Latest Entry: @ MarkLevinShow - Bull without a horn; 45 without bullets; Paul Revere without a horse     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Googlegate on Climategate? | Main | $56.4 trillion »

December 2, 2009

Obama's message to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda: 'We'll be gone soon'

Topics: Political News and commentaries

As soon as I saw the title of Ken Taylor's post at The Minority Report on Obama's speech last night, I couldn't help but link to it. After all, how better to sum up Obama's speech when it's the only substantive thing said - everything else being like he himself, all fluff and no substance, purely political rhetoric to appease his liberal-progressive base with a spattering of "simulated toughness" and pseudo-interest in our national security to appease the right.

Obama To Taliban And Al Qaeda, "hang in there we'll be gone in July 2011"

[...] Barack Obama signaled to our enemies and the world what most of us have known and/or suspected since before he took office, he has no idea what he is doing and his, "strategy," for Afghanistan emphasis this fact. On the surface the addition of 30,000 troops sounds good until you read the fine print and what Obama said while announcing this, "surge."

First, the pathetic announcement that The United States would begin pulling out of Afghanistan in July of 2011 clearly signals to the enemy that all they need do is wait eighteen months until we leave and then step in and take over the country. Even an imbecile understands that telling an enemy when you plan to leave the field of battle only allows that enemy to hide and bide its time until deescalation.

Common sense demands that a military action never sets a specific end date, but then no one has ever accused Barack Obama of having any common sense. Once again Obama fails to take heed the lessons of Vietnam. At one point the Vietcong were on the verge of surrendering because we had them on the run. Then it was announced that The United States would begin drawing down our troops and the Vietcong pulled back and went into hiding until the draw down was complete. Within weeks after our signaled withdrawal was over the Vietcong overpowered South Vietnam and have controlled the country since.

Taylor's summary paragraph says it all. This is what we got from 3 months of dithering?
[...] It took more than three months to develop this strategy which is weak and very much designed to appease Obama's liberal base and a political maneuver rather than a strategy for victory, defeating our enemy, destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban and leave a stable and secure Afghanistan free of terrorist influence. It seems that Obama's goal is to leave without victory and offer the Afghans as a lamb of sacrifice for the country to once again becomes a terrorist safe haven after the enemy waits out Obama's signaled end date of surrender. A danger to the world, a danger to the Afghans and most importantly a danger to The United States.
John R. Guardiano has a similar take over at The American Spectator: What Obama Really Said Last Night
[...] Last night, President Obama delivered an historic speech to the nation and to the world on his plans for Afghanistan. Here, in sum, is what the president said:

I really don't want to be commander-in-chief, but I'll do it if I have to -- at least for a little while, and then we'll see. Just so long as it doesn't cost too much, or take too long, or interfere with my plans to nationalize healthcare and fundamentally change America.

We Americans didn't ask for this war; and God knows I didn't either. But I'll certainly make sure we end this war, and soon. I have bigger fish to fry, after all. This war is a distraction from my domestic left-wing agenda and my need to bring "change" to America.

Read it all.

Col. Ralph Peters calls Obama's strategy, "Just plain nuts," and says Obama's speech sends the wrong message:

[...] President Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but he'll "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Then why send them?

If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?

Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?

[...] What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

"Stupid, immoral, worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification." Yep, that about sums it all up perfectly.

And to think that America actually elected this Marxist and a Congress just like him. Is this the "change we had waited for"? Nope, as this poll illustrates.

Related:
LA Times: Experts fear ousted Afghan Taliban will simply cross the border (A pullout that leaves the Taliban intact probably would lead to an Afghan civil war on Pakistan's doorstep, and such a prospect keeps Pakistan from severing its long-standing ties with the Afghan Taliban, despite repeated protests from Washington)
Dan Riehl: Political Analysis: Obama's Revealing Afghanistan Strategy

Posted by Richard at December 2, 2009 6:03 AM



Articles Related to Political News and commentaries: