Obama and Afghanistan: Bad Speech, Good Strategy
It feels good to support your president even if you didn’t vote for him, and this is one of those moments. The biggest flaw in President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan is the text he used to deliver it, not the actual substance.
Obama announced that he’d be sending 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of American forces there to over 100,000. This is less than the 40,000 requested by General McChrystal. Given McChrystal’s record and the stakes in Afghanistan, adopting his recommendations was the obvious answer to the problems our efforts have been facing, and many critics became frustrated that it took President Obama several months to come around to that same conclusion.
Obama addressed this criticism by saying, “Now, let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.” If the president’s critics want to continue to argue that his delay in making a decision was leaving our troops more vulnerable, they better be able to show that a plan was given to him to send troops before next year that was therefore jeopardized. Likewise, if the president wants to claim that the previous administration denied requests from its commanders in Afghanistan for more troops, it should provide the documents to prove so, as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has demanded.
Obama, faced with anti-war sentiment from the left and a desire to show his reluctance to send any more soldiers than absolutely necessary, made a smart political move in sending only 30,000 soldiers while pushing our allies to send in their own reinforcements to make up the difference. NATO’s secretary-general has already announced that the alliance will send in 5,000 more soldiers and said, “I would expect a few thousand on top of that.” This immediately brings the troop total to almost the level McChrystal said he needed. The key question now is if our allies will allow those additional soldiers to be used effectively without burdensome restraints, a problem we’ve faced in the past.
President Obama has chosen the right leaders to implement the right strategy. Unfortunately, his speech did not explain at all how the strategy has changed, aside from a brief mentioning of using the soldiers to “secure key population centers” and help build reliable Afghan security forces. There was no mentioning of how this would be done differently than in the past or bring different results, or what benchmarks would be set to assess progress, as had been insisted upon by Democrats in order to fund a similar surge in Iraq. To Americans who have not closely followed the leaks about the new strategy, they are only hearing that more soldiers will be sent to fight for the same cause in the same way with hopefully different results. These omissions will result in less public support for the plan than otherwise could be obtained.
It feels good to support your president even if you didn’t vote for him,
So Democrats undermined former President’s acyion to the point their actions conforted enemey’s morale (and will do it again after 2012) but now Republicans support Obama.
Bad speech, good strategy
No; In a guerrilla war speeches are more powerful than bombs. If you tell ‘”we will remin the time it is needed for detroying the guerrilla” thais will have no choice but fight and you can destroy it. If you give an exit date then they can go on low prodile (ie just enought tyhe locals know they are still there) until the deadline is close. And when it nears more and more locals begin to fear fior their lives and join it.
You know what Mr. Mauro the worldwide war against terrorism isn’t a joke or some kind of quasi-popularity contest for Obama’s personal pleasure and tinkering in Afghanistan.
General McChrystal asked for 80,000 troops and flat out stated that a minimum of 40,000 AMERICAN TROOPS are needed right now for us to win in Afghanistan.
Obama’s strategy was to make a grand royal speech about Obama and how smart he knows that he really is. It was an arrogant, condescending slap in the face to General McChrystal, a serious blow to the defense posture of our nation and an absurd insult to the intelligence of the American people.
One look at the faces of the Cadets at West Point
told the truth better than anything, any expert (including you Mr. Mauro) has written or said so far. In less than a year Obama has literally ripped our nation to shreds and collapsed the morale; even the fighting spirit of our Armed Forces.
Stop telling lies about Obama!
I think what bothered me most about the speech was that I didn’t get andequate explanation on what “victory” would be in Afghanistan. If all you want to do is maintain a presence in that country to give the Taliban and al Qaeda a hard time, you really don’t need 100,000 plus American and NATO troops in that country. If we maintained a large base from within that country (like we do in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba), we could use that base as a staging area or as a launch point to direct attacks against al Qaeda. But if our intention is to DEFEAT the Taliban and al Qaeda, then we are going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long, time. Afghanistan is NOT Iraq. The people and that country are very different. Afghanistan has almost no infrastructure, its major crop is opium, and they have a mostly illiterate population that’s struggling with the fact that we’re in the 21st Century and not the 13th Century. If “victory” is the defeat of the Taliban and al Qaeda in that country, PLUS securing the huge mountainous border with Pakistan, then folks we’re in that country for the next 20 years or so. Don’t believe me? Well, we have been in Kosovo now for about 10 years and Bill Clinton said we’d be out in about a year or two. And our base in Kosovo shows no signs of closing. And THAT is Kosovo, where nobody is trying to kill our troops on a daily basis. So if our goal is to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda and secure the Afghan border, that July 2011 deadline was an out and out lie. If you think we can hand this job over to the Afghans in 2011, dream on. If we couldn’t do it in eight years of fighting, how can we logically do it in 18 months? And if our intention is to really leave in the summer of 2011, then we should just leave now and spare the expense in lives, time, and money. So what is “victory” going to look like in Afghanistan? Obama certainly didn’t tell us in his speech and that is inexcusable.
As a conservative Republican I cannot and will not support Obama’s war and I think that Republicans who come running out to support him are seriously wrong. It is time to get out of Afghanistant and stop wasting America lives and taxes on a futile effort to build democracy in a land where it will never never never take root. The Progressive idea that we can “make the world safe for democracy” has been the downfall of this once great nation. It is time to bring the troops home and while we are at it, bring them home from Europe, Japan, Korea, the Pacific etc.
Ryan Mauro listened to the speech and wrote, “good strategy.” I listened to the speech and said “what’s the strategy.”
Obama read the speech and I believe still doesn’t know what a military strategy is. Which kind of disqualifies him, to way
of thinking, from being commander in chief.
Obama, to me, is so disengaged at the thought of fighting a war that he’s refused to learn how to do it.
He owed it to the troops to find out. Failing to find out, he owes it to the troops to resign.
Obama just might be the worst U.S. President in the history of our nation.
Why are we in Afghanistan?
This is from the Washington Post article about the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan that Diana West took apart the other day:
“Marine commanders have little doubt that the additional 9,000 troops moving into the province will push the Taliban out of its remaining sanctuaries in Helmand. But the gains will be transitory if U.S. forces do not build effective local police forces and foster a government that is relatively free of corruption and can provide for the Afghan people, U.S. officials said”
Right. Let me translate the last paragraph into its pure logical form. We have got to do A. It is absolutely essential that we do A. Furthermore, A. is doable. But there’s a catch. All the results won by doing A. will come to nought if we don’t also do B., and it just so happens that B. is not possible in this Bleeping universe!
There is no way, not in this world, not in some alternative dimension of reality, in which the U.S. has the ability to foster an Afghan government that is relatively free of corruption and can “provide” for the Afghan people. It’s not in our power.
And since we can’t foster such a government, we will not be able to keep the Taliban from returning to Helmand and rendering in vain all our struggles and the losses of our soldiers’ lives.
And yet all the trained intellects of the military and the national security establishment, with all the expertise and energy they devote to this problem, and all their intelligence reports and their task forces and their brainstorming sessions and their PowerPoint presentations, never grasp this obvious, fatal flaw in their thinking. I’m starting to think that it’s a genetic flaw in the American mind.
Well, maybe it’s not that bad. Maybe it’s not a genetic flaw in the American mind but in the liberal mind.
But … is there a difference?
Lawrence Auster
You can’t expect the average Afghani in the street to understand the subtleties of US politics. When they hear that we’re going to leave, that’s what will stick. The Taliban will leverage this doubt. The population knows their ruthlessness, and their memory is long. This could make our efforts there much, much harder, as Afghanis, sensing certain Taliban payback, will be reluctant to cooperate and provide intelligence.
Better to get out now.
This is sarcasm, right? What good are 30,000 troops when their ROE is so limited and their mission is not to root out the Taliban or AQ, but to help stabilize the main cities in order for the Afghan army to stand up. We can accomplish the same mission with Spec Ops guys-providing we have any left after the upcoming court martial of three SEALS.
And just how strategic is it to tell the Taliban and AQ, oh by the way, in 18 months-right before I am to coronated again, our troops will be recalled? “…winning the political side of this conflict…” That is why we lost Vietnam-our military did not lose but our politicians did lose it for us. Politicians governing military strategy and listening to polls or protestors is a sure lose strategy.
If you want to win the war-win it the way Patton or MacArthur would have won it. If not then let’s get out.
Obama: the best Republican President ever.
Its difficult to believe you still expect to be taken seriously after that debacle with the “tape” incident.
Good strategy for death of more American soldiers, encouraging the enemy, slinking away with our tails tucked between our legs like cur dogs in a few months. Obama is using my son and other warriors like him for “a good photo op”, playing both ends against the middle for his eternal re-election campaign, sending a fraction of the 80,000 troops requested (yes, eighty, not thirty thousand). The American military is being weakened, demoralized, and sacrificed on the altar of liberal politics by this stranger among us. Obama makes me sick in by gut, which warns me he is a danger to all I hold dear in America and at home. Maybe Obama’s hidden medical records have some good news for me; brain cancer seems likely.
Until the opium profits are blocked from the Taliban, we are going to lose, just as we are losing South America with our spectacular failure known as the “War on Drugs”.
It’s been suggested that we build a pharmaceutical plants and license growers, as is done in Turkey and India, for the manufacture of Rx pain killers. It would allow the growers to make more profit by removing protection costs (which our WOD makes necessary) and the cruel life imposed by the Taliban.
This is the only way to win Afghanistan. Soon the Russians will be supplying SAM’s and we’ll have the same hell we handed to them.
Bad Speech, and even Worse Strategy. More eloquent writers than have addressed the pathetic speech. The strategy is bad as well. Writers such as Ralph Peters, John R. Miller and Jerry Pournelle make a compelling case that the U.S. should get out of Afghanistan. Keep a small special forces presence and use air power to destroy any terrorist camps that pop-up. Forget about nation-building, installing a democracy, or training the Afghanistan Army/Police. Because that effort will fail. Has failed. Afghanistan is not Iraq or Vietnam. It is not a nation. It is a bunch of Khans, warlords, tribal leaders or whatever you want to call them. Nation building would fail if we stayed there 10 years. 18 months; it’s ridiculous.
The only valid reason for staying in Afghanistan is that it we will damage our credibility if we pull out. Is our credibility at this point worth American lives and billions of dollars?
The supposedly brilliant Obama, in fact missed a great opportunity with his decision. The smart play, would have been to pull out of Afghanistan. He would have saved lives and treasure while pleasing his radical left base. But he did not have the guts. Perhaps he felt it would have a hypocritical decision given his emphasis on Afganistan during his campaign. But he has reneged on so many of his campaign promises; what is one more?
Instead he did the minimum: Gens McChrystal and Petraeus gave him five options, ranging from ‘optimal’ (80,000 men) to ‘minimal’ (40,000). Obama responded with a sub-minimal 30,000. For 18 months. With emphasis on nation-building, not combat, and no change in the rigid Rules of Engagement.
And in 18 months, after hundreds of American lives have been lost, billions wasted, American military morale
in the pits, the U.S. will pull out anyways. Despite trying to blame it on his military advisors, Obama will be blamed, and it will be another nail in his political coffin. He will not be re-elected. Brilliant.
good speech and good policy. Obama is doing a great job, he is the best President we have had since Reagan.
What you ignore is that Ramussen, the NATO leader, ask for 7000 more Europeans too, among them 1500 French. I don’t know yet what is Sarkozy’s response, but previously, he already said that no more french troops would be added, but gendarmerie trainers, civil trainers…
Obama is well monitored for speaches !
12. DrBukk:
13. Jim Rockford:
I have also considered this same line of thinking for the same reasons. The principle problem is the opium/heroin issue which will not go away as long as man is addictable.
When Tommy Franks first conquered the Taliban he wanted to destroy the opium fields. Then the powers that be stopped it then and are still keeping the supply lines of 80% of the world’s heroin open. The war lords are drug lords and their trade/politics spill into the neighboring countries. Perpetual corruption is assured.
When Bush yielded to the reasoning that the Afghan farmers had to make a living, the war was pitched into a no-win situation. Asking our marines to fight for the drug lords is nonsense. Afghan security forces have been fending off invaders since recorded history. The Obama plan is an apology to bow out. NATO has not proved itself useful. Iran and Pakistan are the issues. Asia, Russia and Europe would more worry about the supply of opium than the human rights of the tribes. The 25,000 Taliban conqueored Afghanistan the first time by force of idea.
The suggestion is to get out with preparations to return.
Jim Rockford, the Democratic Party does not want to be responsible for a massacre of hundreds of thousands of Afghans who assisted the United States. Nor does the so-called party of minority rights want to have the re-enslavement of millions of women on its hands. The sacrifices we are making there are at least something that might build value, and the cost pales in comparison to our disastrous social programs at home which have destroyed our own people. Compare the death tolls.
Until Muslims get their population demographics sorted out, somebody needs to kill off the hundreds of thousands of Islamic young men who are pawns of polygamy; i.e. unwitting extraneous males. Every generation in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Mauro, what drivel is this? I am truly tired of pundits and their lofty assumptions that that know a good strategy when they see one. Sending just enough troops to appear that he supports them is not a sound strategy, unless the goal is to cause more fine Americans to lose their lives needlessly while the Democrats search for a way to run away from Afghanistan without looking weak and pathetic. If we aren’t going to give this war everything we’ve got then we should pull out now, not 18 months from now.
Goy: There is no tape “debacle.” Some small excerpts have been put online (check out ChristianAction.org).
You say you do not like this new president cuz he hates war. Then you hate him for loving war.
Obama decides to increase troop strength, you hate him. If he decided to withdraw. You hate him.
Thats the difference between simpledom and real character. So if this kind of thinking fits you then. Welcome to simpledom. This president just earned the real character award.
Is this guy being paid real money to write crap such as this ?
5. rachel peepers:
Ryan Mauro listened to the speech and wrote, “good strategy.” I listened to the speech and said “what’s the strategy.”
No, no, no . . . I think you meant to write, “What’s A strategy?” First, consult a dictionary. After that, read the transcript of Obama’s speech. It’s all there. If you’re unable to prove to my satisfaction that you have done both in good faith you will be disqualified from voting.
How’s that movement going? have you assumed your rightful leadership position? Perhaps started wearing epaulets? Stiff-brimmed hat or perhaps a beret? Light saber? Camo boots? Lime green walkie talkie? Aviators? Playing cards in your bicycle spokes? i bet you cut a handsome figure, you little soldier you.
The speech was a morale-breaking nightmare, and Obama’s “strategy” is a total joke.
First of all, you don’t EVER tell the enemy what your strength is or what you intend to do. None of that stuff should be made public.
A good speech should say “We’re going to beat Al Qaida’s brains out, no matter what the cost”…and that’s pretty much all it should say.
Example:
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I’d shoot a snake!”–Patton
That’s all you need to say. The strategy is to crush the enemy…period. No time limits, no handing off the war to the locals, no we’re pulling out in a few months nonsense, and no giving out information which will help the enemy.
Obama is an idiot, and a defeatist, and his pathetic speech demonstrates just how much of an idiot and defeatist he is.
Obama changed the rules of engagement. This is a disaster like Vietnam about to occur.
the strategy is to send a new set of rules of engagement so that, what ever few people we have in the field, can kick the living shit out of the taliban. in a a few short months we have to kill as many as we can, so that they realize it was a mistake to have ever hosted al queda. memo to omar don’t do it again.
“First of all, you don’t EVER tell the enemy what your strength is or what you intend to do. None of that stuff should be made public.”
It seems you forget that signing the SOFA agreement with Iraq was a keycomponent in the surge, lighting a fire under Maliki, forcing him to act. It alkso seems silly to assume that Obama hasnt consulted with his generals on the substance of his speech.
“The president has taken the right course in Afghanistan, but has failed to explain it properly to the American people.”
Insert Iraq for Afghanistan and put in the quote and it’s the same thing Bush did. If Bush would’ve explained better our purpose in Iraq, he’d have better support. He didn’t. I think it’s way too early to be calling Obama’s strategy a good one. I myself never seen a worst speech in my entire life like the one he gave the other night. For the love of God, how could you tell men and women that even if you don’t finish the job or “win” regardless, you’re coming home anyway and we’ll leave that country like so many others before. Obama doesnt realize that Afghanistan is not even a country, they have a illiteracy rating in the 90%s people who think not in days and weeks like we do but in decades and time is nothing to them. they’d just rather sit in a cave hovel somewhere until Obama pussies and takes the troops home.
Let’s face it, liberals don’t know how to fight wars properly. I don’t understand what’s wrong with making afhgnstan a safe haven for terrorist? if you really wanted to win this conflict pull the troops out let them have a false sense of security for a year and then bomb the holy hell out of them. oh wait, Obama doesnt want to do that b/c we shouldn’t “bomb villages and air raid civilians” when he already did earlier this year when predators killed civilians.
This guy is just a mess. I’d take back Gw Bush at this point but I guess we still have him. just a different suit and darker skin.
John May Lives.
Time will tell. All the pacifists, old and young people that voted for the Usurper are getting a lesson. It’s an expensive one and I hope they learn from it. The old folks will die so any lesson they get is wasted. The young ones have a chance though. The lesson for them is that if it’s a politician and their lips are moving, they are lying.
Doesn’t matter what their gender or melanin count is. Religion makes no difference either.
If they are politicians and their lips are moving…….
Pacifists are just fools. They think that it takes two to have a fight. They are wrong. Not fighting back just means your enemy has less trouble whippin yo’ a$$.
How does that old saying go; “A Conservative is a Liberal who lived thru a mugging.” Or something like that.
Meanwhile, the Usurper has the cart in front of the horse. He is letting internal politics drive the conduct of a military conflict.
The USA has no national interests at stake in Afghanistan. No terrorist attack on America can or will affect our national interests. Not even a nuclear one.
Terrorists can and do affect the political interests of the party in power. That is there goal. Like Bush before him, the Usurper is seeing his political interests as being the same as America’s national interests.
Killing ‘x’ number of Americans isn’t a threat to America. Killing ‘x’ number of terrorists will not stop terrorism.
The nations that sponsor terrorism against America do so because they think that America can be forced to surrender that way. They just don’t understand the Constitution or Americans. We have a revolution every 4 years, regular as clockwork. A Civil war conducted with ballots instead of bullets. Surrender is unconstitutional.
On this side of the hill, Americans just refuse to understand that an entire religion is a war with us. We are a secular people that have been conditioned to think that all religions are pretty much the same. Islam is no different then Buddhism or Mormonism. That a Baptist and a Methodist are the same as a Muslim except for some details.
In the end, the side that grasps reality first will be the winner.
“Murdering one man is a crime, murder a million and it’s a statistic”
-Joseph Stalin.
28. John “birther” Samford:
“an entire religion is a war with us”
And all of Christianity is protesting at funerals of brave American soldiers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo
Now why would you support a religion that does that?