President Obama and Afghanistan: Speech Critiques

[Darat]

I caught this bit of his speech during my lunch break, and all I could think was how incredibly, unforgivably stupid he was being.

Whether we should continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is matter of debate. But one thing we should never, ever do, is tell the enemy that we're going to stop fighting by a particular date, while the war is still underway. I am dumbfounded that we have a President who doesn't know better than this—who cannot clearly see what the consequences will be of this error.

We've just given the enemy what they need to beat us. They just need to lay low and conserve their resources, until we reach the designated pullout date. After that date, when we are no longer there to oppose them, they'll have all the resources that they've saved up to begin a renewed fight against the allied government that we leave behind.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

If you read the transcript you'll see that is not what he said:

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

 

[332nd]

If you read the transcript you'll see that is not what he said:

Really? Think so? I dare you to put on your right wing ideological filters and listen to that speech again!

 

[Darth Rotor]

I find the progressives' criticism of the speech disappointing. On the one hand the mess that made the whole situation worse occurred because we funded/supported the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan then just pulled out when the Soviets left. The Taliban took over after that. So how can just pulling out be the right answer this time?

"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin.

I agree with Stephanie Miller's comment tonight after the speech, as a liberal I am against war in general but as a woman I am against the Taliban. There was a struggle to free the oppressed women in Afghanistan long before 911 and I for one have not forgotten that. The Taliban's treatment of women cannot be allowed to resume.

I hear an echo of Hillary Clinton, mid 1990's. From what you wrote there, you feel we should spend our blood and treasure on women's liberation, world wide. Is that your preferred expenditure of our blood and treasure, cultural imperialism? Where changes have come, the world over, in the status of women, it has not generally come at the point of American bayonets. The change comes from exposure to more modern social models, and from within the society in question.

I'm willing to see if Obama is as intelligent as his speeches in dealing with this problem.

As am I. But it isn't just him, it's his entire policy team, both civil and military.

I was hoping to hear Obama say he would support schools that rival the Madrassas which are a source of recruits for the Taliban. But he did not mention it.

It may be a subset of the policy, or not. He made a general reference to increasing the other-than-armed efforts, but as you note, the specifics were lacking. I think that is an artifact of what he and his team felt were the critical topics of focus in his speech. Time is finite, a speech cannot address all concerns or it becomes unwieldly. Public Speaking 101. There is time for him, and for his Secretary of State, to amplify the policy steps to be undertaken via non-armed efforts

Obama's description of what makes this country great and what America really stands for, reflects my view of the world and what I wish this country actually did stand for. Unfortunately for that part of the speech, I found it full of untruths. Claiming we've never taken other countries' natural resources for ourselves was a lie. We've done it over and over. The US and Britain literally split the MidEast regions' oil resources between themselves in the 50s and that is where a lot of 'blowback' is coming from to this day.

If I may refer to Donald Sutherland (Odball) in Kelley's Heroes, we see here another case of "always with the negative waves, Moriarty." Your hair shirt is on order.

But if Obama goes forward with that idealistic philosophy, that Americans are like John Wayne's portrayal of us in the old war movies, then I'm OK with the speech even knowing it was not true about us in the past. Afterall, if Obama would have spoken the truth the conservatives would have had way more than a cow about it. We'd of never heard the end that it was a blame America speech.

I am trying to grasp what value the American President accrues when he blames America, or dwells on our mistakes. Why do you choose to dwell on them?

I thought the speech was good. Now we just have to see if the actions taken are just as good.

Agreed.

On another note, Cheney is insane. I think he may really be off his nut. Very disgusting crap came from him over the last few weeks. He needs to admit he screwed up or shut up.

This thread isn't about Dick Cheney. It is about what President Obama is doing, where he wants to go with this challenge based on what he told America and the world last night.

DR

 

[Puppycow]

We've just given the enemy what they need to beat us. They just need to lay low and conserve their resources, until we reach the designated pullout date. After that date, when we are no longer there to oppose them, they'll have all the resources that they've saved up to begin a renewed fight against the allied government that we leave behind.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Sure, they could do that, and meanwhile the training of the Afghan army will continue unmolested and by the time we leave they'll be ready to take over.

Please, let the Taliban "lay low" for the next two years! Best case scenario.

 

[Travis]

Actually the establishment of a tentative timeline might be beneficial. A lot of the Pashtun are fighting because they have been led to believe that the US wants to be an occupier there permanently for some reason (according to my friend who served there with the USMC) so giving them the idea that we are in fact interested in stabilizing the place and then pulling out might compel some to question why they are supporting the insurgency. It won't mean much to the radicals but they are never going to be won over anyways.

 

[BeAChooser]

I agree with this guy ...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...p_our_military_to_fail_lBlTIHm69SM02Lly5JbNaO

Setting up our military to fail

... snip ...

Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.

... snip ...


What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

 

[Eyeron]

Then you must be very happy.

Please share your feelings of complacency with the Tea-Baggers.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative as I hate both parties to no end. So don't assume things.

 

[Kariboo]

We've just given the enemy what they need to beat us. They just need to lay low and conserve their resources, until we reach the designated pullout date. After that date, when we are no longer there to oppose them, they'll have all the resources that they've saved up to begin a renewed fight against the allied government that we leave behind.

Don't you think that they already would have done so if that were an option? Why not play dead 3 years ago? Pretend you don't exist anymore and the troops will cry victory and leave.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I caught this bit of his speech during my lunch break, and all I could think was how incredibly, unforgivably stupid he was being.

Whether we should continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is matter of debate. But one thing we should never, ever do, is tell the enemy that we're going to stop fighting by a particular date, while the war is still underway. ....

This is one view. And in that view you are saying the issue is: the radicals in the region are the key to the war.

What Obama has recognized (I hope) is the lesson we should have learned long ago but mostly haven't. That is: this kind of war is won only when the people are on your side. Right now the Afghans are being persuaded by those few radicals that we are liars really only there to occupy the country. The same was the case in Iraq.

The people in both these countries see a foreign army occupying their country. For every innocent person we kill as collateral damage, they see themselves as powerless to influence this foreign occupier.

Obama is sending the message, we are here to help you, not control you.

Smart smart smart!!!!!!!!!



And by the way, your view was in practice for over 6 years and things have only deteriorated since Bush proclaimed, "Mission accomplished", in 2003.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin. [snipped the reply to imaginary comments]
DR

Please try again and take off your, "I know what she wrote without reading it glasses", thank you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with this guy ...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...p_our_military_to_fail_lBlTIHm69SM02Lly5JbNaO

Apparently the claim Bush took too long and didn't give the generals what they wanted is a gross distortion of the facts.

The arguments against your arguments:

The troop request was always for 2010, not immediate, so the the claim Obama was dithering is ignorant of the facts.

Obama is trying to get the remaining 10,000 from our allies of which about 5,000 are now likely committed to. That makes us 5,000 short of the general's request, not 10,000 and the other 5,000 are still possible.


The Republics could care less about anything whatsoever except criticism of Obama. The ones in power and in the media are incapable for the most part of any kind of an intelligent assessment of the actual issues or facts. Spin the criticism, facts don't matter.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Obama's lost Moore.

 

[Cynic]

Tragic.

 

[dudalb]

Obama's lost Moore.

Obama will not miss him.
Moore's rant was pretty typical. No mention of why we went in, and he hand waves away any idea that Al Qaida and Islamic Extremism might pose any threat to the US. And Moore does not purpose any alternative course of action; just pull out.

 

[Brainster]

If he lives up to what he said in that speech, I will be pleased. It was mostly a fine speech, although I admit I skipped the whole section on why this will not be another Vietnam, since it was not aimed at me.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

He's better off without him, to be honest.

Not that I expect my opinion to be worth anything, but I don't honestly have any idea what the hell is going to work. I understand pulling out would surrender the Afghan people to the mercy of the Taliban, but I don't see how the United States can better the Soviet's action in that region. It feels a bit like a movie, and the next 18 months will be the final act, a showdown with terror.

Whatever the case, the Afghan people deserve better after decades of war.

 

[Skeptic]

The National Review right now has a very interesting analysis. They are no fans of Obama, but they are NOT conspiratorial about him. When he does right, in their view, they say so openly. Their reaction to the speech is that the speech as a speech was a flop (too long, confused, etc.) but that that is not important -- what's important is that the policy suggested is good. Fair enough, I think.

 

[Dragoonster]

The National Review right now has a very interesting analysis. They are no fans of Obama, but they are NOT conspiratorial about him. When he does right, in their view, they say so openly. Their reaction to the speech is that the speech as a speech was a flop (too long, confused, etc.) but that that is not important -- what's important is that the policy suggested is good. Fair enough, I think.

Eh, they spend most of the article bashing him. A sample of their non-conspiratorial "analysis":

Still, it’s obvious that Obama’s heart isn’t in the Afghan war and that he’s therefore incapable of communicating the depth of commitment appropriate when sending men and women into harm’s way. His base turned on the war as soon as it lost its usefulness as a campaign talking point, and Obama never had any intention of becoming a war president. He cares most about his domestic project of making us a Western European-style social democracy; there’s always another $1 trillion to spend, another massive government intervention to champion.

But sure, they do agree the policy is okay. I agree it might be okay, but there are many details left unanswered, which have been raised in the thread.

One point I certainly take issue with:

And it speaks to a worrisome impatience — and sensitivity to the political calendar — in an endeavor that requires time and an iron stomach.

No amount of patience or troops will solve anything if the overall strategy is flawed, which it has been and may still be. Calling a standstill and quagmire and neglect of eight years "patience" is being very generous. With patience like that, every new administration will be very slightly tweaking troop numbers and priorites in Afghanistan for the next 100 years.

Impatience on the other hand could lead to actual resolution. So I'm all for impatience.

 

[Policenaut]

What resolution? Afghanistan seems to be a lose-lose proposition no matter what we do. The outcome seems predetermined. We will leave and the Taliban (with a good dose of propaganda such as "We beat the USA and the world") will return to power. The Afghan army is a joke as in the current govt. which will certainly fall as soon as US/NATO forces leave. So essentially we are back where we started.

 

[Dragoonster]

What resolution? Afghanistan seems to be a lose-lose proposition no matter what we do. The outcome seems predetermined. We will leave and the Taliban (with a good dose of propaganda such as "We beat the USA and the world") will return to power. The Afghan army is a joke as in the current govt. which will certainly fall as soon as US/NATO forces leave. So essentially we are back where we started.

Resolution is ending the war and allowing the government to stand or fail--recognizing that we've done about as much as we were able and can't solve everything. The alternative is annexation or centuries of occupation. I didn't mean a winning resolution. Or one that ensures we won't be back there in 20 years to do the invade--regime change--leave cycle again. That'll be up to the Afghans. Our point has been made to any country--harbor those who attack us and you'll be invaded and regime-changed. Demonstrating that point is enough of a victory, if you want a winning spin.

Long-term resolution is reducing reasons radical Islamists want to attack us, which won't happen via any particular war. Only foreign policy change will bring a permanent resolution.