Update - regarding my thoughts on the Prez's heart not being in it - Victor Hanson elaborates on the impacts.
Not his best speech, but let's face it, as a community organizer, about the last thing he wanted was to be a wartime CinC, so his heart isn't in it the same way many of us are, who are in the fight or know people in the fight.
He seems to understand the danger, but I think he is really resentful that this is getting in the way of his remaking the US into a good little socialist eurostate that understands that it's nothing special in regard to anyone else. After all, taking over 1/6th of the economy is hard work and this war thing is getting in the way, and sucking up money better distributed to Democrat constituencies and transnational entities. Interesting to square the circle of us not being special with this passage:
It was never going to be a perfect answer, for there is no perfect answer, there are only shades of gray. It might have been a bit more timely, but if he spent his time *really* getting to understand the problems, that's not a bad thing either.
For this President, and from my perspective, we got about the best we could get. And frankly, I'm not sure we'd have gotten much better - in terms of the actual results, vice the tone of the speech and word choice, from a different President. There are some real constraints at work right now on the occupant of the Oval Office that just limit the options.
I think his deployment schedule is optimistic, given the assets will also be trying to remove stuff from Iraq, but that's just nuts and bolts stuff that we pay the logisticians to figure out. I also think that some of his goals are a bit optimistic for an 18 month time-frame, but that's 18 months away and a lot can happen that will change that metric. More depends there on the mood of the people and Congress than I think some of us realize - and the performance of the economy.
Not his best speech, but let's face it, as a community organizer, about the last thing he wanted was to be a wartime CinC, so his heart isn't in it the same way many of us are, who are in the fight or know people in the fight.
He seems to understand the danger, but I think he is really resentful that this is getting in the way of his remaking the US into a good little socialist eurostate that understands that it's nothing special in regard to anyone else. After all, taking over 1/6th of the economy is hard work and this war thing is getting in the way, and sucking up money better distributed to Democrat constituencies and transnational entities. Interesting to square the circle of us not being special with this passage:
He and his team tweaked McChrystal's request enough to make the point that he is the man making the decision, not the generals (not a completely bad thing, IMHO), gave McChrystal much of what he asked for (quiets some of the Right) and set a timetable for withdrawal (quiets some of the Left).Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
It was never going to be a perfect answer, for there is no perfect answer, there are only shades of gray. It might have been a bit more timely, but if he spent his time *really* getting to understand the problems, that's not a bad thing either.
For this President, and from my perspective, we got about the best we could get. And frankly, I'm not sure we'd have gotten much better - in terms of the actual results, vice the tone of the speech and word choice, from a different President. There are some real constraints at work right now on the occupant of the Oval Office that just limit the options.
I think his deployment schedule is optimistic, given the assets will also be trying to remove stuff from Iraq, but that's just nuts and bolts stuff that we pay the logisticians to figure out. I also think that some of his goals are a bit optimistic for an 18 month time-frame, but that's 18 months away and a lot can happen that will change that metric. More depends there on the mood of the people and Congress than I think some of us realize - and the performance of the economy.
I don't think he did much to rally the country to the cause, but again, I suspect that's because it's just not his style.
There are some other bits.
I'm not sure our diplomacy is really setting the stage for this passage:
There are some other bits.
I'm not sure our diplomacy is really setting the stage for this passage:
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
And I think that there is a possible unintended consequence that may surface from the time-table.
On one hand, of course, there is the view that setting the timetable like that simply sends the message to our opponents to lay low and we'll go away - which is true, and maybe they will - not likely, but possible. If they did, and that turned into an 18 month breathing space to advance the training, agriculture and civil side of the agenda - that might well be a good thing, as it gives the Afghans a sense of what things could be like if a$$holes with guns and IEDs weren't out screwing things up.
The other side is it tells the more adventurous among the global entities that wish to take advantage of our total commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan... that they have two years or so (counting reset time) to act with relative impunity before we have our forces back, rested and reconstituted - and available.
Of course - how things progress on the economic front, locally and globally, are going to be possibly the ultimate drivers both for and against chaos.
Another thing - I think his choice of venue was good - because, unlike Congress or in front of a press gaggle, he wasn't going to get heckled by anyone, not at one of the academies. There would be no in-speech distractions that weren't self-inflicted.
Lastly, and related, I think Chris Mathews' characterization of West Point as "the enemy camp" to be much more revealing of Chris Mathews' complete ignorance of the military than it does his insightful analysis. But then we've known that for years. Mathews is a tool of Maher-esque stature.
On one hand, of course, there is the view that setting the timetable like that simply sends the message to our opponents to lay low and we'll go away - which is true, and maybe they will - not likely, but possible. If they did, and that turned into an 18 month breathing space to advance the training, agriculture and civil side of the agenda - that might well be a good thing, as it gives the Afghans a sense of what things could be like if a$$holes with guns and IEDs weren't out screwing things up.
The other side is it tells the more adventurous among the global entities that wish to take advantage of our total commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan... that they have two years or so (counting reset time) to act with relative impunity before we have our forces back, rested and reconstituted - and available.
Of course - how things progress on the economic front, locally and globally, are going to be possibly the ultimate drivers both for and against chaos.
Another thing - I think his choice of venue was good - because, unlike Congress or in front of a press gaggle, he wasn't going to get heckled by anyone, not at one of the academies. There would be no in-speech distractions that weren't self-inflicted.
Lastly, and related, I think Chris Mathews' characterization of West Point as "the enemy camp" to be much more revealing of Chris Mathews' complete ignorance of the military than it does his insightful analysis. But then we've known that for years. Mathews is a tool of Maher-esque stature.
He made a decent decision as far as responding to McChrystal's request for more troops, albeit about 75 days later than it should have been.
Setting a fixed date (or even a flexible one) was exactly the WRONG thing to do.
His speech was a disaster. It was campaign nonsense in the most craven "how can we fool them today" manner, promising everything to everyone. It was not the speech of a leader, or a warrior, or capable of unifying the nation, or even the military.
Well done to the Corps of Cadets who behaved respectfully, even while being used as photo props.
Yes - that was my reaction as well. He's apparently already running for re-election in 2012.
Also, he continues to talk *at* people instead of *to* them. He didn't say or do a d*mned thing in that speech, or by his delivery of it, to engage his direct audience. He didn't even try to. I know they really aren't his cup of tea, but he should have at least Pretended they were.
About the cadets being used for photo props, I just don't think it is appropriate.
I don't have confidence everything will be dandy by then and thus I think the efforts made there will be wasted. Yes wasted. Naturally we will kill bad guys but once the US is gone they will regenerate quite rapidly. There will be no net benefit.
As such I don't believe our troops should be there and should leave immediately. I cannot support the loss of one dollar or one drop of our digger's blood for a venture with a forced failure clause.
BTW, that guy in the CIB also has a PME badge, a good conduct medal, overseas ribbon, and an arcom (maybe two)--hard choice going from an NCO (I assume, at least a corporal) to cadet, when OCS might have been an option. Good for him!
-I get the feeling that the timeline was a suprise to the uniformed types, and I find myself wondering how many heads exploded at CENTCOM and TRANSCOM. For some perspective, the 20,000 troop increase earlier this year - a MEB, a CAB, a Stryker brigade, and an airborne brigade - started IIRC in April with the Marines and ending in September with the Airborne. 6 months, give or take, although some of that may have been imposed by the availability of the units.
Now, we've done a lot of work to increase the capacity of the LOCs into Afghanistan, but those LOCs also have to carry an increased load to support the troops already in theater, as well as having to rotate more units in and out. (Relief in place for a brigade takes around 3 weeks.) so we want to move 50% more troops in than the last increase, and do it in only one month more. Starting in the bad weather (although weather is not near the limiting factor in Kandahar and Helmand as it is further north) part of the year, too.
-The number of troops picked, as well as the date to start drawing down, quite simply reek of political triangulation to me. Enough troops so he can hopefully claim that he wasn't doing it just for appearance sake, but less than McChrystal asked for so he can claim that he didn't get pushed around by the military, and the drawdown date which he can point to to show he's not like Bush.
One thing to think about with the numbers: McChrystal's team developed High, Medium, and Low risk options. I don't know the troop numbers with each, but I'll assume that the highest number the press bandied about - 80,000 - was the Low Risk option, with the 40k being Medium and something even lower being High Risk. So in going with 30k, the President is putting himself on the higher risk side of what the commander on the ground feels is Medium risk.
-What the hell was that bit about the economy in the middle? What does the economy have to do with Afghanistan? If you're that worried about the cost, cutting the farm subsidy program should pay for it, no problem. I'll admit, this bit turned me off so much that I stopped listening after this point.
-I thought it was pretty obvious the the cadets weren't much impressed. The pause before the first applause break made me wonder if someone was holding up a sign to remind them to clap. (I saw a photo of one of the cadets reading LTC(R) Dave Grossman's "On Killing" while waiting - now that man can give an inspiring speech.) Where were the much-bally-hooed Obama oratorical skills?
It was strange as I listened to Obama and GEN McChrystal talk about this subject, there was a phrase, from the Last Century, which applies here, "Force-Muliplers". Just take a look at the potential. *This would make one helluva potential force.*
On the days after 9/11, many people attached to National Security, Veterans, Active Duty Military,Guard, Reserve, First Responders, Unions and even Contractors were all ready to go. Many of these people were actually Veterans or very highly qualified, no wannabes. This thing was starting to get out of control. We wound up convincing them that they should go home.
But, my main concern was a very old man, 100+ years old, mind, sharp as a tack and a razor sharp wit. 2001 was a bad year before 9/11 and that didn't make it any better. We'll come back to 9/11. My birthday is early November, I always talked with him, never to him. He was a Scotsman by birth and American Citizen by law and choice. It was his attitude to serve America until he died, which he did, in one capacity or another. During November, he turned a tight crisp corner and we talked about an upgrade to my house to make my life a little easier to be done in 2002. In fact, he wanted my word on the issue. It was completed according to plan. But let's go back to Christmas Eve Day, 2001. As instructed, I arrive at 10AM, there's a Retired Navy Hospital Corpsman living with the old man, called "Doc". Doc, comes to the door, steps outside and says, "No matter what, don't try to change it, just go with the flow. Come on in and he's in the den. He is in full Scottish Regalia, kilt, blouse, sash, pouch including the family tartans. He looked me square in the eye and said, "Grumpy, Finally my discharge came through, I'm going home to Scotland. Absolutely everything has been arranged. The meal has been catered and will be between 1 and 3PM". He even had Scottish bagpipers there. Now, his Internist/ Physician's first name was 'Jake', this is what he instructed us to call him, was at the dinner. Now the real kick in the pants is the fact, the old man's older brother was at this dinner. We all had a good time, but as things started to wind down, the old man took a plastic tarp and put in on his favorite chair. He came out to the kitchen, this is where most of the crew gathered before leaving, some of team that were asked to stay were here. He asked to have a small pot of coffee. He wanted a cup of coffee, he had a favorite coffee mug, leans back and drinks about a half a mug, then puts the mug down, leans back more and dies.
Why does this matter to anybody but to those around this old man? This old man listened to George W. Bush and "The Bush Doctrine". The questions that stood out to him, Why didn't you Declare War? Out of all the conflicts based on the "War Powers Act", how many did we win?
But the "Coup de Grace", was when George W. Bush said that he was sending the Military to war, we want the civilians to go shopping. This was the breaking point.
I walked out with him, this you want to do very carefully! He only said three words-----
"Whiskey -----Tango------Foxtrot"
The choice of the Eisenhower Theater made complete logistical sense--it is equipped and arranged for entertainment. Too bad his handlers didn't think of using beautiful Washington Hall, as MacArthur did. Perhaps they didn't want the powerful mural there overshadowing our Community Organizer in Chief.
I suppose that on Wednesday the COIC taught us a valuable lesson, namely that our times are more "complicated" than those of our forebears. Accordingly, the following words are now obsolete: “...once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory.”
Ummmm -- that's working well for him, isn't it?
So far, no one has been impressed enough with his rhetoric to either turn in their nukes or stop their development of same. When *Israel* now thinks there's less than a 5% chance the US will come to its aid in the event of a shooting conflict, I'd say Obie's doin' it wrong...
This is a grand goal to be sure and well worth pursing but I put it in the achieve in 4 million years basket. Obie has until 2011. I'd be surpised if he achieved anything at all by then. Even his health care plan seems bogged down in politics.