Obama, the insipid, wavering commander-in-chief

A friend sent me the link to an interesting piece ^[1] 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.