Some tough sounding rhetoric with a smattering of date certain withdrawal. What does it all mean for the United States, our military, homeland security and the world. Do the words of this speech have any bite? Is it a halfway measure? Is it tough sounding talk with plans for date certain withdrawal in order to attempt to placate both his political base and political adversaries? Is the discussion of our coalition of partners reality or fantasy? Who is coming along with us for this ride as President Obama alludes? China? Russia? France? Germany? Anybody?
The Cost Of War
There was a long discussion of the cost of war to this point, going forward, our responsibilities to the world and how it all ties together. How the price of the conflict is a critical factor and cannot be an open ended commitment. This from a president who has done more to expand the deficits of our country on domestic programs in less than one year than presidents have been able to accomplish over the course of full administrations and beyond. The current healthcare bill could add another $1 trillion to our debt. Yet there are limitations to the cost that we are willing to bear on the terrorism, the nuclear front and the security of the world. Interesting.
Date certain in Iraq or Afghanistan will lead to one result. The terrorists sitting on their hands until the proverbial coast is clear. They are not going anywhere. They do not have artificial deadlines they need to abide by. They know that the world and President Obama do not have the stomach for the conflict and they will play the waiting game. Will Afghan youth sign on to be the police when they know we are leaving? It is an old and tired story. The rhetoric of the President is equally worn. These are dangerous times and politics and checkbook budgets do not have a place in the decision making process.
Interesting Thoughts From War On Terror News On The Speech And It's Content
First off: Stop blaming the CinC that was decisive enough to overthrow the Taliban in less time than it took you to decide to half-step.
Secondly: Compromise belongs to politicians, not war. The General needs 40,000 Troops. 30,000 is a half-step compromise.
Third: Be grateful for allies. This is OUR fight and they are helping. The General asked YOU for 40,000 Troops, plus whatever the Allies could muster.
Fourth: Pakistan victories are not YOURS. They stepped up but you did not. Had you decided when the General asked, the Taliban could have been crushed as the Pakis pushed them out of their safe havens.
Fifth: This is not the "fastest" deployment of troops. It is the culmination of the slowest decision in modern history. A half-step decision at that. Had you decided to support the General that you sent to implement the "strategy" you "concluded" in March, the lead elements would already be on the ground, not getting their marching orders for May of next year. They'd be ready when the spring thaws for the new fighting season, rather than waiting on a plane in the US to go kick in the doors of an enemy that emplaced themselves while you consulted political advisors.
Sixth: Victory should be the goal, not a timeline for withdrawal. What cost do you put on lives and liberty? What dollar amount is too much to pay to prevent another attack? What dollar amount do you put on the life of a young Afghan girl that just wants to learn to read?
Seventh: Quit allowing Congress to cut the Military. Recruiters are turning away the few recruits that are qualified.
Eighth: Leadership would have been decisiveness, before NATO leaders got tired of your dithering.