Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Obama’s Afghanistan Commitment – AP: Comparisons to Bush, Increased Troop Levels with No Promise of Victory, Fact Checks: Analysis


Comparison between Bush and Obama after Obama's Speech Abound - image: the truth for the fight blog

The Associated Pressin critiquing the President’s address to the nation regarding his Afghanistan Strategy compared him to former President Bush, and noted that the difference lay in the fact that Obama gave no promise of Victory. The AP’s “Fact Check” goes further in outlining variations in realities between the President’s speech and the realities of Afghanistan, Al Queda and Pakistan.

The President, during his address, appeared saddened and defensive – saddened as he made the initial announcement - as his predecessor, President George W. Bush, noted, the burden of placing troops in harm’s way fell to the President, and the decisions to deploy were not made lightly. Obama’s defensive posture came near the end of the speech, when he gave three distinct rebuttals: one to those who make comparisons to Viet Nam, one to those who would do nothing, and the third, to those opposing his insistence on time limits for troop withdrawal.

One has to be willing to give the devil his due so to speak. First, the President has limited executive experience, and no military experience what-so-ever. His political ideology does not allow him to be a “war monger”, for lack of a better phrase, so with that in mind, this decision was perhaps made more difficult. Additionally, he must rely on what knowledge of war he can glean from texts and “experts”; hoping that advisors, both military and civilian, are competent. Obama is also privy, as President, to all intelligence reports, therefore, he knows the stakes – and that was very apparent as he addressed the fact that the U.S. is a target, and that something must be done. That puts the President in a very uncomfortable position of going against his own ideology, with the knowledge that if he does nothing, he puts his nation at greater risk.

Did he honestly sound like Bush, yes: in the text of the speech, he used words like disrupt, dismantle and defeat, however, he also peppered the speech with references to partisanship – as if he were on the campaign stump. He did not portray a strong sense of urgency, nor did he promise a victory; it was within his scoop of speech. The difference between the two men, Bush and Obama, in speaking to the military, is stunning; Bush appeared to connect, in a rousing manner, to bolster both the troops and those watching from home. Obama on the other hand, was more reserved, measured, and, as noted, somewhat defensive.

Speaking from a point of view that is both pro-military, yet anti-war, the Afghanistan Theater is one of the most difficult both historically and logistically; the main problem being the mountainous region that straddles the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The concept of deploying more troops to stabilize the existing government, worked in Iraq, it may well work within certain regions of the country. That said, without eliminating the threat of the Taliban (and Al Queda, which was not mentioned except in reference (a jab at) Bush), who operate freely in that mountainous region (despite claims that the Pakistani military are stepping up to protect both countries interests (debunked by the AP), it would have behooved the President to borrow a phrase from his predecessor: “Shock and Awe”. Common sense dictates that the threat lies in those mountains, therefore, use the available hardware in order to defeat and destroy both the Taliban and Al Queda – in other words, flatten the range, bomb it back into the proverbial Stone Age, while our troops are out of harm’s way.

It is as if, we are prepared to run a “kinder, gentler, war”, one without the threat of torture, imprisonment, and one which includes the help of 43 nations, most of whom are UN approved. Although, well intentioned, one may be sure, that, coupled with a perception of weakness and indecision, will give not only aid and comfort to the “enemy” but perhaps embolden them further.

It is that the President is caught between the sure knowledge that to do nothing is dangerous, and yet, his conscious will not allow him to run a war, without putting safeguard into place for enemy combatants. It is with this in mind, that those who value our nation’s wealth (our children and the military), that we pray for the President to be able to make the decisions necessary to keep our military and our nation safe. One would hope that the President would find enough evidence in those briefings to also take the necessary steps to not only beef up border security, but nail the borders down, both north and south, including both coasts. The speech did outline threats within our own borders, one can imagine that new threats have been planned while the President was delivery his address.

Now Obama will face criticism, from the left, from Congress, from the right, from pundits, and this is where the truest test of a comparison between two presidents will emerge. Will he ignore and persevere doing what he feels is in the best interest of the country – or will he fall to the pressure of those who share his core ideology? One would hope he chooses the safety of the troops and several 6,000 pound smart bombs, and an exit strategy that involves a super highway connecting the two countries, over what would become known as the final resting place of the Taliban and Al Queda.

Full Text of President Obama's Address on Afghanistan

No comments:


Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address
Subject
Message