Obama's strength through weakness message
Michael Gerson:
Since the beginning of his swift political rise, Barack Obama has fashioned himself a unique historical figure. With his latest speech on Afghanistan, he has finally become one.Obama is blowing off counter insurgency before the job is finished. That means he will have to rely more heavily on counter terrorism strategies. To win we need both. They are part of a combined arms approach to the problems in Afghanistan. The decapitation strikes are important, but so is the protection of the people. Abandoning that will mean we will be turning the countryside back over to the Taliban who survive the decapitation strikes.
What other American president has employed a public argument so transparently political — the need to “rebuild our infrastructure” and “find new and clean sources of energy” — to explain his choices as commander in chief? What other president has deployed the words “fidelity” and “unwavering belief” — citing examples of military tenacity and courage — to announce a policy of premature retreat? What other president has more dramatically claimed “a position of strength” while more effectively conveying an impression of weakness?
There is a boldness to this rhetorical approach, which might better be called shamelessness.
...
He is doing this to appeal to his anti war puke base before the 2012 election. The majority of the voters should not be fooled.
I don't agree with the President's decision, because I think when there are clear signs the Taliban is being beaten, it makes sense to actually bring in more troops and see if a decisive victory could be won. Even the awful idea that we are to negotiate with the Taliban would be aided by bringing in more troops for a short time, or at least keeping force levels the same.
ReplyDeleteStill, I don't know that this is a concession to the anti-war Left as much as a personal decision by the President. He wants an end in sight, he has been presented (in our view, skimpy) evidence that counterterrorism is separable from counterinsurgency, and he does feel obligated to the troops to bring them home at some point. I don't agree with the decision at all. But it isn't easy being the Executive. We should note that there will still be quite a few troops on the ground the next two years. It is possible that the Afghanis might make quicker progress in their capabilities and the progress against the Taliban will continue.