I still haven’t had time to read it, but Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts:
Avoiding the V-word. Concluding the war seems to be the theme, as opposed to winning the war. “Breaking the momentum” of the Taliban, unfortunately, is not the same as crushing and humiliating the enemy. “Ending the war successfully” lacks the force of “defeating” the enemy and securing “victory.” Rather than talk for ten minutes in soaring platitudes, we need 20 seconds devoted to the notion that we will win, the Taliban will lose, and Afghanistan will be secured. His emphasis on civilian and political strategies is fine, but those strategies are first predicated on security. If you are surging, then, darn it, tell the American people that we will secure a military victory.
The Democrats remind me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa is Joan of Arc:
“God told you to lead us to what?!”
“Victory!”
“Victory? We’re French, we don’t even have a word for victory.”
We have one, but they seem allergic to it. All the Democrats know how to do with wars is “end” them.
[Update a few minutes later]
There is one good thing about the president’s new Afghanistan policy — Joe Biden is opposed to it, so it has that going for it. Also, I’m not a huge Rick Santorum fan, but he has a good question:
Can anyone give an historical example of a war that was won after one of the warring parties announced when it was going to stop fighting?
If so, it was won by the other side.
[Update a few minutes later]
Five questions about Afghanistan.
[Mid-morning update]
If there was any doubt in Tehran that no serious effort would be made to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, that doubt was markedly diminished, if not extinguished, last night. And the gleam of adventurism in Mr. Putin’s eyes shines brighter today as well.
The dog whistle in last night’s speech alerted a few wolves as well.
It may have been too much of a straddle.
[Update a few minutes later]
Counterinsurgency incoherence.
Last night I offered my wife a prediction of how the speech would go. We both found my vocal impression of Barack Obama frighteningly accurate.
Can anyone give an historical example of a war that was won after one of the warring parties announced when it was going to stop fighting?
Sure. World War 2.
The allies announced they’d stop fighting after the total defeat and/or surrender without conditions of their enemies.
And then did so, crushingly.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, wrong kind of “when”…)
Youtube link or it didn’t happen.
I’m sure Obama would have answered all those questions for us. Buuuut he promised the NFL 60 kids he would play football with them out in the front yard and well, a promise is a promise.
He’s a technocrat. “Why” doesn’t matter — only “how.”
Unfortunately she didn’t have her camera handy. But it went like this:
“I know where Afghanistan is? I know how to spell it? But not how to pronounce it? … Could — could someone please fix my teleprompter?”
His pledge to increase the troop levels but only for a defined period just proves once again that all Obama promises have an expiration date.
He means to be out of there before Axelrod starts his re-election campaign. Nothing is more important than that — not with Sarahcuda circling in the waters below…
A local radio station tonight played excerpts from three speeches: Lyndon Johnson’s announcement of escalation in Vietnam, George W. Bush’s announcement of the “surge” in Iraq, and last night’s speech by Obama. The content of all three was exactly the same. Moreover, Obama’s speech was an almost verbatim replica of Bush’s.
Some things never change, no matter how much one hopes…
Nile Gardiner:
I think those whose homes are destroyed; or those who are raped, starved, assaulted, or driven out; or those whose family members die also see “firsthand.”None of those groups includes Zero, of course.