Although President Obama would never agree with the characterization, his decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 is effectively a surge, akin to Bush’s Iraq surge…which is now largely viewed as effective and which Obama argued against. Well, at least he got the macro decision correct and RedStateVT gives the President credit for that.
But what to make of his speech last night? It was so strange and so full of contradictions, like a microcosm of the Obama presidency as he looks to reconcile irreconcilable differences. Besides the overall decision, other positives include the following: he was at times forceful and passionate; he showed respect for the military; he recited the road to the Afghan war including the atrocities of Al Qaeda; and, he attempted to respond to possible objections from both sides. On the negative side, he was defensive on why the decision took three months. He never explained why 30,000 and not 40,000 troops was the right number. And his talk of training the Afghanis to handle their own security was not exactly new or game-changing.
Of course, the biggest concern is the one you have heard – the deadline to withdraw in 18 months. Obama cites this as the hammer to drive the Afghanis to step up. But why signal the opposition of your intentions, particularly when the message could have been delivered forcefully and privately? The only answer, of course, is that Obama fears alienating the left wing of his party who would cut and run from Afghanistan, like, yesterday. They are not happy with his decision, but perhaps can swallow hard for another year and a half. But this begs the larger question: did Obama make a poor strategic decision (by revealing his timetable) for political reasons?
No comments:
Post a Comment