Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t — that is how President Obama must feel awaiting tonight’s speech at West Point where he will announce an additional 30,000 troops will be sent to fight in Afghanistan. In one corner, he has his so-called supporters – those that voted for him thinking he was the peace-nik, anti-war President they always dreamed of. In the other corner, are his detractors – people who do not like this President and will rally against him if he doesn’t agree with the full orders of his Generals. And somewhere in between all of that mess is reality.
The hardest part for Obama will be to rationalize his decision with the far left progressive wing of his base. What started out as staunch support has began to dwindle as the progressive agenda has been slowed by the moderation of American society and representation. Now he is routinely being questioned for not being vocal enough in support of liberal ideology. It has gotten to the point where two of the most influential commentators in this wing of the political spectrum are openly critical of his decision-making. Last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann miraculously managed to see through his own smugness clouding his visual path to his teleprompter and offered a Special Comment regarding the upcoming announcement. Olby questioned the intelligence the President was receiving and told the President the only way to salvage his legacy is to “…declare victory, and get out.” The tone of his special comment was earnest and despite the decision Olbermann knows is coming, still dripped of sympathy and support for the President…
…Which is unlike the open letter offered by filmmaker Michael Moore on his website. Moore implores Obama to pull out of Afghanistan or risk losing the millions of young supporters he earned in his campaign:
Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.
Moore goes on to take shots at the military, our generals (generalizing that “we” all hate them) and the former administration. But don’t be mistaken by his pot-shots – the message in his letter is clear that Obama is making a decision that will forever tarnish his legacy:
Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you’re doing it so you can “end the war”) will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you’ve said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone — and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout “tea bag!”
As the dissent from the top of the progressive movement becomes more vocal, those beneath have followed suit. Many who have supported Obama for his earlier decisions on Gitmo and Iraq, although not yet complete, are beginning to show signs that they can not tolerate this decision. More people are coming out against the Afghan War after hearing from their like-minded commentators and as the decision becomes a reality. But the odd thing is, Obama was never against the Afghan War. He called it the “war of necessity” ever since the campaign. I dont know what these guys were listening too. Were they hoping he was lying and fooling the majority of folks that he is not soft on national security?
He will need to pacify his base by focusing his speech on the efforts to get out of the war. He will undoubtedly say that the increase in troops is a temporary measure to speed up the timetable to pull out all troops. CNN is already reporting that he will say that he wants – but can’t guarantee – troops to be out before his first term is over. Tonight’s speech will emphasize the good we need to achieve with the Afghan people, over the negative of fighting our combatants.
On the other hand, there are some on the right that are just as bothered by this decision. A month ago George Will penned a column saying troops should be off the ground. Lately, the pull back from the conservative wing focuses on Obama’s lengthy decision-making process and his disregard to completely follow the opinions of his leadership on the ground. While I understand the frustration towards Obama for not pulling the trigger sooner, I don’t believe it has led to more deaths in Afghanistan. More troops doesn’t mean less bombs in the sand. Ultimately it’s not about when he makes the decision, but how quick is the turnaround and how effective is the strategy. Also, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, not the other way around. Generals give them their info, and he is the CEO in determining the correct strategy with all effects involved.
The other complaint coming from the right is that Obama is framing the war decision not as a fight to win, but as a fight to get out of Afghanistan. Conservative blog Red State, uses this complaint and the dithering complaint in a column written today. How they frame the debate politically to the nation doesn’t matter. We all are smart enough to figure out what is going on. Execution on the ground and a victory in Afghanistan will not be deterred by how the mission is sold to the American public. Many want to know there is a plan to end the war and it should be thought out in this strategy.
Many conservatives, such as Karl Rove, have supported Obama’s strategy. Personally, I do, too. I don’t see war decisions as political ones or that they should follow any sort of ideology. There are enemies to this nation at large, and no matter how much we want peace, it doesn’t make us any more safe wishing for it to happen. I’m sure Obama didnt come to office dreaming of war, just as I think Bush wasn’t until the attacks on 9/11. I feel pretty confident, like I did with George W. Bush’s war choices that there is intelligence out there that we the public are not privy to, nor should we be. And even if I’m wrong, we vote these guys in to make tough decisions like this one – to keep us safe, so we can pay more attention to TMZ and Tiger Woods’ SUV. Politics is a result-driven business, and in 3 years this decision will likely effect the outcome of our 2012 elections. I applaud Obama for making a decision against his political allies for what he thinks is right and will support the Afghan War troop increase.
3conservativebros
MacGregor
Johnny M
Timmy K
I was pleasantly surprised at the specific content of his address. Thought it correct on all levels. Was not impressed with the sleeping cadets. I feel, given the circumstances and national security priorities, that is the best course in a land mine field of courses.
I thought there were some really good parts and some weak parts, but nothing he said surprised me. Its shame that in order to rationalize the war he has to divulge the entire strategy, including date of exit. Its quite a rational question to ask, “Why dont they just hide for 18 months?” But he had to rationalize it to his own caucus, so I dont blame him for releasing so many specifics.
I agree with John McCain (R) and Joe Sestak (D) that the pull out should not have an end date, but rather a goal post to say – “when we get here, we pull back”. It was nice to Sestak who is the progressive candidate favored by many in the 2010 primary against Arlen Spector (who ironically, said we should pull everyone out), to use rational thought….
Too bad for Obama, that most members of his own caucus cannot rationalize the reality and are just opposed to war: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/34231583#34231583
I also like how he said directly to his party that national security is not an issue of ideology. He did a little too much unnecessary past reflection of Bush for my liking, but its true the Iraq War created a lot of skeptics. I think Obama is doing whats right, not whats politically best for him.
Good post Johnny, you touched on everything he said during his speech before hand.
I agree with Gabe… correct on all levels. I think you can tell he did his job when the media is all over the board when grading the speech. I know the case can be made that he set up the military to fail but like you said damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
Where I disagree with you is the commander in chief part. Yes, is he the ultimately responsible and has to take into account all issues. However there is rarely a time when those “issues” should interfere with what the generals need to complete their mission. I certainly don’t see anything here that should stop Obama from giving McCrystal everything he wants. I will take Obama at his word though when he says that troop level increases where not delayed based upon his long decision making process.
I guess Im thinking about it just like the government is a real world business (at a much more important and costly level). Obama and his security team are the CEO & Board. The military is his Sales team – who wants to offer the customer everything no matter the cost. Congress is the Operations team, that is trying to do everything to lower their costs and increase profits. Its the CEO’s job to balance the two properly based on real world factors.
Ive got nothing to base this on, but if McCrystal is a good negotiator he asked for 40K, knowing he’d maybe only get 25K. Its the same as me asking a customer for a 10% increase, when I know Ive left myself room to negotiate to 5%.
LOL! “lengthy decision-making process…” How long did W. have troops on the ground in Afghanistan before listening to the generals pleading for adequate numbers to successfully their mission? Oh, that’s right, never could quite manage that in seven years… Loving the blog boys!
You can argue that Bush mismanaged the wars, but you cant argue that he didnt always try to get enough troops on the ground in every region or react quickly to requests from his generals. More times than not, the struggle was getting agreement in the Congress after the Dems took over in ’06. It was a struggle in Jan ’07 when the generals only wanted 3500 more troops.
Oh, that’s too bad. I thought maybe the previous administration might have had some moral philosophical or intellectual misgivings about sending Americans off to die and kill for no good reason. I guess W really is no better the Obama after all.
In the topic of national security, its fair to say they have administered about the same policy, except of course Gitmo/terrorist trials.
Depending on your own beliefs you can determine if thats both good policy, or both bad policy. I summarize its good policy, but so far bad execution in the last 3 years of Afghanistan.
“…generals pleading for adequate numbers to successfully complete their mission?”
What your missing is that they did complete their first mission, there was never a time in which Generals asked for more men. Think about it… Removed the Taliban from power and scattered Al Quada all over quickly in late 01. early 02 started building hospitals and schools looking for more traces of terrorists…. Found problems with Iraq and after investigations invaded in 03.
Bush’s problem was with Iraq, he never asked the generals to mix it up pakistan and eradicate the taliban. We were nation building and didn’t realize that it wouldn’t be possible to get rid of the taliban that way until 07.
“Bush’s problem was with Iraq” that certainly was one of them.
“We were nation building and didn’t realize that it wouldn’t be possible to get rid of the taliban that way until 07.” Geez, most of the people whose opinions I respect had a pretty good hunch that the whole invasion was short sighted, misguided and completely stupid. And not to put too fine a point on it, but I do distinctly remember an interview with Gen Meyers in 2002 talking about the need for 50,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Back when there were about 10,000 units of cannon fodder deployed. And the Taliben had already been “toppled…” LOL! Over the next 6 years troops levels hovered around 20/25,000. I could find citations for you, but I really just don’t care any more. I just hope that Obama sending more Americans off to kill anonymous brown people in a third world country will have the desired result of getting a few key republican votes to pass a spayed and neutered health care reform package.
Well Mack, those people who you respect are pretty short sighted towards America’s security then. If they weren’t even willing to go into afgan right after 9/11 you must love the ultra peace crowd.
Your must have an amazing photographic memory to recall an interview in 2002. I barely found it using google… http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june02/myers_4-19.html
but any way, after reading the article lehrer eggs the general on to say he has inadequate support…. each time Myer says
“I’ve said on several occasions I think we have the people we need both in the active component and in the reserve component to do what the President calls upon us to do.”
So if you have any credible “citations” that show some kind of lack of personnel at the hands of GW please show me. Or do you “just not care anymore” because you have no evidence to back up your claims?
No photographic memory. I just used to pay attention, take notes, and write papers and STUFF. I found it a better way to vent my frustration than strangling flag waving yahoos who couldn’t find Afghanistan on a map or decide just how many Afghans Saddam ordered to commandeer those planes on that fateful day, never mind explain how killing tens of thousands of Afghan civilians would somehow make the ultra-conservative Muslim lunatic fringe hate our freedom any less.
I’ll be home over the holidays. My shit should still be in a box somewhere at my mom’s place. Give me your address and I’ll send you photocopied articles from Field Artilery, Army Times, Foreign Policy, etc. I certainly don’t need them anymore. You can paypal me the postage.
i really wish i could edit my grammar and spelling up in this piece, yo.
Hey homeboy,
Just so you konw, your brahhhhs at Disgruntled Monks think its great to edit others comments. We dont do that here.
Mack,
So all that research and you have determined what? What should our involvment in “the world” be? Just curious.