Supporting the President in a Time of War
Dec 2nd, 2009 | 43 responses
I am not one who believes that criticizing presidential war policy gives you a big fat F on the litmus test for patriotism. But the high-profile bloggers and media pundits on the far right certainly adhere to that belief. Or at least they did adhere to it, throughout the eight years of the Bush presidency.
Now, not so much:
As to Obama’s plan – the “settlement” – it entails deploying significantly fewer troops than the number General McChrystal asked for (about three-fourths of the total, as I understand it). Obama apparently hopes to make up the difference by calling on our allies to add troops. He said he has sought such assistance but had nothing positive to report by way of any response he might have received. In any case, I wonder whether a high percentage of troops supplied by our allies would be interchangeable with U.S. troops.
More importantly, Obama set July 2011 as the target date for beginning our withdrawal. Although he did add that conditions on the ground will be taken into account, it is difficult to understand how the U.S. will secure the support and commitment it needs from a critical mass of Afghans when they know, or have strong reason to believe, we will be starting to pull out only about a year after we have ramped up.
Indeed, Obama’s timetable threatens to undermine not just the first prong of his strategy (military) but also second and third prongs (civilian and Pakistan). With only a short-term commitment, we’re not likely to exert much influence on civilian behavior. Nor are the Pakistanis likely to be impressed by an America that’s more interested in a prompt exit, so it can save money and focus on domestic issues (points Obama emphasized near the end of his speech), than in defeating its enemies.
Obama attempted to sell his timetable through his usual dishonest rhetorical tricks. He compared his approach favorably to a decade-long commitment. But no one has proposed that he make, much less publicly declare, a commitment of that length. Obama was positing a “false choice.” The real choice is between announcing a “fight and run” strategy and making no statement about when we intend to start leaving. The former approach is a new wrinkle in warfare.
Actually, there is nothing new about having an exit strategy or a Plan B strategy or a focused and specific definition of success, or an understanding that, as Obama said tonight, the goals you set must be achievable at a reasonable cost — and being clear on what “reasonable cost” is. What is new is the concept of “preventive war,” which then-Pres. Bush first announced in 2002, also in a speech at West Point. The concept of attacking a country that posed no threat to the United States on the basis of a mere belief that the country might someday pose a threat was entirely new — and it was the animating philosophy behind our invasion and occupation of Iraq. What is new is the concept of an open-ended indefinite war in which no cost in blood or treasure is too high.
And in this new way of thinking, a president who takes 92 days to consider how to set parameters of time, cost, and methodology within which our goals can be met at a cost we are willing to pay, is a quitter who lets himself be “deterred,” as Fred Barnes phrases it, by too many “things” (emphasis is mine):
I had hoped Obama would declare that nothing will deter him, as commander-in-chief, from prevailing in Afghanistan. But it turns out a lot of things might deter him. He listed a few of them: the cost of the war, its length (if more than 18 months from January 2010), the failure of Afghans to step up to the task sufficiently. He hedged.
Americans and our allies were looking for more, I believe. To have rallied the country and the world, Obama needed to indicate he would lead a fight to win in Afghanistan, with the help of allies if possible, but with the armed forces of the U.S. alone if necessary. He didn’t say anything like that. He didn’t come close.
Yeah, like that strategy worked so very well for the previous administration. For that matter, like the previous administration even adhered to that strategy. If it had, Afghanistan would not have been abandoned a year and a half after it was begun to go do a preventive war in a country that (as is required for the definition of a preventive war) posed no threat to us at all. But let’s not “scapegoat” Bush for that, heavens no. Don’t throw that ugly word, “responsibility,” around neoconservatives, please.
It’s also strange to see the likes of Paul Mirengoff and Fred Barnes complaining about all the flaws in Obama’s speech when, apparently, Gen. McChrystal was thrilled with it.
Having said all of this, however, none of it holds a candle to Dick Cheney’s performance earlier today. He gave an interview to Politico in which he accused Pres. Obama of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Which, in case you’re not aware, is the exact, word for word definition given in the U.S. Constitution for treason.
Joe already wrote about this latest example of Dick Cheney’s post-traumatic stress disorder (second link in the immediately preceding paragraph), and linked to further commentary at Memeorandum, but I wanted to single out Michael Goldfarb’s response. It is easily the most venal, hypocritical, moral travesty of a commentary I have ever seen on the right. I know, there’s a large field for that, and I haven’t read all the response on the right, but there couldn’t possibly be one worse than Goldfarb’s. Here is the final paragraph:
When Cheney goes after the president, the president starts making unforced political errors. More than that though, Cheney’s attacks seem to push Obama into a more positive direction on policy. No doubt, the White House considered how Cheney would respond to Obama’s speech tonight. Cheney’s critique of Obama as “dithering” on the decision may have expedited it, and his critique of Obama as insufficiently clear in his commitment to the mission may force Obama to dig in a lot deeper than he’d like — which is a good thing. Cheney’s still the MVP.
You’ve got to read the whole thing, though, to get the full flavor. I will not give Goldfarb a link for this contemptible piece of trash, but you can get it at Allahpundit’s blog. Allahpundit, to his enormous credit, is clearly shocked by Goldfarb’s reaction, and he has a lot of trenchant things to say. Please go read him.
43 Responses to “Supporting the President in a Time of War”
Just because you have an exit strategy, doesn't mean you should announce it to the world. If the Taliban are anything, they are patient. Obama thinks in year intervals, the Taliban think in lifetimes.
True AllenS, but isn't it great that at least Obama thinks before acting. His shortsightedness is more to blame on the electoral system of his failing country than anything else. GWB, like Reagan in the 80's, failed to think through a plan in Afghanistan and now BHO is cleaning up the mess as best he can with an arm tied behind his back.
nahummer–
If Obama has a hand tied behind his back, he tied it himself.
July 21, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that United States needs to focus on Afghanistan in its battle against terrorism.
Kathy,
All you need to understand is this simple acronym: IOIYAR
Thousand word posts about the hypocrisy of Republicans are getting kind of old.
Andy: Then maybe Republicans should stop being such hypocrites.
Either you personally feel citizens have a duty to support their president, right or wrong, or you don't. I don't. The reflexive Bush-bashers here obviously don't. So criticizing Republicans for failing that duty rings rather hollow.
Since they don't mean what they say anyway, I think we should just let the CIA run the country. All the news networks would insert a government video every night. It would have blue skys and people all over the world agreeing that our way of life is preferred and divine. That way no one will know what is going on. Imagine– not the congress, not the Taleban, not the electorate, not the drug war lords–all of our options would be available to us at all times. We could leave in the middle of the night with nary a word or we could bomb the bits out of them. Or we could change the underlying reason why were there every other day; democracy, freedom, humanitarian, gas pipeline, enterprise, natural resource extraction, Middle east presence, helping Israel. We could put up gigantic signs that light up at night and blink illumining the night with the profundity of our message. And they only ones who would know would be the bearded guy in the situation room; he and his incredible clairvoyant entourage……….and he would have the world by the pant cuffs, because we would want to know…….maybe if we ask nicely
I thought that dissent was the highest form of patriotism?
DQ, KK, get over it. After WW2, war has always been a controversial, and partisan subject. The Democrats seem just as ready to show their about face as Republicans are.
I sure hope you felt this way when W was in office. I guess your a fan of Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan…
You act as if hypocrisy is a disease that only affects your political opponents and not politicians in general. Hypocrisy is part and parcel of American politics with the possible exception of a handful of true believers here and there.
Given that success in Afghanistan may not be achievable regardless of troop levels, it could be smart politics to criticize Obama's plan, even if that criticism is hypocritical coming from the neocons who helped formulate Bush's strategy. The critique of too few troops is odd given the Pentagon's opinion that the troops requested by Obama can't be filled without 8-9 months lead time. The critique on exit strategy makes little sense after 8 years with very limited success and now a resurgence of the Taliban, who, by the way, we now divide into “good” Taliban we will work with and “bad Taliban we want to run out of Dodge. And, none of it takes into full account the tribal regions of Pakistan where Taliban and Al Qaeda can hide in relative safety until we leave, whenever that is.
The more apt critique is that we are sending more troops at all, that we are doing anything other than declaring victory and planning our withdrawal. It is quite possible that we will look back on this as a “good money after bad” strategy. For now, I'll hope I'm wrong.
“Thousand word posts about the hypocrisy of Republicans are getting kind of old.”
And 8 years of having our patriotism called into question for thinking our president's idiotic stance on…well, just about everything…might cause some big problems down the line got pretty darn old, too. Turn about's fair play.
As for the post, this whole situation is kind of disappointing. The PR problem Obama's having here is that he's a supposedly liberal Democrat taking a hawkish, Bush Doctrine-y approach to this war. Most Democrats aren't stupid, so this Bush-plus approach is not lost on most of of us, so we're not going to be supportive. The Republicans, who should be thrilled to death over this plan, hate Obama no matter what he does, so they're not going to be supportive. That's the obvious PR issue, but it certainly remains to be seen whether our president's approach is actually going to help. Who knows? Maybe it'll be a wild success.
“You act as if hypocrisy is a disease that only affects your political opponents and not politicians in general. Hypocrisy is part and parcel of American politics with the possible exception of a handful of true believers here and there.”
You act as if there's some problem with calling it out, even when it's desperately clear. Call it out! Call it out loud as you can! Both sides. Heaven knows that each and every misstep by the left will be called out loudly.
“Thousand word posts about the hypocrisy of Republicans are getting kind of old.”
The Republicans, who should be thrilled to death over this plan, hate Obama no matter what he does, so they're not going to be supportive.
Case in point, yesterday morning, Karl Rove said on a morning show that he would be the first to applaud Obama if he sent 30-35000 troops to Afghanistan. After Obama pledged to THAT VERY THING, Rove promptly spent the rest of his on air time trashing Obama's policy and speech. It is so very hard not to get annoyed when Repub hypocrits flip on a dime like that.
Like I said before the far-right and the far-left are twins. They flatter each other with sincere imitation.
“Either you personally feel citizens have a duty to support their president, right or wrong, or you don't. I don't.”
Do really think anyone does? Of course not. The point of the post is not to criticize Republicans for voicing opinions against presidential policies; the point is to show that nobody actually believes that we have a duty to support the president, right or wrong — despite the years of righties saying that we did, calling us “Hate America First-ers” or whatever. It was wrong then, it would be wrong now.
“The reflexive Bush-bashers here obviously don't.”
No, neither reflexive Bush-bashers, nor those who knew what a disaster he would be before the election (somewhat acquainted with his past political rompings), nor the hundred million or so who went from part of the 80-odd% approval rating in 2001 to the 20-odd% in 2008, nor those who still love him, believe that. That's the point.
The point of the post is not to criticize Republicans for voicing opinions against presidential policies
Um, hello? Of course the point of the post is to criticize Republicans. I love Kathy to death, don't get me wrong, but that's the point of virtually all her posts.
Leveling criticism like this hangs a big “kick me” sign on your own back. Come the revolution, some Republican president will be in power doing something Kathy finds odious. She'll complain. People on the right will attack her and charge her with hypocrisy for failing to support the president, and they'll be able to point to this post as evidence. Thus the great cycle of partisan opprobrium continues.
Yes, Allen, but our goal is to get Afghans ready to handle their own defense against the Taliban. And they need to know we will not be there forever.
Yeah, I do remember that one. It just continues to amaze me.
Oh, Andy. I'll stop writing them then. I don't want to do anything to upset you.
Hi, tas!
Either you personally feel out-of-power political party leaders have a duty to be consistent in their stated principles about supporting the president in a time of war, even if they disagree, or you don't. I do. Those citizens who reflexively bash Bush critics for holding Bush supporters to the same standard to which those Bush supporters held Bush critics obviously don't require such consistency. So criticizing liberals and Democrats for being inconsistent rings rather hollow.
I have no problem with the controversial and partisan parts. It's the hypocrisy I object to.
“True believers”? Is that what intellectually honest people are called these days?
What annoys me is that so much of the blogosphere seems to nothing but that. Hey, it's great for partisan back-slapping and high-fiving, but that's about it.
Don't stop because of little old me and my curmudgeoness.
Name any politician and I can show you many examples of their hypocrisy. We can even make a drinking game out of it!
If hypocrisy really bothers you then you must not get a lot of sleep.
“Um, hello?”
Hi!
I'm not saying she's not criticizing Republicans. I'm saying she's not criticizing Republicans for “failing that duty [not supporting the president, right or wrong]“, as you said she was. She was criticizing them for the hypocrisy of blabbing on for 8 years about how we all should uphold that duty and then failing to do so once someone they don't like is in office.
ETA: Kathy, if I'm wrong on that, by all means correct me.
“Hey, it's great for partisan back-slapping and high-fiving, but that's about it.”
Bummer. Time to find a new hobby, perhaps?
That's what I would call honest politicians, not honest people, and I don't mean it as any kind of slur. Most people are basically honest, most politicians are not. There's probably a better term than 'true believer,” but I'm thinking of people like Kucinich and Ron Paul who don't vacillate the way most politicians do.
Yes, Roro, you can certainly draw a distinction between badmouthing the president and badmouthing the president after badmouthing other people for badmouthing the president. But's a fine one.
And it's always into fine distinctions that these arguments descend:
“You hypocrite! You say X, but before you criticized people who said X!”
“Oh no, this X and that X were quite different. And how can you criticize me? I didn't hear you criticize when so-and-so said X, so its you who's the hypocrite!”
“What??!! So-and-so's X had nothing to do with this X! If I had any doubt that you hate America, this settles it for me.”
Spotting politicians' hypocrisy may make a fine drinking game, but it makes for pretty low-quality political analysis.
Dr J,
I said in the very first sentence of this post that I do not equate criticism of a president in time of war with lack of patriotism. After 9/11, leading members of the Bush administration — including Dick Cheney — equated anti-war dissent with lack of patriotism and even with treason. The words “anti-American” and “un-American” were as common as yellow jackets at a picnic in September. War protesters, and opponents of Bush's foreign policy inside the administration and outside, were told they were providing “aid and comfort to the enemy” by criticizing or opposing elements of the president's so-called “war on terror” both abroad and at home.
Now, the leading architect of those policies — who used the constitutional definition for treason to demonize Democrats and liberals who publicly disagreed with Pres. Bush — is using that same constitutional definition of treason to publicly disagree with Pres. Obama on the exact same issue — foreign policy — that he said it was treasonous to publicly disagree with Pres. Bush on!
Democrats have *never* equated dissent with treason. If it's inviting a “kick me” sign to criticize Republicans for attacking Pres. Obama's war speech (attacking, not disagreeing with) in the same kind of language they called Democrats treasonous for using when Bush was president, then logically one would think that Democrats are only responding to that “kick me” sign the Republicans have hung over their own heads when they set out to do precisely the very things to a Democratic president that constituted treason in their eyes when done to a Republican president.
And the point of my posts (the ones about Republicans) are to crticize Republican policies, not Republicans in and of themselves. I have been just as critical of Democrats when their policies are equivalent to Republicans'. It's issues and policies I care about, not party label. And I really don't think you can point to anything I've written that proves otherwise.
“Just because you have an exit strategy, doesn't mean you should announce it to the world.”
That goes for any strategy, and tactics as well. No, the public and the enemy don't have a “right” to know on what dates and times we are going to attack which things or people we have selected as our targets.
“a 'good money after bad' strategy”
Spending good money for now to keep the already-bad from getting worse than it otherwise would get.
Obama made the best of his range of unpleasant choices. To have fled (evacuated as promptly as possible, which would be fleeing, no doubt whatsoever) would have been the worst, a stupid, decision.
At least with more strength we can manage the eventual departure more likely and strongly as we'd like.
Hypocrisy does bother me. It's one of the aspects of human behavior that bothers me the most. As does the trivialization of it by others.
Kathy, if I'm wrong on that, by all means correct me.
No, you're actually the only one who got me right, roro.
Agreed, thats why I like to point it out on both sides of the political spectrum. To do so for only one would be hypocritical.
It's really not that fine a point Dr J. They're two pretty widely different things. When you put in “X” as a placeholder for any actual issue, it doesn't make any sense.
Stick in any actual scenario and it makes a ton of sense. If you are going to come down hard on someone for a particular behavior, you better be able to live up to your own standards, or you're going to get called on it.
-Anti-choice women who think their abortion is the only justified abortion (not criticism over the choice — criticism over trying to limit the choices of everyone else).
-Parents who tell their kids not to do drugs without telling them that they were big ol' stoners/cokeheads back in the day and turned out just fine (not criticism over doing drugs — criticism over lying about it).
-Republicans who think they're the only ones who are allowed to have negative opinions of the president (not criticism over voicing their opinions — criticism for silencing others' opinions).
Again, it's not that fine a point. I'm sure you can tell the difference.
Of course I can tell the difference, Roro, but it's not worth calling out. Everyone is less consistent than they like to imagine, and you have to take a hypocritic oath to be a politician. You've got to make diverse groups feel like you're representing them all, and a certain amount of posturing and theatricality is part of the job. Catching a politician being inconsistent is like catching a Russian drinking too much or an Italian sleeping around.
The substantial point is, of course, the actual issues. Are abortions and drug use moral? Should they be legal? Do we have a right to criticize the president? And on that last point we all agree, so there's no point picking a fight about it. Focus on the substance: is the man taking us in the right direction or not?
Dr J — It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You seem to think that setting up the rules of play before getting into the game is unnecessary. I find it important. The last point on which “we all agree” was, up until we got a Dem president, evidently something on which we did not all agree. I think that's crap, as does Kathy, apparently. If you don't, that's fine.
Of course it's crap, Roro. It's flippin' politicians slinging mud at each other. Nothing new to see here.