The ‘Forgotten War’ at the Republican National Convention
Speaking from a real podium to real soldiers at a real Army base, a real president told his Fort Bliss, Texas, audience on Friday that the United States will remain focused on the mission in Afghanistan while working toward ending the war in a responsible way that protects everything its military members have sacrificed for there.
In this one speech at Fort Bliss, a president who did not start this war, a president who does not want to prolong it one minute more than absolutely necessary, addressed the war in Afghanistan head-on and discussed it openly and frankly.
What a contrast with how the Republican presidential nominee and his party — the party of an administration that started the war and a party that apparently wants to continue it indefinitely — totally ducked this issue of paramount national importance during three days of discussing how to “take our country back” at their National Convention.
Even the Republican Party’s nominee to become commander-in-chief, “[i]n an almost 45-minute speech…didn’t find a moment to mention Afghanistan…With no new plans and evasion about his real plans, Mitt Romney leaves this convention no stronger than he came,” according to CNN.
In an Obama campaign web video released Friday, the narrator points out “at a time when 84,000 American men and women are fighting for their country in Afghanistan,” Romney’s speech included “not a single mention of how or when to bring them home safely.”
One person, however, although talking to an empty chair, did manage to say something about this crucial national security issue. Actor Clint Eastwood asked the empty chair, after mentioning that president Obama had a “target date” for bringing the troops home, “Why don’t you just bring them home tomorrow morning?”
But of course the commander-in-chief will not bring the troops back tomorrow morning.
Again, speaking to real soldiers — not imaginary soldiers in imaginary little skits — the president did bring up Afghanistan, did bring up their courage and their sacrifices, and did not dodge the issue.
————————————————Real Soldiers at Fort Bliss, Texas——————————————
In a nearly 30-minute address to these soldiers, the president said, among other:
“I just had the opportunity to meet with some of our Gold Star families, and our message to them is this: Your loved ones live on in the soul of our nation and we will honor them always.
Because of their sacrifice, because of your service, we pushed the Taliban back. We’re training Afghan forces. The transition to Afghan lead is underway, and as promised, more than 30,000 of our troops will have come home by next month.
Just as in Iraq, we are going to end this war responsibly. Next year, Afghans will take the lead for their own security. In 2014, the transition will be complete. And even as this war ends, we will stay vigilant so Afghanistan is never again a source for attacks against America. Never again.
So we’re not just ending these wars. We’re doing it in a way that keeps America safe and makes America stronger. And that includes our military.”
He continued,
“So here’s my pledge to you. In a world of serious threats, I will never hesitate to use force to defend the United States of America or our interests.. At the same time, I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary. And when we do, we will give you the equipment and the clear mission and the smart strategy and the support back home that you need to get the job done. We owe you that.”
And:
“The war in Iraq is over. The transition is underway in Afghanistan. Our troops will keep coming home. And we are keeping our military ready for whatever the future may hold. But know this, Bliss — we are moving forward stronger and more confident in knowing that when faced with great trials, we Americans do what we always do. We don’t just endure; we emerge stronger than before.”
After praising Americans and once again honoring our troops, the president concluded:
“That’s who you are. That’s who we are. We are Americans. We pledge allegiance to the same proud flag. And we all love this country and all it represents to the world — the hope, the opportunity. And we stand united in support of our troops and your families. And when we stand together and when we work together, when we take care of each other, we remind ourselves there’s nothing we can’t do, America’s greatest days are yet to come, and that we remain the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever known.
So God bless you. God bless all our men and women in uniform. And God bless the United States of America.”
Now, those were not empty chairs the president was talking to. Those were flesh-and-blood, real American heroes. They are fighting and dying for us in the God-forsaken deserts and mountains in Afghanistan, in a war that cannot be ignored, a war that must be discussed and debated by any aspiring commander-in-chief and a war that must be brought to an end not tomorrow morning, but soon and honorably.
Read more of the president’s speech here.
Share This
Related Posts
-
George W. Bush’s Legacy: The Debate Continues
Posted on Apr 23, 2013
-
Is George W. Bush the Victim of a Bum’s Rush to Judgment?
Posted on Apr 21, 2013
-
Military Working Dogs
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
Obama Must Face Up to Post-Assad Syria Now! (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Saudi Arabia)
Posted on Apr 11, 2013
Again, Mitt and Ryan are foreign policy nitwits and the Rep party has a shoot first ask questions later attitude towards he world.
There is more to being President than making investors money.
SL: Wait: the Republican Party has a policy of asking questions after they shoot? When? I think I missed that part…
a president who did not start this war, a president who does not want to prolong it one minute more than absolutely necessary
He already prolonged it more than necessary when he decided to escalate the war. And yes Romney will be even worse in this regard, but really we are being forced to choose between Bush and Bush Lite. If you want to talk about politicians that actually didn’t want to prolong this ridiculous war, talk about Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and even Joe Biden, who advanced a plan to cut back troop levels in favor of a more strategic approach.
Well, I cant fault Obama for trying the surge in Afghanistan after it had worked in Iraq. Granted, it did not produce the same results, but imho, it was worth the try considering the geopolitical significance of Pakistan.
but, like most, I think it is time to leave. We tried, for over a decade, and it is time to go. It is time for the Afghan government to do the fighting.
“He already prolonged it more than necessary when he decided to escalate the war.”
Agreed. I wish that Obama had not given in to the unrelenting neocon/republican pressure to do so.
DDW it’s tough to guess Obama’s motivations for the Afghan surge. I think he boxed himself in during the 2008 campaign when he characterized it as the “just war” essentially forcing himself to act aggressively.
I must be the only “liberal” that thinks it was the right thing to do… at that time
I dont think Obama ceded to neocon pressure, nor do I think he boxed himself in during the campaign. I think he looked at the facts and made the decision he thought was best.
It isn’t like he closed down Guantanamo Bay, which I would consider to be one of his biggest broken promises.
As we discussed before about Obama’s surge, he was convinced by his Secty. of State, his security advisors, and the Pentagon to decide against his VP’s advice. His big mistake was in not listening to the advice of that VP after choosing him exactly for that foreign policy experience – experience which would have kept him on the path to his goal of ending that war.
As far as Guantanamo, he should have had the gumption to hold the trial(s) somewhere in New York state – possibly at a secure military base like West Point or Fort Drum, or Fort Hamilton. That would have provided security for citizens, jurors, and the accused.
Both sides of the political spectrum love wars big, little or a mess. Any politician who doesn’t jump on the Red Dawn bandwagon is in for serious trouble. Americans were fooled by the police actions in Panama and Grenada.I’ll give Bush 41 credit for a decent job in Gulf War I, but many hawks hated him for not marching to Baghdada to receive kisses and chocolate. The anti-war crowd in both parties are a minority…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbreak_Ridge
What DG said. Yes, to give Obama credit (this once), it was a “just war” at it’s initiation, 9/11 being impossible to ignore as the embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack were. Water under the bridge, the surge meant Obama bought the war. So let’s not need a fact checker to admit that he now owns it.
Yes, it was strange that there was no mention of Afghanistan during the convention. Only thing i can figure is that Romney basically agrees with the current strategy, or would prefer a faster withdrawal. Still, they could have at least spent some time praising our troops and their sacrifices and even spoken about his support for all the wounded and mentally damaged and supporting the support programs and propose enhancements.
dd
Good grief! Supporting the veteran’s programs and enhancing them would cost money. The one thing they don’t want to do is spend money unless it is on raising the Defense Department’s percent of GDP to 4%. Unless some of that is for taking care of veterans, which it may be, there’s no help for veterans from this crew – other than making more of them.
ohio, no smiley face so I guess you are serious. Unfortunately, during your campaign you can support anything and once in ignore it. (Need I point out the 2008 campaign “statements”.)
However, I think you may be a tad harsh on the Reps veteran’s position.
Bottom line, they could have at least paid lip service to praising our troops and helping vets. I don’t think most or them want to make more of them, you forget Romney is a “businessman” and although he may want more money for defense, he may think wars are expensive and hurt the economy. Making and selling guns is more profitable (smiley).
Biden originally wanted to split Iraq into 3 different countries. His opinion on the middle east is worthless.
SL
Biden suggested separaqting Iraq into three different regions, not countries.
[The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad.
In an op-ed essay in Monday's edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph Biden. D-Del., wrote that the idea "is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests.]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-01-biden-iraq_x.htm
This piece also has some interesting prospective policy decisions addressed by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
We haven’t heard much about the Kurds recently, but that time bomb is still sitting there. I would say Biden’s opinion on the middle east, as well as all other foreign policy decisions, is very much the opposite of worthless.
dd
[So Romney is going to make the largest spending cuts in history while protecting or increasing spending on more than half of the budget.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indulged this idea back in May. If Social Security and Medicare are spared from cuts, then to get federal spending under 20 percent of GDP while holding defense spending at 4 percent of GDP, “all other programs — including Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, education, environmental protection, transportation, and SSI — would have to be cut by an average of 40 percent in 2016 and 57 percent in 2022.”]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/romneys-budget-would-require-a-40-cut-to-everything-but-medicare-social-security-and-defense/
I thought he said countries during his CNN interview.
Either way, considering the trbalism of Iraq and that the kurds had their country split in thirds…lt was a really stupid idea.
There was basically a satellite war going on in Iraq at he time.
SL
He could very well have said “countries” on CNN. Our Joe is nothing if not inconsistent. I wasn’t aware that the Kurds had dibs on all of Iraq. I would think the tribalism would argue for the plan rather than against it. The Kurds good fortune is that they have the part that has all that lovely oil. Their bad fortune is that everyone wants to take it away from them and that a nuclear power on one border isn’t very friendly and a civil war is raging on another border – not to mention the turmoil on it’s third border – the rest of Iraq.
Ohio, you make a good point, and talk is cheap during campaigns. Of course, if the economy could GROW, instead of politician’s noses, it with reasonable savings due to inefficiencies and redundancies along with reasonable spending cuts could help a lot.
But without a growing economy all the taxes in the world won’t solve the long term problems: like we are going broke.
Part of this rosy scenario would have to be tax reform akin to Simpson-Bowles, can either party do that?
“Part of this rosy scenario would have to be tax reform akin to Simpson-Bowles, can either party do that?”
Let’s hope so. But it’s going to take old fashioned politicians that know how to compromise. The Tea Party ain’t it and they seem to be driving everyone else around the bend just like they themselves are. It’s a quandry.
yup……………..
Great stuff, I agree, thanks.
ceder Yes. The die has been cast; we will either end up with a reawakening and great reform or we will continue as we are until a true tyrant grabs the reins of power.
Thursday August 30, 2012 AG says torture investigation closed.
In a statement, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. signaled that the decision had more to do with the difficulties of assembling evidence — from incidents that had happened years earlier in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq — than with a conclusion that no crime had occurred.
The department has “declined prosecution because the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,” Holder said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-closes-cia-probe-without-charges/2012/08/30/04e8ea22-f2da-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html
Friday August 31, 2012 ACLU says not so fast.
It is simply unacceptable that torture can be treated with impunity, no matter the goal of the torturers. Doing so gravely undermines the prohibition against torture worldwide and sends the dangerous message to US and foreign officials that there will be no consequences for future abuses.
So, the ACLU is taking the long view of this struggle. Despite the Justice Department’s refusal to enforce the law, we will continue to press for true accountability – both in the United States and overseas – for the designers, facilitators, overseers and perpetrators of torture and abuse. We will continue to work for the day when officials hear a resoundingly different message than the one delivered by Attorney General Holder: torture and abuse are never legitimate, but if you do make the egregious error of crossing that line, fear the law, for you will be held be to account.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-national-security/torture-impunity
Not much research needed here, Ceder.
It is obvious to most breathing Americans that:
1. The checks and balances mechanisms between the branches of government are not working very well, and have not worked for a while. This is especially true when it comes to the War Powers “issue.”
2. K-street and many other organizations have “a corrupting influence” on Congress and perhaps even the Judiciary and others, and that this has been going on for a while, too.
Thank you for your response Dorian.
While you recognize and state that what I’ve stated is obvious, the problem not only remains, but becomes worse with each election cycle. Interestingly, the Tea Party was a populist reaction to the exploding deficit, unchecked government spending, etc., etc. The problem with Tea Party politics is that at its core it has been and is still a tool of the Koch Brothers (the single largest financiers of the movement) thus making them the tool of K-Street politics as usual, and though I am not opposed to their concerns/principles, I am disgusted with the fact that while they love America, they do NOT love Americans, especially those they deem as un-patriotic because someone disagrees with their tactics, or otherwise. When such movements believe they hold the high ground of patriotism, and yet are subject to the subversive whims of big moneyed funders such as the Koch brothers, it is the height of hypocrisy. The effects? More smoke & mirrors that keeps the public diverted from the more weighty issues a populist movement should arise from.
In my humble opinion, I believe that the only way this will happen is when enough of the purveyors of public opinion regain the integrity of Morrow, Huntley & Brinkley and Cronkite and step up to the typewriter and microphone and communicate to the public at large, without fear of reprisal, what is obvious and by that ‘patriotic’ act bring the voting public to a rude awareness of what though is obvious has been relegated to the proverbial elephant rampaging in the living room but no one, especially the media, is willing to admit is there.
Enough said. I believe you get my point.
ceder, Dorian your points are well made.
Unfortunately even here at TMV we have seemingly reasonable people from the ‘other side’ that talk pleasantly but still acknowledge that they don’t even look at charts or statistics that go against their preconceived ideas of what is is.
I’m dumbfounded by their intentional, premeditated ignorance.
Should have read: I’m dumbfounded by their intentional, premeditated, and seemingly pride felt ignorance.
The power grab by the executive branch has been out of political need. Congress is simply unable to lead and has been so for decades. Any President that wants to accomplish something has to not only lead, but also bend a couple of rules in order to get something accomplished.
How would our country look if the President left him/herself out of legislative process and only signed or vetoed bills? We would be in serious trouble.
… it all starts with something as simple as getting judges approved and ends with our credit rating being held hostage by the House.
I understand everyone’s concern about the executive branch, particularly under the Cheney years, but the complete lack of action is also not an option.
It all starts with the voters. We keep putting these idiots in office.
SK, I don’t appreciate your Personal insults. Keep it clean, is that asking too much?
??????
“Unfortunately even here at TMV we have seemingly reasonable people from the ‘other side’ that talk pleasantly but still acknowledge that they don’t even look at charts or statistics that go against their preconceived ideas of what is is.”
“I’m dumbfounded by their intentional, premeditated, and seemingly pride felt ignorance.”
????????????????????????????????/
@ceder:
I found your comments very interesting, on issues to which you obviously have devoted a lot of time and given a lot of thought.
While I do not necessarily agree with the acuteness and extent of the problems as you describe them or with the imminent and catastrophic consequences of such problems (the separation of powers, checks and balances and other Constitutional issues and problems), I do think — as I have stated before — that we do have issues that need to be fixed.
You point to such a possible path: through intelligent voting and careful vetting and selection of political leaders at all levels of government.
I am curious as to what other readers, much more attuned to and knowledgeable of these “philosotical”(philosophical-political) matters may have to say (I can really see this developing into a great apolitical discussion).
Thanks for your comments.
Ceder, Your views are refreshing in that they remind us where we should be had we not slipped down the slope of pragmatism.
One point does cause me to wonder. This is not the 18th century and the founders could not have envisioned the possibility of chemical, nuclear and biological attacks delivered in a matter of hours or even minutes.
Forget about congress protecting us in a timely manner, only an alert executive can attempt that. Or, am I describing another slippery slope where the president could encroach on congress’s role with various “preventive” actions and directives.
And, now with the humongous Homeland Security and other security agencies playing a great seen and unseen role that I wonder if congress has the structure to efficiently control or even monitor them. Again, wouldn’t that be an executive function?
Just asking.
Ceder here. Somehow the system is now listing me as C.
dduck, true, this is not the 18th century, and true again that they could not have envisioned chemical, nuclear and biological attacks quickly delivered. However, these points are relative to progress and change, which the Founding Fathers clearly understood, as evidenced in the arguments between the pro-Federalists (see Federalists Papers) and the anti-Federalists, the ‘nature’ of humans and power, which they understood would not change over time. This is what the Founding Fathers were most concerned about and went to great lengths to write into the Constitution the provisions for preventing overreach, usurping and power grabbing of either an individual or a branch of government, regardless of how expedient the need or benevolent the intent.
The nature of humans and power, especially when combined, was the single greatest reason the Constitution provides for separation of powers via its checks and balances, and it’s as relevant now as it was in the 18th century, probably more so today.
ceder, thank you for your answer, but unless they were prescient, I don’t see how they could conceive of the present military capabilities and speed.
Would they have gone with the original concept if they were faced with the present circumstances.
BTW: I totally agree with the concept of true separation of powers and checks and balances and would that it could be.