President Obama's Afghanistan War speech last night was a tepid almagamation of compromises and odd contradictions made by someone with the mindset of a neutral, middle-management facilitator, not a President of the United States and leader of the free world whose worldview is firmly anchored by a set of guiding principles.
As a result, President Obama's confusing, platitude-heavy, specifics-light speech, and Afghanistan War "plan," satisfied no one. And his wordy speech left listeners with many more questions than answers.
Granted, President Obama is, at heart, concerned about protecting the U.S. from terrorism, and protecting the world from nuclear weapons now held by Pakistan. Orated the President last night:
"In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaeda can operate with impunity... " and"We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons... "
All important sentiments, and probably true. But little in President Obama's nervous, unconfident speech answers how he would accomplish these urgent goals. Basic questions left unsatsified by Obama include:
- How are 30,000 more soldiers, in addition to 68,000 already there, supposed to tamp down terrorism in 18 months, a goal the U.S. has failed to accomplish in eight years? What will be different, new, and finally effective?
- How does the President propose to pay for his Afghan War initiative, which he vaguely estimated "is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year... "? Let's be brutally honest with ourselves, liberals: Obama has not proven himself (yet?) to be an effective money manager.
- What is the exit plan for U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? The President blithely said that "After 18 months, our troops will BEGIN to come home." As the New York Times observed, "But he made no promise about when all American combat troops would be gone, saying only that the decision would be based on conditions on the ground."
Not even considering other pressing economic questions and legislative priorities, President Obama has not provided nearly sufficient reasons for our war-weary nation to send 30,000 more men and women of the U.S. armed forces into another ongoing Middle East conflict.
Based on what the President set forth last night, we've heard this fuzzy blather before, and it turned out to be a big, fat, expensive loser for the U.S. And long after the President has retired into richly comfortable private life, the American people are stuck with the bankrupting tab for another war mistake.
As is, I have to agree with Sen. Russ Feingold, even the pragmatic bellweather of careful progressive thought, who wrote in an email today:
"I do not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It's an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy."Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won't be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there."
Comments