Obama, the insipid, wavering commander-in-chief
A friend sent me the link to an interesting piece from the German magazine Der Spiegel — not exactly a publication of the vast right-wing conspiracy, as my friend pointed out — that criticized Obama’s speech at West Point.
Obama has been criticized from both the left and the right for the speech, and the West Point cadets looked a bit underwhelmed at his less than rallying call-to-arms.
On the one hand, I’m thankful that the community-organizer-in-chief partially approved General McChrystal’s request for additional troops. The additional troops will become the “surge” in Afghanistan, which will back up the counterinsurgency strategy that I believe will win the day, just as the surge/counterinsurgency strategy won the day in Iraq.
But on the other hand, Obama’s insipid and wavering speech, in which he announced that our mission in Afghanistan was vital to America and the free world, but only had 18 months to succeed, was truly awful. Even a teenage private in the Army or seaman in the Navy knows that you do not reveal your intentions (such as troop withdrawal) to the enemy.
I think Der Spiegal nailed it when they noted that in 18 months Obama will be up for reelection. So I, and many others, believe Obama’s call for the withdrawal of our troops in 18 months, rather than a call for clear victory, was a political consideration and not a military one. And that political consideration just might get our troops killed.
Again, I’m thankful that Obama will be sending the additional troops. I trust General Petraeus and General McChrystal and I believe they will win the war in Afghanistan. I do not trust Obama.
Latest posts by Paul Davis (Posts)
- On crime & thrillers: Agents of Treachery — a collection of superb spy fiction - September 21, 2010
- On crime & thrillers: Frederick Forsyth offers a fact-based story of an all out war on the drug lords - September 7, 2010
- John le Carre’s spook world - September 5, 2010
- On crime & thrillers: Don Winslow’s Savages is a fast-paced, wild and funny crime story - August 24, 2010
- Spy writer vs. spy writer: John le Carre calls Ian Fleming’s iconic James Bond character a neo-fascist gangster - August 20, 2010
Print This Post
“Even a teenage private in the Army or seaman in the Navy knows that you do not reveal your intentions (such as troop withdrawal) to the enemy.”
And with wisdom like that, I wonder why they do not put “teenage privates” in commanding roles?
Come on.
Turnstyle the half,
The key word is “even” teenage privates. Paul’s obviously not saying they are wise enough to be in charge. He’s saying that on this matter even they are wiser than Obama. If you disagree, maybe you can tell us why.
Obama has decided to send 30,000 more troops. He has decided to announce that they’re staying for 18 months. This leads to two (three) possibilities:
1) Obama is telling the truth. The 30,000 troops will stay for 18 months and then leave. If you were the leader of the Taliban and you knew that 30,000 additional troops were coming for a defined period of 18 months in order to crush you, you could just disappear — blend in with the rest of the population, lay low, hide in mountains, whatever. No need to fight the surge of troops and get your fighters killed. Just wait till the troops leave. The Taliban has demonstrated that it is patient, in it for the long haul, willing to wait the U.S. out.
Whether the U.S. should be in this for the long haul or not is really a separate (but important) issue — Obama has decided to send the troops and has committed the money and risked soldiers’ lives. Given this, specifying how long those soldiers are going to stay is not tactically brilliant and won’t help achieve the goals, whatever they might be (does anyone know what they are?). And if they are not achieved in 18 months, then what? Leave anyway? Then what was the point of the lives lost and money spent during the 18 months? If the goals are truly worth the sacrifice, why a limit of 18 months? If the goals are not worth it, then why send any troops at all?
Maybe:
2) Obama is lying. He has no intention of really pulling troops out in 18 months.
In that case, he could have said this for a couple of reasons:
a) He wants to keep his political base behind him. They’re opposed to sending troops at all, so he had to tell them something that would keep their political support. “Only 18 months” was what he came up with. Then, when the 18 months come around, there can be an explanation for extending the troop presence, perhaps at first a short while only, maybe some more promises of a withdrawal, until after the election, after which it doesn’t matter.
OR
b) He is a brilliant military strategist. After 18 months, all of the troops will say, “Okay, Taliban, we’re leaving now.” And then the troops will pretend to leave but will really hide behind a big rock, so when the Taliban comes out of hiding, all happy that the U.S. troop surge has ended, the troops can jump out and yell, “Surprise, we didn’t leave at all!” and capture them.
I think the last of these is the most flattering of the possibilities for Obama, but the truth is more likely to be 1 or 2a.
Don’t know about you, but Obama looked like he wanted to cry to me.
Latest Gallup poll:
President Obama’s overall approval rating: 49%
Approval rating among blacks: 91%
Approval rating among Hispanics: 70%
Approval rating among non-Hispanic whites: 39%
Conclusion: White Americans absolutely cannot STAND having a black president/commander-in-chief.
Suggestion: Change the acronym from GOP to GOWPP, for Grand Old White People’s Party.
Yes, Der Spiegel, well-known as a media arm of the GOP. Parsifal, just the other day,you agreed with Calvin Pollak that we should not be sending troops to Afghanistan. You called for troops currently there to be brought home. Now, you imply that those who disapprove of Obama’s half-hearted and not-so-coherent ordering of additional troops to Afghanistan are racist GOPers (many objecting to Obama’s speech have no connection to the GOP and many voted for Obama). Thanks for clearing that up for us. It added so much to the discussion. Parsifal, do you approve of the troop surge, which you opposed the other day? If you do not approve of Obama’s decision as commander-in-chief, is this because you are a racist? Did you hear or read the speech? Did it convince you that the troops are necessary? Did it seem sincere to you? Do you think it’s a good plan? Did you read the linked article? If you want to engage in the topics of the posts, you’re welcome to. We don’t mind dissent here. You seem to just want to throw out accusations of racism instead of discussing the issues raised in the post itself. And while you can’t resist attacking the GOP, this is hardly a partisan issue. Plenty on the left are not pleased with Obama’s speech or plan for Afghanistan.
Parsifal,
I read that poll differently that you.
I see the 91% approval ratings by blacks only as evidence that blacks are in large numbers Democrats, who generally support Obama’s liberal policies.
I also believe that blacks are much more forgiving of Obama’s follies (at least in public and/or in front of a white poll taker), simply because he is black.
(Although he’s certainly not black, for the record, he’s half white. And he was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. He is in fact the country’s first multi-racial president, and not ot the country’s first black president).
I’m half-Italian and I was born and raised in South Philly’s “Little Italy.” Many Italian-Americans supported Mayor Frank Rizzo in the 1970’s simply because he was Italian, even after his awful economic policies nearly banckrupted the city.
Ethnic pride trumped good sense with Italians then and I suspect that this is the case with African-Americans today as well.
But again, those poll takers are often not in evidence in black barber shops and other places where Obama is insulted and cursed daily as badly as any white gathering.
Hi Scott,
What I’m suggesting is that it goes on the assumption, as written, that Obama has revealed his intentions.
Oh, also, that “revealing your intentions” connotes to some sort of high-level military truism. It doesn’t.
And: that entry-level armed forces people don’t know anything about military strategy. Perhaps; but you (well, I) could say the same thing about anyone, like, for example, some trash collection guy or a doll repair specialist, but then I guess you (or I) could argue that either of those types could, indeed, understand more advanced politico-military strategy than the average entry-level armed service person. So it’s a style thing here: I’d love if he’d have said
“Even a Pacer-driving hoagie slinger knows that you do not reveal your intentions (such as troop withdrawal) to the enemy.”
Paul likes to use the word “insipid”. Well, it seems interesting enough for Der Spiegel, which, in turn, seems to have written in a manner interestingly enough to have Paul say it was “interesting”. I’m not sure where I’m going with this.
I bet a lot of video gaming time is spent by entry-level armed service people, and I bet a lot of it is playing military genre games. In realisting gaming (relatively, of course), revealing your intentions happens to be, quite often, one of the most effective actions to take.
But I’m (also) not actually saying the entry-level armed forces people can get all their military strategy from a game. That would be ridiculous.
I was an entry-level armed forces person in 1970 at the start of my more than 37 years in the U.S. Navy and the Defense Department.
We were taught basic military strategy in basic training (also called boot camp in the Navy).
My point was that knowing that one does not reveal your intentions to the enemy (like withdrawal from the battlefield) was and is basic – and that even privates and seamen – who are taught basic military strategy in basic training – know that.
An intelligent person who has read a bit of military history also knows that.
Obama may or may not know this, but if he does, than his political considerations ruled the day.
This is not good for those troops who serve and will serve in harm’s way.
Congrats Commader Turnstyle- your second comment makes even less sense than the first!
Turnstyle, what happened to you? Your comments used to make sense. Or . . . are you a different incarnation? The one that made sense was numbered Turnstyle II 1/2. Are you moving through the levels of some freaky videogame in your head?
“(Although he’s certainly not black, for the record, he’s half white. And he was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. He is in fact the country’s first multi-racial president, and not ot the country’s first black president).”
This is specious. He’s black as far as whites are concerned, in the “rule” that has existed in this country for centuries. It was not blacks, but whites, particularly those from the South, who determined that “just one drop of Negro blood” made a person black, and thus condemned the person to a life of misery. It is only when people want to finesse an argument disingenuously that they elevate the person to half-white.
Paul, thank you once again for telling us about your 37 years in the Navy and Defense Department. We can’t hear it enough. It trumps all other arguments. And it makes such a warm bond with those of who also served (Infantry, Vietnam) and (mostly) keep quiet about it.
Sexy Bob / Jericho:
Thanks, I guess. I reserve the right to be ridiculous. Although, I’m not sure which 2nd comment you mean, Bob. Jericho: Kind of.
Paul: “An intelligent person who has read a bit of military history also knows that.” Ok… but you don’t need to read military history to learn (or practice) military strategy and tactics.
I’m in full agreement that revealing your intentions to the enemy is (generally) not a good move.
However, I think there are some serious assumptions being made, such as whether these are “true” intentions, and whether or not there are parallel maneuvers happening to complement what is being viewed as “the end of the war.” I believe there are.
What I’m suggesting here is the possibility of a flank. I believe there is a lot more going on behind the scenes, and not in a “conspiracy” way – simply that, as always, we’re not being told the whole story.
Possible?
Not being told the whole story? Again?! Oh no! Not with the Administration of Change that prides itself on transparency!
I must admit, I’m hoping beyond hope that Scott’s sample strategy 2(b), hiding behind a rock and then jumping out, is the plan. But considering that our generals persist in waging conventional war against guerilla enemy tactics . . . nah. I try to get in on your enviable optimism, Turnstyle, but I’m just not feeling it.
You think Paul is being specious, Parsifal? Better than being spurious and frivolous, and knowingly wrong- which you definitely are in your troll like desire to prove a (bogus) point. Now go watch some porn; it would be a more productive use of your time than expressing more of your risible opinions, which you obviously don’t believe anyway. Unless you really are as big an idiot as you appear to be, of course.
Parsifal,
As for my noting my more than 37 years of service in my various pieces here, I don’t presume that I’m addressing regular readers who know my background.
There may be readers here who have not read any of my pieces before, and as I am writing about military matters, noting my service seemed pertinent.
If a comic were writing about comedy, it would be proper for him to note his number of years in the entertainment business, would it not?
Jericho,
The generals asked for 40,000 additional troops for the purpose of conducting a non-conventional strategy.
The “surge” will help the generals conduct a counterinsurgency strategy that will defeat the enemy in Afghanistan, just as this strategy defeated the enemy in Iraq.
Before he was president, Obama stated repeatedly that the surge would not and could not work in Iraq. He was dead wrong, but you will not hear him admit his poor judgement about military affairs.
Turnstyle,
I too suspect a “flank,” but I fear it will be a political flank, rather than a military one.
By the way, have I mentioned that I have more than 37 years of service? (ha).
Paul, I appreciate your attempt to make me feel better, and I defer to your military experience. I hope history proves you right while we still have some soldiers left.
From the Wall Street Journal today:
The top U.S. Marine general in Afghanistan said President Barack Obama’s announced July 2011 deadline to start withdrawing troops from the country had given “sustenance” to the Taliban.
“We know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011,” Gen. James Conway told reporters on Tuesday. “In some ways, we think right now it’s probably giving our enemy sustenance….In fact, we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.’”