Obama - Out Of Character

We can only guess at the motivation, but Obama sounds more like FDR than Code Pink with the passing of every day now. We celebrate this development.

First, Obama did indeed decide to send more troops to Afg even though the level - 30,000 - was just between McChrystal’s "high risk of failure" and "medium risk of failure" options. Obama’s hail mary that NATO will kick in the rest - doubt it, but we’ll see. These "allies" aren’t much for any kind of war as it is; Obama inspires little confidence in them even if they were so inclined.

Next, Obama’s Oslo speech actually presented an anchor - to this country’s greatness, to the Founder’s intent, to those who have fought more than one justifiable conflict to see to our welfare. For example, Obama said that, "There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." No kidding folks, he said that. Finding fault with Code Pink types, Obama said that, "as head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples (Ghandi /King) alone. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies."

This is all very good stuff. It may not be genuine, likely is not, but either way it reflects US policy. The problem of course is that Obama was pained by these decisions. That regret or hesitancy must impact the ranks. Those on the ground in Afg would have preferred to hear, instead of "ending the war successfully," how about "defeating the enemy," or, how about "victory." If Obama were still in the Senate he would no doubt be aligned with the doves and other purveyors of defeat. He can’t do that now. He is thus conflicted. It shows, for example, in all the conditions loaded into his Afg decision.

However, let’s be grateful for a start. Clearly his party was out on a limb and they knew it; he can no longer govern from the far left, as with health. With Afg he has moved closer to the center. He may have even learned some lessons in the process. As Bill Kristol wondered recently, "Is it too much to hope that President Obama has learned some TR-like lessons in his first year in office? Wouldn't it be something if he now set about reminding today's progressives that ‘peace’ can be a mask for cowardice, and that national well-being requires ‘the stern and virile virtues’ rather than ‘a warped and twisted sentimentality’"?

Robert Craven

Afg - You Decide

Obama will increase troop levels by 30,000; he asked allied countries for help. Finally, he has told the enemy when we plan to depart.

We want Obama to do the right thing. Did he?

Make no mistake. Obama has been privy to extensive briefings on the Afg situation, during his months in office and before. In March he said it was his intent to dedicate the time and resources necessary to stabilize the region and contain al Qaeda and the Taliban. In August he reaffirmed this commitment, acknowledging the key of defeating the Taliban, to US security. He called Afg a "war of necessity".

So he asked McChrystal for help. McChrystal responded with three troop level scenarios, each graded by risk:1) an additional 20,000 troops that would run a "high risk of failure"; 2) an additional 80,000 troops that would be a "low risk option" that has "the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency" and 3) an additional 40,000 to 45,000 troop "medium risk option".

So BO picks 30,000 (between a high and medium risk of failure), then a hail mary that NATO will kick in the rest. What fool believes that? These nations are too accustomed to the US umbrella of protection to fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Three more years.


Robert Craven