President Obama, well known for his soaring rhetoric and ability to cause audience members to faint while giving a speech, seemed more like a professor giving a lecture than a Commander in Chief announcing the decision to send 30,000 more troops into harms way Tuesday night at West Point. The majority of the speech could have meshed perfectly with a power point presentation. The only part of his speech that was able to wake the sleepy West Point Cadets was when he spoke about the greatness of America (something he has done very little of).
There is nothing inherently wrong with giving a boring speech, but this was not a speech outlining some domestic policy or economic plan. It was a speech announcing the decision to send more Americans into battle. If he was ever going to give an inspiring speech, this was the time for it. War is a terrible thing, but Americans know that it is sometimes necessary. We just need a President to assure us that our cause is just and victory will be achieved. During his speech, Obama never used the word victory. He never assured the cadets listening to him that we would be victorious. The closest he came was saying that we will be “successful”. Is that the politically correct term for victory? We know he doesn’t like the “V” word, because he said so himself in an interview with ABC,
I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.
Am I missing something? I thought Emperor Hirohito surrendering to MacArthur was a great occasion! But Obama sees it as something else, why? During WWII, Churchill and FDR told us they would accept nothing less than complete victory against the ruthlessness of the Nazis and the Japanese, but Obama can only bring himself to say that he wants a “successful conclusion” against the terrorists in Afghanistan!
We have a situation in Afghanistan that could easily become a problem with far reaching consequences. This is the time when our President needs to be tough and tell our enemies that we will win, and they will lose. Avoiding words like victory portrays weakness, to an enemy that only respects strength. This can be seen in Obama’s handling of Iran. He “extended a hand” to Iran during his speech in Cairo and has refused to talk tough. The result? More nuclear activity and an Iranian regime beat-down of it’s own citizens exercising rights that we Americans believe are given to us by God.
By escalating this war, there will be more casualties, both military and civilian. There will be more flag draped caskets and maimed survivors. There will be more families crying for their loved ones and children who will never know their fathers. Because of these great sacrifices, we should accept nothing less that absolute and complete victory. We should accept nothing less than a complete destruction of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We win, they loose.
Mr. President, if you are not willing to be completely victorious against this evil enemy, please do not risk more American lives. This is not a political game. This enemy will only be stopped by force, not by rhetoric and flowery speeches. Either fight to win or don’t fight at all!
Related posts:
Yet another fine example of how our Counterfeit Prince is completely void of true leadership. He is spending our money and our blood at a rate we cannot sustain, truly he is just another typical politician. I can see the title of his next book;
“How I Killed Our Republic in One Year.”
I have to agree. If he is going to manage the situation in Afghanistan like this, it would be better just to bring them all home. Fighting in half measures is only going to get good men and women killed.
Part of me wants to think he’s going to Cloward-Piven this war. I hope that’s just me being cynical.
He has already clearly stated he’s uncomfortable with victory in Afghanistan – I put the youtube video up on my blog last week.
This guy is pathetic. They “work” for three months to come up with a solution – and this is the best this administration can come up with? This country is in some serious trouble.
Certainly, “victory” in the World War II sense would be preferable if it included snuffing out bin Laden and his buddies. I think this word was not used for several reasons:
1) Victory would probably require something getting on towards “pert near” killing every person in Afghanistan. No one wants to get a Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot badge out of this.
2) Historically speaking, European powers have a really bad track record of military failure in Afghanistan. As Santayana said, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.” Therefore, putting out a “jock brag” about victory might be foolishly writing a check that no one can cash, especially in light of Item No. 3 below.
3) Speaking as an anthropologist, the tribal peoples of Afghanistan view war in a completely different way than what we do here in the west or even in east Asia. It is something completely foreign to our ways of thinking. They have a deep cultural love affair with war, and males prove their worth by their ability to organize for and wage war, if not against a foreign power, against each other. The nature of it is hard for me to get across to you in words, but this might help:
1) In the United States, war is objective-driven. We define a purpose for war, commit to it, reach for victory, and bring the boys home. We see it as a horrible thing that needs to be done—but just once in a great while when a situation really calls for it—and we do not go into it with joy.
2) In Afghanistan, war is nothing like this. In the minds of the tribal peoples, especially the men, war is a constant way of life in all times and in all places. It is something to be relished. It brings great personal rewards to each male member of each succeeding tribal generation. Therefore, war is not an occasional thing. War is a necessary, constant, and perpetual thing in their culture—and that is viewed as good. A war must always be in progress, or something is not right with the world. These people live for war. It is their reason for being. This is why their country has always been a fragmented, weirdo wasteland. You have to look to literary fiction to find something that comes close to the Afghan view of war. The best I can come up with is the Klingons in Star Trek, except they do not war with each other, and they occasionally sign peace treaties. So, think of Afghanistan as a Klingon state where they are at constant war with each other (or some temporary foreign enemy), they love war more than life itself, and no one ever signs a peace treaty. In fact, no one ever wants a peace treaty because it will take away the deep cultural value of constant and incessant warfare.
For now at least, I favor the build up of more troops. Given Items 1-3 above, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I think they avoided the “V” word because it might really require killing every male in the country over 10 years of age. Our Christian traditions would never allow us to do that. Where are the Romans when you really need them?
Charles,
I agree with a lot of what you said, however I think you are missing something. We are not at war with Afghanistan, we are at war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I believe that victory is possible but it would require killing almost every member of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Many Afghans hate the Taliban and would be willing to turn on them if they knew they had the full and unwavering support of the United States and NATO. That’s why I think our President needs to “talk tough” and use words like victory. If he uses words like “successful operation” and tells the Afghan people that the troops will be leaving in 18 months, he is hamstringing our ability to win this war. Few Afghans will be willing to fight against the Taliban if they know that the Americans will be gone in 18 months.
Excellent post!
I agree with that Liberty. We have to put Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of business—and getting rid of all of them might be the way to do it—if possible.
I would say one other thing here too. I watched Obama’s speech, which everyone but me appeared to forget within the first 5 minutes of its being over. Obama did not say that he was going to get out of Afghanistan in 18 months. Contingent upon the success of the surge, the plan is to begin reducing troop levels after 18 months—but only if CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND INDICATE THAT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AT THAT TIME. I take that to mean that we will stay if our military leaders feel we need to stay longer.
You guys need to remember that five of the six major American wars of the 20th century were waged by liberal Democrats intent on winning.
Charles,
Other Democratic Presidents may have been intent on complete victory, especially FDR, but Obama does not appear to be one of them.