Obama Undercuts His Case
01 December 2009 10:00 pm by Taylor Marsh
“I am convinced our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” – Pres. Obama
The most important line in the speech, because both of these countries have people who are plotting against us and our international allies. Unfortunately, what grew up around those words broke it down.
As someone who has supported Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, including the strategic interests we have in this complicated and highly volatile region, this speech left me cold. I’m just stunned at the lack of vision and the conflicting imperatives.
Not one word about the obvious and ongoing humanitarian efforts we are doing for the women and girls of Afghanistan.
In a speech that was wholly political, with a mixture of economics and expensive realities wedged in the middle of a speech that began with 9/11, something George W. Bush could just have easily have given, we were supposed to understand that this was a national security imperative. With parts of the speech nakedly constructed towards 2012, and large swaths of the region’s challenges left unmentioned.
“We did not ask for this fight. On September 11th, 2001, 19 men…” and so it began, with Pres. Obama reminding everyone how we came to be in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. – Pres. Obama
An enduring test of our free society. Disorderly regions. Failed states. Coupling Pakistan and Afghanistan in a hodgepodge of AfghaniPakistan, as if these two countries are mirrors of one another.
Targeting the Taliban, making sure they don’t overtake Karzai, even as he says his government isn’t going to fall, while completely ignoring the reality that the Taliban is part of Afghanistan forever now.
No mention of Pakistan militancy and Islamic fervor. From my pal Mash:
9:01:19 PM: Any Afghan policy that ignores the Pak military’s incubation of Islamists is destined for failure.
And Al Qaeda is hardly the issue in Afghanistan, but yet…
“Taliban maintains ‘common cause’ with Al Qaeda”
Perhaps in Pakistan, but in Afghanistan, this is a recipe for We’re Screwed Soup.
I got the feeling Obama heard Joe Biden on Pakistan without understanding what he was talking about.
With the economic dose in the speech taking our national security in a direction that we’ve not heard before, especially given the gravity Obama made of the situation at the top. By basically saying that nation building is too expensive given what we’re experiencing at home financially, he undercut the urgency and imperative for sending more troops, because it’s in our national security interest. Topped with political calculation that we will begin withdrawing, depending on conditions on the ground, just before Obama’s re-election campaign begins, the whole conglomeration was a stunning political word pretzel.
The vision came up short.
The imperative to fight weakened by Obama’s rhetorical calculator.
Simply trying to make the best of what Bush-Cheney dumped in his lap, while also making every effort to give his general what he needs, not in numbers, but made up in timing, while keeping an eye on his own prerogatives, as he balanced the U.S. checkbook.
If I believed we had a Congress I’d say take the reins now, before Pres. Obama sinks us all, and I so wanted to support this action. But without the honest admittance of the humanitarian effort that is a focal point, especially on the women and girls, who will suffer unbelievable violence if this is not done right, none of this is worth it.
The incoming started immediately and there will be a lot more where this came from, on both sides, deservedly so. We’re in it now.
I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world. – Sen. Russ Feingold
“I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda. If it was, I would support an increase because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda since they’re out to annihilate us. But if Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded? I disagree with the President’s two key assumptions: that we can transfer responsibility to Afghanistan after 18 months and that our NATO allies will make a significant contribution. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months so there is really no exit strategy. This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.” – Sen. Arlen Specter
