A palpable sense of dismay crept over me as I watched President Obama's speech on Tuesday in front of Westpoint cadets so tired many almost seemed to fall asleep before it got over ( See reason for tiredness here)
The facts were plain: A surge of 30,000 troops to be added post-haste, logistics/lives be damned, all in place by summer 2010. The recital of the 9/11 litany and history lesson on why we went into Afghanistan in the first place, under-resourced war because of the diversion into Iraq, etc. etc. I was ready to nod off, like many in the immediate audience.
Endless speeches.
Wait, there's a glimmer of hope. Everyone (or is it only the Surgers) will start coming home most definitely by July 2011. That's a given.
Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda...Why isn't he referring to the Taliban, the proximal enemy? What is this laser-eyed focus on a handful of fighters hiding in the mountains of Waziristan? Is it overkill to send in so many troops for so few, or is there something that they know which they aren't going to broadcast to the world?
A direct address to the people of Afghanistan "We have no interest in occupying your country....America is your partner, not patron."Then the focus turned to Pakistan, which as I have earlier speculated in this blog post in October, might very well be the next frontier in this war.
"The "war on terror' (pardon the usage of a now-obsolete term) is now expanding in fronts, moving like a not-so-stealthy cancer from the hills of Waziristan into the once-safer cities and urban areas of Pakistan. Who knows where it is headed next?" (My words, not the President's.)
Requisite call to the patriotic sense of duty of the military, much extravagant praise of their efforts to keep the country safe and free, etc. etc. God bless you and God bless America.
The next day, as I discussed the speech with a coworker, a 'Nam veteran, one thing he said struck me. "I'm not happy with this decision, but I trust him. At least, if things goes wrong, I'll know who to blame." That appears to echo the majority of the opinions heard from the common public while the media and the pundits endlessly analyze the pros and cons of the speech till the next shiny golf club swings their way.
As I mulled over the speech and its implications, trying to locate evidence for a 5-dimensional chess game, I tried on a 'war strategy' hat and squinted at the map of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and thought "What if the troops were trying to take the battle into the border region?"
Assuming that the Pakistani forces on the other side of the border were cooperative ( having reason enough, given the 'Carrots and Sticks' approach made clear by the Obama administration in this March 27 policy speech), it might just be possible to visualize a final 'flushing out' of the majority of the Al-Qaeda from the mountains.
Incidentally the March 27 speech is vastly interesting in its own right as a much clearer precursor to the Dec 2 speech. Many quotes from this speech seem to have made it into last Tuesday's address, notably:
"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you."
It's been rephrased minus the outright Pakistan reference.
As for the Taliban, there was a final reference to them in the Dec 2 speech, along the lines of "Welcome to the fold, prodigals who choose to return. The others shall perish." We can hope that it will not be endless war, just a preamble to peace that this surge delivers.
Should we trust him? If we do,at least we'll know who to blame if things go wrong.
Links:
Medley of reactions ranging from cautious praise from hawks to Kucinich's outrage.
That was indeed a strange speech. I cannot call it incoherent in the way a Bush or Palin speech could be. But coming from a well spoken man like Obama, it was choppy, tedious - more a laundry list of why and when than how. The time is now past to harp on the fact that Afghanistan (which Obama had called the "good war" during his campaign) is Bush's war. He knew that when he became president and it is time to take a leadership role now. Either we wage a full fledged battle against the Taliban and read the riot act to Pakistan or we get out before more young lives are wasted in a half hearted enterprise.
A friend and I talked about the speech the day after. Both of us were very dissatisfied with what we had heard - "a palpable sense of dismay" would be the way to describe it.
Posted by: Ruchira | December 05, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I think the laundry list feel was maybe because of the hyped expectation. Obama was trying encapsulate in a nutshell for the larger TV audience why he chose to send so many more troops, when most feel he needs to focus on the economy and healthcare, rather than waste lives and money. The '9/11, terra terra, booga booga' approach was Bush's style to justify the same, but Obama could only trot out the same old reasons, albeit in more polished language than the former. It doesn't turn the vinegar into champagne, unfortunately.
His March 27 speech is much clearer and more specific. He should have used a not-much changed recast of that speech, but may not have wanted to be as obvious, for whatever reason.
Posted by: Sujatha | December 05, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Obama came across as less than inspirational because he doesn't in his heart, believe in this war. The article you have linked to excoriates him for not using the word "victory." Obama knows that there can be no victory in a war of ideologies. Victory/ Defeat, War / Peace are all a crapshoot now. There is probably as good a chance of Islamic terrorism withering on the vine by our fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan, as there is by our leaving. For all you know, if the US leaves, Pakistan may have a greater incentive to crack down on the extremists, now that its own stability is at stake. At the moment though, Pakistan is playing a passive aggressive role - afraid of the Taliban, yet not wholly against their ideology in principle, so long as their anger is aimed at the US.
Posted by: Ruchira | December 05, 2009 at 03:52 PM
Joe Klein strongly agrees with you, Ruchira.
Posted by: Sujatha | December 05, 2009 at 07:05 PM