Our distracted commander in chief
WASHINGTON — Many have charged that President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan 10 months from now is hampering our war effort. But now it’s official.
In a stunning statement last week, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway admitted that the July 2011 date is “probably giving our enemy sustenance.” A remarkably bold charge for an active military officer. It stops just short of suggesting aiding and abetting the enemy.
Yet the observation is obvious: It is surely harder to prevail in a war that hinges on the allegiance of the locals when they hear the U.S. president talk of beginning a withdrawal that will ultimately leave them to the mercies of the Taliban.
How did Obama come to this decision?
“Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics,” an Obama adviser at the time told The New York Times’ Peter Baker. “He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform, and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.”
If this is true, then Obama’s military leadership can only be called scandalous. During the past week, 22 Americans were killed over a four-day period in Afghanistan. This is not a place about which decisions should be made in order to placate congressmen, pass health care and thereby maintain a president’s political standing. This is a place about which a president should make decisions to best succeed in the military mission he himself has set out.
But Obama sees his wartime duties as a threat to his domestic agenda. These wars are a distraction, unwanted interference with his true vocation—transforming America.
Such an impression could only have been reinforced when, given the opportunity in his Oval Office address this week to dispel the widespread perception in Afghanistan that America is leaving, Obama doubled down on his ambivalence.
After giving a nod to the pace of troop reductions being conditions-based, he declared with his characteristic “but make no mistake” that “this transition will begin—because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.”
These are the words of a man who wants out. Most emphatically on Iraq, where from the beginning Obama has made clear that his objective is simply ending combat operations by an arbitrary deadline—despite the fact that a new government has not been formed and all our hard-won success hangs in the balance—in order to address the more paramount concern: keeping a campaign promise. Time to “turn the page” and turn America elsewhere.
At first you’d think that turning is to Afghanistan. But Obama added nothing to his previously stated Afghan policy while emphatically reiterating July 2011 as the beginning of the end, or more diplomatically, of the “transition.”
Well then, at least you’d then expect some vision of his larger foreign policy. After all, this was his first Oval Office address on the subject. What is the meaning, if any, of the Iraq and Afghan wars? And what of the clouds that are forming beyond those theaters: the drone-war escalation in Pakistan, the rise of al-Qaeda in Yemen, the danger of Somalia falling to al-Shabab, and the threat of renewed civil war in Islamist Sudan as a referendum on independence for southern Christians and animists approaches?
This was the stage for Obama to explain what follows the now-abolished Global War on Terror. Where does America stand on the spreading threats to stability, decency and U.S. interests from the Horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush?
On this, not a word. Instead, Obama made a strange and clumsy segue into a pep talk on the economy. Rebuilding it, he declared, “must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.”
This in a speech ostensibly about the two wars he is directing. He could not have made more clear where his priorities lie, and how much he sees foreign policy—war policy—as subordinate to his domestic ambitions.
Unfortunately, what for Obama is a distraction is life or death for U.S. troops now on patrol in Kandahar province. Some presidents may not like being wartime leaders. But they don’t get to decide. History does. Obama needs to accept the role. It’s not just the U.S. military, as Baker reports, that is “worried he is not fully invested in the cause.” Our allies, too, are experiencing doubt. And our enemies are drawing sustenance.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Sep 8, 2010 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
What our nation did to the native American was a travesty and a permanent black eye for every single person who lives in this nation - white, black, hispanic, asian, pink, purple or orange.
BUT our current president would like us all to follow him down the path of indignant, irreverent, frivolous spending on more and more government entitlements which will expand and bloat and destroy our federal government.
It is scandalous and it is an act of huge irresponsibility by the man sitting in the Oval Office....
Sep 4, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don't forget to add to the list the California Chinese/Japanese during WWII.
Sep 4, 2010 at 6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hey kid you smoked up punk he is not my president I did not vote for the "change" or the socialism that "your dear leader" offers. If you would come out of your haze you could see what Hier Obama has done to this country. UnAmerican how dare you you little waste of space. I guess it was alright for the looney left to say that for 8 years. And now on the NVgrf if you think you have to have socialism to have fire and police protection your on the same page as Briarloon who thinks buildings have constitutional rights. I really think after Barry looses his majority and then the white house in two years. That you should head to see your buddy Hugo Chavez. Let us know how much you like it there. With the shortages of the basic needs to live..like food. Then tell me how well this socialism works. Socialism is where the government runs everything do you really want this government running anything? They can barely feed themselves for crying out loud. I thought all you left wing people were supposed to move to Canada when Bush was elected how come your still here. Or did you all miss the short bus when it stopped at your house. Come on November you cannot get here fast enough.
Sep 3, 2010 at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama is apparently still trying to vote "Present". What a poor excuse for a president.
Sep 3, 2010 at 5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.tradersnarrative.com/america-...
Here is an article on why we should oppose evil socialism. Although I wonder if you will read it.
Sep 3, 2010 at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
facts101 (or his version of them) If you honestly do not know how our fire departments and police departments are examples of socialism, they you really don't understand that economic system and how it functions at all. How about economics101?
Sep 3, 2010 at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
'And lets get one thing straight right now he is your president '
love him or hate him those are words that could only be uttered, or typed, by someone who is NOT american...or an american traitor.
Sep 3, 2010 at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
None of them are qualified to run a government. There are no statesmen to be found.
Sep 3, 2010 at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
time for this guy to go. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and understood why people wanted a change from bush but come on the guy is unqualified and lacks the kind of leadership skills it takes to run a big government. Hoping a real leader steps up in 2012
Sep 3, 2010 at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Should I also thank socialism for the fat government pensions that we have to pay for, or the studies of homosexual lifestyle milues in Bankok? Or for our $13 trillion debt? Or our outrageouls property taxes, income taxes, and employment taxes? Or bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid programs?
Or is there someone else I should thank for that?
Sep 3, 2010 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is a good eight minute video about the only president we have ever had with a criminal record what he did or did not do... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtnE4C9Gv...
Sep 3, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
The column is spot on.
Sep 3, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.
Sep 3, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
This entire article is a LIE.
.
President Obama said the GOAL is to begin the withdrawal then and that decision will be based on the conditions ON THE GROUND.
.
There will not be a withdrawal unless the conditions allow for one. Conditions that the President and the military agree on.
.
Kraut...you need a new hobby...you have perfected LYING!
Sep 3, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fly how long should we stay in korea, japan, germany, england, turkey, italy, spain, greece, and belgium? Don't forget the other +100 countries were troops are located.
Sep 3, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
NVgrf what the hell does needing a cop or a firefighter have to do with socialism? And lets get one thing straight right now he is your president I did not vote for the "change" since I saw right through all his fancy lines and pipe dreams of socialism. He has put the country on a path to double dip recession. Thanks to his endless spending. And yes he did have a huge majority but he has overstepped his mandate. And now with his popularity heading for the depths of hell he knows he overstepped. A majority may have voted for him but the majority would not vote for him now. We can wait until November to get the final numbers but its going to be a major blow to his re-making of America. And it cannot come soon enough. He should get used to seeing the word repeal. Even members of his own party are running from his "agenda" what does that tell ya. It tells me its an election year and they have screwed up for two years and now want to keep their jobs. Thank God the American people have awaken from their two year deep sleep only to see the nightmare that took place while they slept.
Sep 3, 2010 at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Another straight-up, reality-based, dose of political analysis from Charles Krauthammer.
The one word that sums up Obama's view of the war efforts: ambivalence. Or is it "Ombivalence"?
Sep 3, 2010 at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
As an intelligent person, you must realize that I called what he spews idiotic... not the man. That is certainly not namecalling. Please read a bit more carefully before you go on the attack. Our President is well on his way to accomplishing nearly all of the things he promised in his campaign. Health care and troop withdrawls are just two main examples. And he was elected to do so by a large margin. You and the other right wingers just have to grow up and get over it.
And the next time you need a police officer or the fire department or go to the library, be sure to say thanks for socialism. We live in a mixed economy and always have. But I am sure you were already aware of that.
Sep 3, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
NVgrf on the attack again? Defend Obama on this...you cannot. Obama is very busy trying to re-make America into a socialist state that he forgets he is also in charge of running two wars. And I am sure this is a distraction for him and the rest of the socialists. But when he took the job he took it all. As president you cannot pick and choose you have to do it all. This idiotic nonsense as you call it is the truth. You cannot handle the truth so you attack and name call. The only idiotic nonsense here comes in the form of your post.
Sep 3, 2010 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
"But Obama sees his wartime duties as a threat to his domestic agenda."
This says it all about Krauthammer. War is not a hinderance to improving things domestically? So typical of the idiotic nonsense he spews daily.
Sep 3, 2010 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
They're busy taking credit for "ending" the war in Iraq, even though they opposed the surge, which is what allowed Iraq to become the success they're touting.
Shameless hypocrites.
Sep 3, 2010 at 7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Krauthammer's column is right on. Pres Obama is sacrificing our nation's safety and security as well as ruining the relationships with our longtime allies so that he can pursue his society-reforming domestic programs. Where are all the Obama fans from 2 years ago? I don't see anyone writing in defending the President's actions anymore?
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.