Michelle Malkin » Obama on Afghanistan: “Resolve unwavering”…to pull out in 18 months or something

Obama on Afghanistan: “Resolve unwavering”…to pull out in 18 months or something

By Michelle Malkin • December 1, 2009 10:02 PM

The full transcript of President Obama’s long-delayed speech on Afghanistan is here. You can watch it in full here.

Bush-bashing? Check.

Noxious complaining about the cost of fighting a necessary war? Check.

Disingenuous denial that he dithered? Check.

“Let me be clear”s/”clear”s = 9.

Self-congratulations for sticking to Gitmo closure policy = 1.

Self-referential “As your Commander-in-Chief”s = 2.

References to global jihad = 0.

Charles Krauthammer tonight called the speech “strange,” “defensive,” “hedging,” and full of “uncertainty compounding uncertainty.”

Way to restore America’s standing in the world, eh?

***

Pray for our troops tonight and every night. They need ‘em now more than every.

***

Andrew Ferguson has a different take on the speech:

Obama is the first Democratic president in forty years to call for a significant deployment of American troops in the national security interest of his country. This is very big news. His predecessor, President Clinton, could give a stirring address dispatching bombers over Bosnia and be confident of the support of his fellow Democrats, because the show of power was purely humanitarian and had nothing to do with keeping us safe from our enemies. With great courage, Obama is trying something that hasn’t been tried within the living memory of most of the members of his party. He may even recall the era when liberal Democratic presidents — Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson — could lead a fight because it was in the interest of the country to fight.

This is a historical moment, and one we should be grateful for. It’s worth an extra twenty minutes of presidential gassing off. It’s even worth a lot of guff about beginning to pull the troops out by a date certain, no matter what. (I’ll believe it when I see it.) If this is what he needs to mollify his political supporters, let him talk and talk and talk.

Alas, Obama’s “gassing off” is not so much a matter of spouting “essential platitudes” as it is a down payment on future pandering to the Left that will not be in the national security interest of our country.

Paul Mirengoff is dead-on:

Earlier today I wondered whether President Obama’s speech about Afghanistan would sound more like a description of a war plan or a structured settlement of a legal dispute. What I heard tonight tilted decidedly in the latter direction. To be precise, the speech sounded to me like a slick lawyer trying to sell a dubious settlement to a skeptical client or, in this case, set of clients.

Consistent with slick salesmanship – as well as the president’s character – the speech was quite self-referential. Providing a potted history of our military efforts in the war on terrorism, Obama took shots at his predecessor and attempted to cast himself as the hero throughout. Thus, he patted himself on the back for opposing the war in Iraq, on which he blamed the current difficulties in Afghanistan.

Obama also patted himself on the back for bringing the war in Iraq to a “responsible end.” But he failed to mention the surge in Iraq, which was instrumental in turning the tide to the point that it became possible to speak of a responsible end.

The omission was odd inasmuch as Obama was pitching a similar surge in Afghanistan. This meant that the Iraq surge was more relevant to tonight’s speech than any other element of Obama’s potted history. Yet he was too partisan, and too embarrassed by his own opposition to the surge, to mention this vital decision.

It was therefore rank hypocrisy for Obama latter to decry the partisanship that has plagued the war on terrorism.

***

Bonus emetic: Chris Matthews referring to West Point as the “enemy camp.” But we already knew which side he was on. Vid via Allahpundit:

That’s right. Matthews smeared the cadets for behaving properly and not showing overt political preferences for Obama. He wanted to see more “warmth” — e.g., twitching legs, tears of joy, and fainting a la the Obamedia.

Oh, and yes, MSNBC was still as monochromatic tonight as it is monodogmatic.

***

If West Point is the “enemy camp,” what does Chris Matthews call Gitmo?

Here’s a clear-thinking cadet who was in the audience sending a clear message of unwavering resolve. Matthews won’t get a leg tingle, but he might wet his pants over it:

Several readers note the active service campaign ribbons and medals on the man’s chest and identify one of them as the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, showing he has been an Infantry Soldier under Combat. D. O’Brien writes: “The Cadet pictured in your piece on President Obama’s speech at West Point (December 1, 2009) is not a ‘traditional’ cadet. He is a former enlisted man – and an Infantryman who wears the Combat Infantryman’s Badge. This award is given only to Infantrymen who have participated in direct-fire engagements against the enemy.”

Posted in: Afghanistan

Printer Friendly

comments (101)

trackbacks (11)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On December 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm, T-Bone said:

Stolen Pakistan nukes will detonate first in NYC and LA and Wash DC, ~~but not~~ and then in London or Paris or Berlin.

FIFY
#102

On December 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm, oldcollegeguy1980 said:

After watching, listening and thinking about the speech at West Point, it occured to me who is being attacked.

It may from the moment be the taliban and AQ in Afhanistan. For the moment it was said to be.

However my gut tells me something differently.

The attack most obvious last night was on Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Montana, Maine and Nevada, where ever patriotic Americans are at. The attack was squarely leveled at anyone who loves freedom. The battle plan is designed to be a failure. Except in the sights of those doing the aiming.

This plan with its predetermined exit time is designed to demoralize patriotism. Do you want your son or daughter to be the last American killed in Afghanistan? Who does?

The overarching clarity of the plan is that it is designed to place enough Americans in sight of a hidden and armed fanatic enemy, just long enough to wear down those Americans who have the temerity to actually want to win. This battle plan is designed to defeat their spirit. And it might just work.

No army exists today that can defeat our military, so to aim at them directly is useless. Instead. Aim at the spirit that backs them. The familys that can be split apart by economic difficulties, political differences, sibling rivalry, whatever. Aim at that soft target, by exposing enough troops to ambush. Give them untenable Rules of Engagement.

The answer to this attack is simple. Take back Washington.

Vote out every democrat. In Washington and our local and state government.

The times we live in are too dangerous to trust to corrupt democrats. Our soldiers, sailors airmen and marines lives are at stake.
#103

On December 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm, Truesoldier said:

Is it just me or does everyone else always expect to hear a lie coming from Obama when I hear he utter the phrase: Let me be clear. It is like a bizzare version of Pinochio; instead of his nose growing he utters that phrase. Here are just a few examples:

Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010

(note Gen McCrystal has been calling for the troop increases since Aug. Not to mention earlier in his speech he said that he ordered additional troops into the theatre because they were requested).

Now, let me be clear. Let me be absolutely clear, because I know you’ll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people. If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter-million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

Yet we have seen what is planned in both Obamacare and in Cap and Tax.

Now, let me be clear — I just want to clear something up here — identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided. (Applause.) It’s about providing patients and doctors with the information they need to make the best medical decisions.

Sure, so explain the Mamogram edicts.

Let me be clear: I’m committed to making these cuts in a way that protects our senior citizens. In fact, these proposals will actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by seven years, and reduce premiums for Medicare beneficiaries by roughly $43 billion over the next 10 years. And I’m working with AARP to uphold that commitment.

No need to say anything it speaks for itself.
#104

On December 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm, ssnark said:

On December 2nd, 2009 at 7:34 am, On-my-soap-box said:

Congratulations to you and your wife on your anniversary.

Thank your son from me for his service to the country. Three tours to the ’stan and how many to OIF? I’d guess two or three there as well given the force and optempo.

I’ll add him to my prayers for all those who have placed their mortal bodies between those they love and the chaos of war.
#105

On December 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm, ssnark said:

On December 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 am, fgmorley said:

With ROEs like these why would anyone in their right mind want to throw more people in harm’s way? If the commander on the ground cannot control the ROEs, I guess he’s not really a commander on the ground. I’m wondering, along with Ralph Peters of the NYPost, how many 4-star generals are going to resign over this CinC’s idiotic conduct of this war.

For the same reason I’d go back on active duty now if I could. We’ve been set up to lose this war. That much is certain and beyond question. Now, would you rather have a competent man doing what he can to secure a victory against the odds while on the downside avoiding a complete debacle. It’s the challenge of “We are the unwilling, led by the unqualified, to do the unecessary for the ungrateful. We’ve done so much, with so little for so long, we can now do almost anything with nothing.” This has been Gen. McChrystal’s challenge from Mr. Obama from the outset. Nothing new in this current scenario. There are two things at play here. Graduates of the “Q Course” at JFKSWC don’t quit ever. They may die trying but they don’t quit. Second, it’s a challenge to see if he can pull off the win with all the odds stacked against him. That’s another trait of an SF Soldier he’ll Charlie Mike and try to pull victory from the jaws of defeat so long as he’s breathing. Maybe they’re both really the same thing. Mental toughness and indefatigable spirit.

I read the article you posted by Mr. Peters of the NY Post. I try to avoid anything with the taint of New York on it except the NYSE.
I think Mr. Peters is on the money here.
The following are a few excerpts I particularly liked.

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

.

This is absolutely true. But d*mn what a challenge it would be to pull it off and have him scrambling to wipe the egg off his face even if it’s in private.

His cynicism’s worthy of a Saddam.

I love that statement!!! A very good comparison if ever there was one. Saddam’s palaces bespoke of him being just as self centered and narcissistic as Mr. Obama. Although I think in a contest for self aggrandizement, narcissism with an incapacity for self actualization, Mr. Obama leaves Saddam Hussein as Miss Congeniality of that contest.

Obama’s right about one thing, though: The Afghans “will ultimately be responsible for their own country.” So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn’t begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?

This emphasizes and expands on the first quote.

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).

All unfortunately true about the subtext that he just sent each of them. I think the Cadet with the CIB, ARCOM and campaign ribbons was trying to send Mr. Obama a message that he should perhaps butt out and STFU. Along with the message that Mr. Obama wasn’t worth paying attention to.

I just hope that brave young Kay-det doesn’t get too many demerits and a reprimand in his MPRJ (or whatever its called now).
#108

On December 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 pm, T-Bone said:

Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?

Too funny. Except that Obama really can’t figure that one out and that makes it sad. And they say Bush is the dumb one.
#109

On December 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm, ssnark said:

On December 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 pm, T-Bone said:

Too funny. Except that Obama really can’t figure that one out and that makes it sad.

I think he knows it. I think he’s purposely setting us up to take a loss that will set the US military back almost 40 years to where it was in the mid 1970s. That loss and the attack I expect before 2012 will help give Mr. Obama the impetus he needs to build his Okhrana, his “civilian force as powerful and well trained as the military” He’ll sell it that the US needs them for internal security and he’ll use them like Stalin used the NKVD. I suspect his strategy will also include a re-election Gambit in 2012 based on the ‘bread and circuses’ he’s provided for the plebeian masses, his providing new and better security through the Committee for State Security (KGB translated) and elimination of the Bourgeois of society and collectivization of all production in the US under his State run ‘New Economic Plan’ known as GOSPLAN. He will of course win the election in 2012 by a landslide aided by ACORN and other ‘community organizers’ who will provide him with a 200 million vote super majority in the popular vote and a majority of the electoral votes since most of Congress will be guarded by the Committee for State Security since they are threatened by former military members and members of a radical minority known as ‘teabaggers’.

Like the road we’re headed down? Still think he’s stupid. He may be militarily ignorant but, he’s got the old Daley machine as his General Staff.
They know how to lay out political strategy and what he’s going to do in Afghanistan won’t be good for anyone but Obama.
#111

On December 7th, 2009 at 11:00 am, kurthanson said:

It was too much to expect Barney Fife to grow a spine. All we saw was a community organizer masquerading as the Commander-in-chief who does not have a clue about the real world. Pathetic.