Victory in Afghanistan = Telling the enemy when you'll leave? Got it.

(Cartoon: Michael Ramirez, 12-2-09)

On December 1, 2009, President Obama gave a critical policy speech concerning  a new strategy in Afghanistan at West Point.  In it, he outlined a brief background of the reasons the United States invaded Afghanistan, and what the strategy is to win the war.  Well, sort of win.  If one reads through the transcript, one notices that the President did not use the word "victory" once.  Not once.  Not exactly a classic recipe for military success, if the Commander-in-Chief cannot even bring himself to utter the word "victory."  What he did say, however, was that American troops will start coming home eighteen months after the first troops arrive.  Being a former lawyer, he was very clever in saying this.  After all, if after eighteen months, ten troops return to Ft. Bragg, then he can honestly say to the American people, "I kept my word.  Our troops have begun returning home."  But does anyone seriously think this is what he has in mind?

Here is my analysis of the speech:

1.  On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes... - "Men," eh?  Were they Mormons?  Methodists?  Hindus?  No, they were MUSLIMS, carrying out their act in the name of Islam!  How can we fight our enemy if we do not even acknowledge who he is?  To those who claim that pointing out that the 9-11 hijackers were all Muslims is a smear on Islam, why is calling them "men" not a smear on all men?  The accusation is ludicrous.  For fear of offending some (by speaking the plain truth), the President showed tremendous cowardice and foolishness.  In the entire speech, he mentioned the words "Islam" and "Muslim" once each.  Once.
   
2. ...these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam... - "Extremists"?  Why the avoidance of labeling them "terrorists"?  Indeed, in the next phrase, he says that these "extremists" murdered nearly 3,000 people.  That does not earn them the title of "terrorists"?  What then must one do to earn the title?  And why does he claim that they have "distorted" and "defiled" Islam?  Considering that nearly every terrorist act in the world for the past thirty years has been carried out by those in the name of Islam, can we stop making excuses, and face the real possibility that the perpetrators are actually acting according to an acceptable stream of Islam?  After all, they say they are; why not take them at their word?
3. America...and the world were acting as one...to protect our common security. - I am glad he acknowledged that the terrorists are not aiming for one or two particular nations.  They aim for all those who love liberty and freedom.  Short of converting to their brand of Islam, no one is safe from their terror and violence.
4. ...we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end...Thanks to [the US military's] courage, grit and perseverance...we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. - So, in other words, George W. Bush was right in going in?  After all, the situation is good enough to be able to leave, right?  But eight paragraphs later, the President explains why he opposed going into Iraq, a war which he just admitted was successful.  So perhaps you were wrong in opposing, it President Obama? Perhaps it was necessary to overthrow one of the main terror-sponsoring regimes in the world, whether or not it actually possessed WMDs (which it did everything in its power to convince the world it did have)?
5. I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. - This took tremendous courage for the President, effectively turning his back on his Leftist supporters, who oppose any form of war more than they support ensuring the survival of freedom in the world.  He could have given in to them, refused the request for more troops, and begun bringing troops home now.  Instead, he chose to send more troops, correctly stating that it is in America's "vital  national interest"...
6. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. - ...And then he dropped this line.  Mr. President, you just stated that it is in America's "vital  national interest" to send the troops over there; what if they have not accomplished their objectives in eighteen months' time?  Will you extend their service?  But then your "come home" statement is rendered meaningless.  Can one imagine Franklin D. Roosevelt saying that fighting Nazi Germany was in America's "vital national interest," and in the next sentence give a date by which the troops will begin leaving Europe?  What kind of message does this send to a) the Taliban (answer: We just need to hold out until July 2011, and we'll be OK), and b) the average Afghan (answer: Why should I cast my lot with the army which says it will begin leaving in eighteen months?  The Taliban will be here a lot longer.)?  Setting a timetable for leaving sends the message that one is not serious about winning.  The exit strategy for any war should be: WIN!  If you leave a war before you've won, you've lost.
7. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. - That was a powerful moment, to see him saluting the caskets.  I think one needs to be very cynical to criticize him for that.
8. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy...competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. - So, what you're saying, sir, is that there is a price which is too high for our national security?  That is not the attitude I want my President to have.  Earlier in the speech, he said, "...I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan...it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak."  But if the United Nations, Europe, and NATO do not respond as you would wish them to, by picking up some of the tab, will you close up shop, due to the extra expense?  I trust you would pay for it yourself, saying that American national security is too important to leave in the hands of other nations.  So essentially, this line about ignoring "the price of these wars" is meaningless.
9. (After discussing the issue of open-ended nation-building in Afghanistan) That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own. - But earlier in the speech, he said that "the security of the United States and the safety of the American people [are] at stake in Afghanistan."  So which is it, Mr. President?  You say that there is a price tag, but also say that America's national security is at stake.  If you have spent X, but still feel that America's security is threatened, will you not spend X + Y?  And if you will spend the extra amount, does this not negate your statement about "ignor[ing] the price of these wars"?
10. ...we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights. - Unless, of course, that dark cloud of tyranny hovers over a) Honduras (where President Obama opposed those who opposed a Chavez-wannabe's attempt to become a president-for-life), b) Tibet (when President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, the head of the oppressed Tibetans, for fear of offending the Chinese), and c) Iran (when President Obama issued toothless statements opposing the violent crackdown on those who claimed the June 2009 elections were a fraud).  So, yes, aside from those examples of non-support for those who wish to live in freedom, Barack Obama has consistently spoken out on behalf of their human rights.
11. ...more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades... - Bravo!  And it has been a thankless job, to say the least.  It has been necessary, but unhealthy, for the world to be consistently saved from one natural- or man-made disaster or another by the United States.  This statement answers those critics who complain, "Who appointed America as the world's policeman?"  Answer: the world.  The proof?  To whom do they run when they need military- or financial salvation?  Iceland?  Canada?  Italy?  Even Britain?  No, they run to America.  And another answer to the critics might be: since you probably admit that, due to  the existence of criminals, a city needs policemen, would you not agree that the world also needs policemen?  Assuming you do, whom would you prefer be the world's policeman - the United States or the United Nations? (those are the only reasonable choices).  Which has a better overall track record of protecting the innocent from being slaughtered?

Though I could go on, I think eleven points are enough for now.  I did not even touch the President's renewed  call for universal nuclear disarmament, one of the most foolish goals one can have in a post-nuclear world.  A true man of the Left, President Obama is incredibly naive about evil - its sources, and the ways to destroy it.  Kudos to him for agreeing to send in more troops.  Shame on him for setting a time limit for success.