obtaining anything more than permission for US aircraft to cross Russian airspace on resupply operations for troops in Afghanistan.
…
In fact, Moscow may become more intransigent, arguing that Washington itself no longer takes the threat as seriously as it did by cancelling the missile-defence shield. Any such argument would only harden Israel’s determination to act.
Some analysts in Russia have begun cynically to ask whether the Kremlin wants to see a war in Iran, arguing that this would send oil prices soaring and replenish state coffers emptied out by the economic crisis.
[emphasis-ed]
Smart Power !…The kind we heard about during the last election…
Smart Power !...Bolstering our nation's missile defense program by, you know, canceling the deployment of forward interceptor batteries...
Smart Power !...An Orwellian statement essentially proclaiming that weakness is the new strength...
Smart Power !…Throwing our allies under the bus, or more like to the Russian wolves bear; and all we get is a Bronx cheer, the one finger salute, and a shoulder shrug accompanied by absolutely NO movement on the issue of Russian enabling of the Iranian regime; not even the bone of a minor utterance about the danger of a nuclear armed Iran…
You know who I’ll bet thinks this is Smart Power, besides Obama? General Electric !
Shortly after the pullback on the shield program was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms
That would be the same General Electric whose CEO sits on Obama’s economic recovery advisory board; the same General Electric that owns MSNBC. So I guess all those crappy ratings resulting from the network “selling out†in order to get Obama elected were worth it, eh Jeffrey? If wonder if they promised that Olbermann would name Putin, “The Best Person in the Worldâ€, in order to ice the deal?
Is anyone else experiencing deja-vu?
Facilitates a rogue Iran, led by a fanatical leader bent on Israel's destruction?...Check
Shows the “wimp hand†instead of the “pimp hand†to the Russians?...Check
Takes a bad domestic economy…And makes it worse?...Check
Cancels or truncates advanced military systems in the pipeline...Check
Willfully diminishes our military or squanders our advantage...Check
Tells all Americans they have to “sacrifice†and/or “cut back.â€...Check
Now if in the coming months Captain Brilliant! comes out with a lame statement along the lines of, “Putin Liedâ€, or, “Medvedev Liedâ€, like Jimmy Carter did when he lamented that “Brezhnev Lied!†about his intent to invade Afghanistan, then I’ll be sure. He’ll be a worse President than Mr. Carter. But short of that, he’s only tied for the worst! So until then I think I’ll call him Jimmybama…Because of the Smart ! Power…
UPDATE: Darleen over at Protein Wisdom links to an interesting NRO piece by the editors of the same.
UPDATE II: J.E.Dyer at Commentary magazine weighs in on what he calls Obama's "Ostrich" defense.






