• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • It Depends On What Your Definition of "Enduring" Is

    When President George Bush made the case for the surge in Iraq in January 2007, he made it clear to the Iraqi people and our allies abroad that he would not bow to domestic political pressures by setting a date for troop withdrawal. President Barack Obama has chosen a different path, explicitly naming a July 2011 retreat date in the sentence immediately following his troop increase announcement.

    So how does Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spin this pre-retreat to our allies:

    It should be clear to everyone that — unlike the past — the United States and our allies and partners have an enduring commitment to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the region.

    Only people who equivocate on what the definition of “is” is could have the audacity to call an 18 month commitment “enduring”.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to It Depends On What Your Definition of "Enduring" Is

    1. A. Muser, Sacramento says:

      Last night at West Point, President Obama had a golden opportunity to demonstrate that the world’s only superpower is lead by a tough, determined, world leader, able to make difficult decisions. Instead, President Obama chose to take a hedged, triangulated position between those in America that support the war in Afghanistan and those that oppose it. There was more nuance in the President’s address than there was determination and resolve, which is unfortunate for America and for international security around the globe.

      There really are no good options for America and the situation in Afghanistan. Looking backwards into the rearview mirror does us no good; we are where we are and fair or not, the President is forced to look ahead and play the hand he has been dealt. As evidenced by the delay and lengthy deliberation regarding additional troop commitments, President Obama is learning that it is more difficult to actually lead a nation than it is to merely campaign to lead a nation.

      Whether the best course of action is committing more troops or withdrawing could be debated by reasonable people, but it is less important than commitment and dedication to one or the other, with resolve. The President needed to get it right last night—either we’re all-in or we’re out—and he failed, choosing conditional commitment and putting his weakness and equivocation on full display for the world.

      Rather than attempting to placate his left flank by holding back 25% of the 40,000 troops requested by General McChrystal, the President could have demonstrated he was in it to win it, giving the general the 40,000 troops he requested. Why hold back 10,000 troops? If ever an ounce of prevention were better than a pound of cure, this would be it—give the general what he is requesting and “get ‘er done.” The left is not placated by his gesture to send 30,000 more troops and hold back 10,000, and history informs us well that underwhelming the enemy or relying on the pathetic troop commitments of our allies is a recipe for disaster and defeat.

      Clearly, the ultimate pusillanimous act last night was announcing a troop draw-down in 18 months. This was not leadership, but a cowardly act that undermined any attempt by the President to even feign commitment, again serving only one purpose, to unsuccessfully attempt to appease the left.

      The left and right are not happy with the President, nor is Middle America, which wants us out of Afghanistan, best achieved by either a total commitment to get out or bucking-up and committing overwhelming force. Giving General McChrystal less troops than he requested and announcing a draw-down in 18 months are jellyfish maneuvers, difficult to rationalize other than through a purely political prism. Middle America deserves leadership from President Obama and knows all too well that the only thing in the middle of the road is a dead possum on a dotted white line.

      http://americanmuser.wordpress.com

    2. Roger S., Ma. says:

      Sorry! Unable to come up with an even slightly charitable comment to that statement.

      (The very idea of a set withdrawal date is, hmmmmmm, in this context just plain stupid. So stupid, that no amount of PC could ever make it look smart. That stupidity is bound to develop greater endurance than any of us!)

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×