President plays uncertain trumpet
WASHINGTON — We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills—for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.
We shall never surrender—unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on “the need to maintain balance in and among national programs” and then insist that “we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.”
The quotes are from President Obama’s West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was—a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.
Which made his last-minute assertion of “resolve unwavering” so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” On Tuesday night, he defined “what’s at stake” as “the common security of the world.” The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?
Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?
Nonetheless, most supporters of the Afghanistan War were satisfied. They got the policy, the liberals got the speech. The hawks got three-quarters of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted—30,000 additional U.S. troops—and the doves got a few soothing words. Big deal, say the hawks.
But it is a big deal. Words matter because will matters. Success in war depends on three things: a brave and highly skilled soldiery, such as the U.S. military 2009, the finest counterinsurgency force in history; brilliant, battle-tested commanders such as Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal, fresh from the success of the surge in Iraq; and the will to prevail as personified by the commander in chief.
There’s the rub. And that is why at such crucial moments, presidents don’t issue a policy paper. They give a speech. It gives tone and texture. It allows their policy to be imbued with purpose and feeling. This one was festooned with hedges, caveats and one giant exit ramp.
No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge—Iraq 2007—with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching—and salutary—determination.
Obama’s surge speech wasn’t a commander in chief’s, but a politician’s, perfectly splitting the difference. Two messages for two audiences. Placate the right—you get the troops; placate the left—we are on our way out.
And apart from Obama’s own personal commitment is the question of his ability as a wartime leader. If he feels compelled to placate his left with an exit date today—while he is still personally popular, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and even before the surge begins—how will he stand up to the left when the going gets tough and the casualties mount, and he really has to choose between support from his party and success on the battlefield?
Despite my personal misgivings about the possibility of lasting success against Taliban insurgencies in both Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan, I have deep confidence that Petraeus and McChrystal would not recommend a strategy that will be costly in lives, without their having a firm belief in the possibility of success.
I would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy. But the fate of this war depends not just on them. It depends on the president. We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of “open-ended” nation-building) thusly: “because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.”
Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets—some of whom may not return alive—but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.
Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Dec 9, 2009 at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
"To you Panama, the fed has replaced God."
Once again, vatoloco, you answer my sarcasm with some idiotic retort which has nothing to do with either the articles subject or my comment.
To you vatoloco (and Krauthammer) Obama can do no right. He deliberates what is a vitally important decision which affects the lives of thousands of American troops and their families, budget deficits and a myriad of issues we (the average American citizen or opinion columnist)could not even imagine. In addition, he must balance his words so that the American people will realize our commitment is not open ended, the Afghan people will know we are not there to occupy their country, the Pakistani will know we will support them but, at the same time, not interfere and finally convince the Taliban we will not waver in the face of adversity. If Krauthammer was even half the man Obama is perhaps he too could become President. But instead you, Krauthammer and the rest of the right wing-nuts criticize Obama for doing the right thing. But then I should realize critical thinking is not a strong point of many "conservatives" and most certainly not yours. Now go find another way to incorporate some evil persons name in with Obama's for your next rant so we can all see how really clever you are.
Dec 8, 2009 at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Having a President who actually thinks and reasons before making important decisions is just a waste of time"
To you Panama, the fed has replaced God. The kingdom of God is found through the eyes of our current government. The future of mankind depends on the intellects that exist in the federal government.
Dec 8, 2009 at 2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree vatoloco. Having a President who actually thinks and reasons before making important decisions is just a waste of time. I mean we have all kinds of people signed up and ready to fight so who needs a strategy. Just send in the troops and the people we are liberating will welcome us with open arms and the enemy will simply lay down their weapons. Then we can have them all vote for a President and the troops will come home. Simple as that.
-
By the way duh190, what would YOU consider a victory? We need the right wing-nuts like you to spell it out for us wimps. Oh please enlighten us!
Dec 4, 2009 at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
"That it is remarkable is a big part of why Obama, not hawk McCain, was elected"
Change is what people voted for. Correct ICT?
Mussolini, FDR, and Hitler were all approved because they appealed to the feeble minded. The state has all the answers for man's problems.
Dec 4, 2009 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
"For once I wholly agree with Krauthammer; it IS remarkable to have a President who takes such considerations. Finally.
That it is remarkable is a big part of why Obama, not hawk McCain, was elected.'
You fail, ICT. Obama is not an accomplished or even a qualified Pres. His quest for solutons mirror those of folks who dither in Chicago style politics. Endless summits (brain trust), meetings, speeches(firesde chats), and TV appearances,and flying under the radar, without really accomplishing anything.
Mr ObamussoliniFDRTler often adjusts his views and his methods to the needs of the moment.
Dec 4, 2009 at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
For someone who is supposedly so intelligent, Krauthammer is consistently lazy rhetorically, resorting to disingenuousness and appeals to ridicule. Even a few lies. He's at least smart enough to know his audience.
.
"Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who... announced his surge—Iraq 2007—with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat."
.
And here we get to the very heart of what irks Krauthammer - still sore from his pony, W., being beaten up over issues of the Iraq War (a war Kraut wholly supports), he sees W.'s virtue in the face of it all to have been his blank-check commitment; his willingness to ignore the reality that lives, time, patience and money are all finite. And all with disregard for the effects on domestic affairs. God forbid Obama doesn't as enthusiastically adopt the same jingoistic stance.
.
"how will he stand up to the left when the going gets tough and the casualties mount, and he really has to choose between support from his party and success on the battlefield?"
.
Stand up to the left? Ha. For what reason? Kraut could only dream that, in Afghanistan, if "the going gets tough and the casualties mount" to the point that we're actually losing gains we have now, Obama would opt for so-called "success on the battlefield" by shoving his head in the sand and pressing ahead. In that way, Obama could finally "manage a George W. Bush" (in terms of Iraq, of course. W. never pressed ahead on Afghanistan).
What Kraut doesn't get is that, while we're easily successful on the battlefield, our main concern is the stability of a new government and security forces. If we were there simply to be successful at dolling out death, we could easily carpet bomb for days with disregard. Krautty might actually jump out of his chair, Dr Strangelove-style, and do a little dance, were that our strategy.
.
"On Tuesday night, he defined 'what’s at stake' as 'the common security of the world.' The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?"
.
Kraut's words betray him further, revealing his view of our country's role in the world - the global police.
The common security of the world is at stake, but the U.S. won't singularly fight that global threat endlessly until only one side is left standing? BLASPHEMY.
Is it really so much to consider the world's role in a worldwide problem? For a neocon like Kraut, yes.
.
"Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets—some of whom may not return alive—but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic."
.
For once I wholly agree with Krauthammer; it IS remarkable to have a President who takes such considerations. Finally.
That it is remarkable is a big part of why Obama, not hawk McCain, was elected.
.
"Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?"
.
For someone like Krauthammer, a devotee of the Cheney foreign policy persuasion, no.
Dec 4, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
wonder if Leonidas had someone like Obama as a CNC? "3,000 men? how about 300"
Dec 4, 2009 at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
dub
Too bad you watch Hannity after the President speaks.
Dec 4, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
my bad.
Dec 4, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Perhaps he should have just declared "Mission Accomplished" I am sure that did and would make Kraut, the Republican Hack, happy.
.
Dec 4, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Perhaps he should have just declared "Mission Accomplished" I am sure that did and would make Kraut the Republican Hack happy.
.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.