Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
George Will: "This Will Not End Well"; on Obama's speech
Topic Started: Dec 2 2009, 03:50 PM (413 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/12/02/this_will_not_end_well
Quote:
 
This Will Not End Well
George Will
Wednesday, December 02, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A traveler asks a farmer how to get to a particular village. The farmer replies, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here." Barack Obama, who asked to be president, nevertheless deserves sympathy for having to start where America is in Afghanistan.

But after 11 months of graceless disparagements of the 43rd president, the 44th acts as though he is the first president whose predecessor bequeathed a problematic world. And Obama's second new Afghanistan policy in less than nine months strikingly resembles his predecessor's plan for Iraq, which was: As Iraq's security forces stand up, U.S. forces will stand down.

Having vowed to "finish the job," Obama revealed Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan. This is an unserious policy.

Obama's surge will bring to 51,000 his Afghanistan escalation since March. Supposedly this will buy time for Afghan forces to become adequate. But it is not intended to buy much time: Although the war is in its 98th month, Obama's "Mission Accomplished" banner will be unfurled 19 months from now -- when Afghanistan's security forces supposedly will be self-sufficient. He must know this will not happen.

In a spate of mid-November interviews -- while participating in the president's protracted rethinking of policy -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described America's Afghanistan goal(s) somewhat differently. They are "to defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies" because "al-Qaeda and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaeda still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper and director of a lot of what goes on." And: "We want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." And: "We want to get the people who attacked us." And: "We want to get al-Qaeda." And: "We are in Afghanistan because we cannot permit the return of a staging platform for terrorists."

But al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan do not number in the tens of thousands, or even thousands. Or perhaps even hundreds. Although "the people who attacked us" were al-Qaeda, the threat that justifies today's escalation is, Clinton says, a "syndicate of terror" of which al-Qaeda is just an important part. But is Afghanistan central to the syndicate?

George W. Bush waged preventive war in Iraq regarding (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction. Obama is waging preventive war in Afghanistan to prevent it from again becoming "a staging platform for terrorists," which Somalia, Yemen or other sovereignty near-vacuums also could become. To prevent the "staging platform" scenario, U.S. forces might have to be engaged in Afghanistan for decades before its government can prevent that by itself.

Before Tuesday, the administration had said (through White House spokesman Robert Gibbs) that U.S. forces will not be there "another eight or nine years." Tuesday the Taliban heard a distant U.S. trumpet sounding withdrawal beginning in 19 months. Also hearing it were Afghans who must decide whether to bet their lives on the Americans, who will begin striking their tents in July 2011, or on the Taliban, who are not going home, because they are at home.

Many Democrats, who think the $787 billion stimulus was too small and want another one (but by another name), are flinching from the $30 billion one-year cost of the Afghan surge. Considering that the GM and GMAC bailouts ($63 billion) are five times bigger than Afghanistan's GDP ($12 billion), Democrats seem to be selective worriers about deficits. Of course, their real worry is how to wriggle out of their endorsement of the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, which was a merely tactical endorsement intended to disparage the "war of choice" in Iraq.

The president's party will not support his new policy, his budget will not accommodate it, our overstretched and worn down military will be hard-pressed to execute it, and Americans' patience will not be commensurate with Afghanistan's limitless demands for it. This will not end well.

A case can be made for a serious, meaning larger and more protracted, surge. A better case can be made for a radically reduced investment of resources and prestige in that forlorn country. Obama has not made a convincing case for his tentative surgelet.

George Orwell said the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. But Obama's half-hearted embrace of a half-baked nonstrategy -- briefly feinting toward the Taliban (or al-Qaeda, or a "syndicate of terror") while lunging for the exit ramp -- makes a protracted loss probable.

A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

"a protracted loss"
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
In a word: Quagmire.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Yeah! The correct solution is to send Chuck Norris there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

I like Jackie Chan

Or maybe Mrs. Tiger
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brenda
Member Avatar
..............
Protracted political suicide, too?
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.”
~A.A. Milne
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Axtremus
Dec 2 2009, 05:25 PM
Yeah! The correct solution is to send Chuck Norris there.
No. I think he meant to send Quagmire. Not sure why, exactly. He does have mad surveillance skills.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
This may be much ado about nothing, and I'm no fan of Obama.

True, his statement about troop withdrawal was unfortunate in the impression it conveyed, but it was said for domestic political consumption, and we all know it. Testimony in front of Congress today by Clinton, Gates and Mullen confirmed that our commitment will indeed be more open-ended and dependent on conditions "on the ground".

The upshot is that Obama did what many of his detractors wanted him to do: he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal wanted. He's doing this against the wishes of the majority of his party, and against what many war-weary voters want. You can accuse him of hypocrisy and cynicism given his rhetoric in the past, but ultimately I can't help feeling that his decision is pragmatic and even a bit courageous, given the political capital he is risking.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"preventative" war?

No Mr. Will, the term is "preemptive" and it is a colossal waste of human life and resources.

You yourself state that "if not Afganistan then Somalia, Yemen or other sovereignty near-vacuums".

Will be used as "staging areas"

Are we really going to accept this doctrine of preemptive, perpetual war?

No. The only logical conclusion is that we need to get the hell out of there and everywhere else in the world and take care of our own country and its people. Just let other countries live their lives as they see fit. Not how we would prefer.

DEFEND THIS country! Do not try to build others in our image on an offensive standing at great loss of life and treasure. Why? Because it is in vain.

Why must me always repeat history?
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Red Rice
Dec 2 2009, 10:20 PM


The upshot is that Obama did what many of his detractors wanted him to do: he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal wanted.
Again, given the changes of scope in the mission, it actually is everything the military wants.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Red Rice
Dec 2 2009, 10:20 PM
This may be much ado about nothing, and I'm no fan of Obama.

True, his statement about troop withdrawal was unfortunate in the impression it conveyed, but it was said for domestic political consumption, and we all know it. Testimony in front of Congress today by Clinton, Gates and Mullen confirmed that our commitment will indeed be more open-ended and dependent on conditions "on the ground".

The upshot is that Obama did what many of his detractors wanted him to do: he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal wanted. He's doing this against the wishes of the majority of his party, and against what many war-weary voters want. You can accuse him of hypocrisy and cynicism given his rhetoric in the past, but ultimately I can't help feeling that his decision is pragmatic and even a bit courageous, given the political capital he is risking.
This is true as far as it goes but there is one important thing that seems to be lacking here: leadership. Despite whatever Obama's underlings might be saying to Congress I just don't get the feeling from him that he is in this thing to win. The only commitment I feel from him is to hedge his bets, have it both ways and set it up so that if things go south he doesn't get the blame. That is not leadership which is essential to the success of any military operation. Obama's lack of commitment sends the wrong message to our enemies, our allies and, most important, our troops. Time will tell. Maybe he will step up to the plate but right now I have a very bad feeling about this thing.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I wish people wouldn't use words like unserious. There's no excuse for dog-f*cking ugly words like this.

It strikes me that we've had a president who didn't give a sh!t about anybody else's opinions and did decisiveness well but diplomacy very badly, followed by a president who wants to keep everybody happy, with the reverse effect. Neither approach really seems that effective.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Dec 3 2009, 05:09 AM
Red Rice
Dec 2 2009, 10:20 PM
This may be much ado about nothing, and I'm no fan of Obama.

True, his statement about troop withdrawal was unfortunate in the impression it conveyed, but it was said for domestic political consumption, and we all know it. Testimony in front of Congress today by Clinton, Gates and Mullen confirmed that our commitment will indeed be more open-ended and dependent on conditions "on the ground".

The upshot is that Obama did what many of his detractors wanted him to do: he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal wanted. He's doing this against the wishes of the majority of his party, and against what many war-weary voters want. You can accuse him of hypocrisy and cynicism given his rhetoric in the past, but ultimately I can't help feeling that his decision is pragmatic and even a bit courageous, given the political capital he is risking.
This is true as far as it goes but there is one important thing that seems to be lacking here: leadership. Despite whatever Obama's underlings might be saying to Congress I just don't get the feeling from him that he is in this thing to win. The only commitment I feel from him is to hedge his bets, have it both ways and set it up so that if things go south he doesn't get the blame. That is not leadership which is essential to the success of any military operation. Obama's lack of commitment sends the wrong message to our enemies, our allies and, most important, our troops. Time will tell. Maybe he will step up to the plate but right now I have a very bad feeling about this thing.
I'm with you on the lack of commitment, JB. Sometimes, when he's talking about the war, I'm reminded of a kid who has to swallow cod liver oil. He's going to do it, but he doesn't like it.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Dec 3 2009, 05:43 AM
Sometimes, when he's talking about the war, I'm reminded of a kid who has to swallow cod liver oil. He's going to do it, but he doesn't like it.
I don't particularly like the idea of any national leader liking wars in general.

For that particular war in question, there isn't anything about it that is likable anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
No one has to like war to be an effective leader for Christ sake. Do you think Churchill or FDR liked war?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JBryan
Dec 3 2009, 05:57 AM
Do you think Churchill or FDR liked war?
I've never been that sure about Churchill :lol:

(Mostly kidding, but if you look at his life story, he clearly enjoyed some aspects of it)
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
JBryan
Dec 3 2009, 05:57 AM
No one has to like war to be an effective leader for Christ sake.
Have I said otherwise?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Most of the great war leaders didn't look as though they were taking Cod liver oil. I can't really imagine Henry V grimacing over all the poor dead Frenchmen, or Napoleon looking pained at the thought of his beautiful white horse getting muddy. They might not actually like it, but they generally at least have to look like they mean it.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

Don't know if he liked war or not, but he did seem to have a pretty good grasp of its implications.
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
John Galt
Dec 3 2009, 06:28 AM
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

Don't know if he liked war or not, but he did seem to have a pretty good grasp of its implications.
By the standards of those days, what we have now isn't really a war at all, but a localised conflict. The possibility of WMD's is what makes it more serious than the kind of native bashing the British used to indulge in in order to keep their eye in, so that they'd be ready when the main event started.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Red Rice
Dec 2 2009, 10:20 PM
True, his statement about troop withdrawal was unfortunate in the impression it conveyed, but it was said for domestic political consumption, and we all know it. Testimony in front of Congress today by Clinton, Gates and Mullen confirmed that our commitment will indeed be more open-ended and dependent on conditions "on the ground".

I'm not sure I agree with that. Frankly, I tend to think that said what he means with regards to the pullout date, and it's Clinton and Gates running around making their statements to cover for it politically.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Dec 3 2009, 06:38 AM
John Galt
Dec 3 2009, 06:28 AM
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

Don't know if he liked war or not, but he did seem to have a pretty good grasp of its implications.
By the standards of those days, what we have now isn't really a war at all, but a localised conflict. The possibility of WMD's is what makes it more serious than the kind of native bashing the British used to indulge in in order to keep their eye in, so that they'd be ready when the main event started.
Churchill's chief first hand experience of war was the Boer War -- which seems to be a "localised conflict".
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Dec 3 2009, 05:08 PM
John D'Oh
Dec 3 2009, 06:38 AM
John Galt
Dec 3 2009, 06:28 AM
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

Don't know if he liked war or not, but he did seem to have a pretty good grasp of its implications.
By the standards of those days, what we have now isn't really a war at all, but a localised conflict. The possibility of WMD's is what makes it more serious than the kind of native bashing the British used to indulge in in order to keep their eye in, so that they'd be ready when the main event started.
Churchill's chief first hand experience of war was the Boer War -- which seems to be a "localised conflict".
He also spent six months fighting as a battalion commander in WW1, after being First Lord of the Admiralty.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply