Ah back to the world of bloggin. I was hoping to keep this a weekly thing with myself just either reviewing something significant that happened in politics or posting about what i considered a significant news report for that week. Alas i missed my last Saturday posting in now must post on a Thursday to appease the Gods o bloggin. There, now that i have that ramble out of the way lets talk about President Obama's speech this past Tuesday.
For the past few months since General Stanley McCrystal went public with his request to the white house for additional troops there has been the consistent speculation over what the white house would do. It was assumed that some sort of troop increase would be approved by Obama as he had labeled Afghanistan "the forgotten" or "the neglected" war during his campaign a year ago and could hardly be seen dithering in the face of a clear and concise request from a general he appointed to fight this war. The trouble politically for Obama though was that he was also propelled to the Democratic nomination last year because of his stance on the Iraq war which he used in most circles to paint himself as a sensible leader who understood the folly of the war before most other politicians did. In the anti-war circle, they saw him as a man that perhaps would end the US involvement in both wars. As Obama took his time making his decision it seemed clear to me that the politics of the decision were clearly becoming a big consideration for Obama as I have a hard time believing that a military decision would have taken as long.
Prior to the speech when I was one of the ones vocal with my concern over the time being taken to make a decision I stated to some that when the decision was made I did not want to see a speech of half measures. A speech where Obama sought a solution that most would support instead of the one that gave our country the best chance for success. I wanted to hear that he was making this decision because he believed that it was one that gave our country the best chance for success in this war and I wanted to look and see in his eyes that he was in this war, that he was determined to win it and that defeat would not be an acceptable option.
So on Tuesday I sat down with my steak dinner and beer and listened as the President spoke. He first addressed the time taken to make the decision and stated that the earliest deployments brought to him would have sent additional troops no earlier than January 2010, so there was no delay in the time he took. Okay, I can accept that. He than went on to state that he would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, 10,000 short of McCrystal's request. He said the first of these troops would be sent in January 2010 and that they, along with anticipated additional troops from NATO countries would accelerate training for Afghan troops and the police so that we could begin transferring the fighting responsibility to the Afghans by mid 2011. Alright a few problems here. First off I still haven't seen how exactly these extra troops are to be used. As far as I've been able to tell Gen. McCrystal hopes to use them as additional security to secure large population centers across the country while continuing the current planned pull outs from remote locations across the countryside. I don't like this plan as it cedes the territory to the Taliban for almost complete control on the ground where they may traverse, plan, and carry out attacks on the city. This will limit our ability to respond to the attacks and as they even occur will lower the moral of our troops and cause the Afghan citizen to doubt our commitment and their support for their government. This quite literally makes me think we are going to make the same mistake the British made in their failed attempt at occupying Afghanistan when their lead general summed it up nicely stating that their control of the countryside extended to the range of their cannon and no further. We need to project strength throughout the country and if we are to pull back their needs to be an alternate strategy for integrating these small communities into the country. You cannot hope to win by abandoning to the Taliban and hoping they'll just turn against them on their own.
Secondly, why the time table? Wars are fought in stages and as such we should not place a time table on our troop commitment until we are past the stage of securing the country to the point of transferring power. By announcing the time table for withdraw before a single additional troop is sent we let AQ and the taliban know that they can mark their calenders and sit us out. Heck, the President even tried to mention Iraq while trying to sell this on Tuesday. He mentioned that we are doing similar things there and that we should be able to turn it over to the Afghans as well. Of course he neglects to mention that we had a surge first, one he didn't support as Senator, and that once it was clear the surge worked, he still has never acknowledged it worked, the Bush administration negotiated the SOFA agreement with Iraq that set the current timetable for our eventual withdrawal of combat troops. Point being it was done in stages. You pull out once you have secured victory. You don't hope for victory and say when you're going to pull out at the same time.
All in all the speech did have it's good moments. Obama is a very good speaker and I believed him as he spoke about this war as one that cannot be abandoned and one that the US along with our NATO allies will continue to fight for as long as it takes. Those are very important things i needed to hear from him, but his actions have me questioning his ability to lead in this war. In the end I am left with the familiar feeling of hoping that I am wrong and that this decision and McCrystal's handling turn out as intended and the war turns around for this country.
-Zach
No comments:
Post a Comment