Hamlet as War President
Led by a conflicted president of a divided party and nation, America is deepening her involvement in a war in its ninth year with no end in sight.
Only one parallel to Barack Obama's troop decision comes to mind: the 2007 decision by George W. Bush to ignore the Baker Commission and put Gen. David Petraeus in command of a "surge" of 30,000 troops into Iraq.
That surge succeeded. Baghdad was largely pacified. The Sunni of Anbar, heart of the resistance, accepted Petraeus' offer of cash and a role in the new Iraq. Together, Americans and Sunni began to eradicate al-Qaida. In July, the surge ended and U.S. troops withdrew from the cities.
In August and October, however, the Finance, Justice and Foreign ministries were bombed. The Sons of Iraq now say the Shia government reneged on its pledge to pay their wages and bring them into the army.
Jockeying in parliament for the inside track to power in January's elections may force a postponement of the elections, and of the U.S. timetable for withdrawal. Kurds and Arabs are battling over Kirkuk. Iraqis seem to be going back to fighting one another.
What hope can there be then for a U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan, a larger, wilder, less accessible, more backward country, whose regime is less competent and more corrupt than that in Iraq?
Conservative columnist Tony Blankley, who supported the Iraq war and surge, has come out against more troops in Afghanistan. His reasoning: Obama will be sending many hundreds of young Americans to their deaths and thousands to be wounded in a war about which he himself has doubts.
While it may speak well of Obama as a man that he has reflected, agonized, debated within himself and conducted nine war counsels with scores of advisers before acceding to Gen. McChrystal's request, what does this say of him as commander in chief?
Whatever one may say against George W. Bush, he was decisive. As was James K. Polk when he sent Winfield Scott to take Mexico City. As was Abraham Lincoln when he congratulated Gen. Sherman on his barbarous March to the Sea. As was Harry Truman, who ordered the dropping of an atom bomb to jolt Tokyo into accepting unconditional surrender.
One may condemn the wars these president fought. One may deplore their tactics. But they and the most successful American generals—Stonewall Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton—were not Hamlets. They did not agonize over why they were fighting or whether it was worth it.
How does a president lead a nation into a war where he is not wholly and heartily committed to victory and from which, say his aides, he is even now planning the earliest possible exit?
When Dwight Eisenhower took office, he concluded that the price of uniting Korea under a pro-U.S. government meant years more of war and scores of thousands more U.S. dead. He decided on an armistice. In six months, the war was over.
Ike was as decisive as Obama is diffident.
From tapes of his conversations with Sen. Richard Russell, LBJ agonized over Vietnam as early as 1964. He worried about the U.S. casualties and whether we could prevail in a country of little interest to him and of no vital strategic interest to the United States.
Out of fear that Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater would call him the first president to lose a war, Johnson plunged in. And rather than win swiftly and brutally as we had with a mighty Japanese Empire, LBJ fought Vietnam as the conflicted war president he was, babbling on about building "a Great Society on the Mekong."
One senses Obama is escalating for the same reason: He is not so much exhilarated by the prospect of victory and what it will mean as he is fearful of what a Taliban triumph and U.S. defeat would mean for America—and him.
And he is right to be. A U.S. withdrawal leading to a Taliban triumph would electrify jihadists from Marrakech to Mindanao and mark a milestone in the long retreat of American power. Pakistan, having cast its lot with us, would be in mortal peril. NATO, humiliated in its first war, would become more of a hollow shell than it already is.
To prevent this, Obama plans to send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to hold off a resurgent Taliban, even as he plans for their eventual withdrawal.
The United States is today led by a commander in chief who does not believe military victory is possible, who is not sure this war should be fought and who has a timetable in his own mind as to when to draw down our troops. And we face a Taliban that, after eight years of pounding, is stronger than ever, and believes God is on its side and its victory is assured.
Who do we think is ultimately going to prevail?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
Add to that America is broke, and the Obama escalation will make us even more broke.
There's no more money for empire.
Pat on the authentic Soldier and Leader:
"They did not agonize over why they were fighting or whether it was worth it." True
Pat on the current situation: "The United States is today led by a commander in chief who does not believe military victory is possible, who is not sure this war should be fought and who has a timetable in his own mind as to when to draw down our troops. And we face a Taliban that, after eight years of pounding, is stronger than ever, and believes God is on its side and its victory is assured." Excellent
Pat on George W. Bush:
"Whatever one may say against George W. Bush, he was decisive." Priceless.
What does Mr Buchanan think the President should do? Why cannot Mr Buchanan make his mind up?
I agree with you Mr. Harrington. Now I generally consider Buchanan’s works to be absolute treasures, but it is becoming tiresome to read his pieces on the so called war on terrorism. He seemingly takes both sides of the issue nearly every time, despite claiming to be a principled non-interventionist. Does Pat really want the war to be over with or doesn't he?
Gentlemen,
Pat has never met a Democrat he could support, he is an embarrassment for stalwart republicans, and the world he grew up in is just about gone. He is like an old war horse that still gets lathered up at the sound of the bugle, although he suffers from laminitis in all four hooves.
Asking Pat to say that Obama did the right thing by pulling out of Afghanistan, is like telling Clyde Wilson he must spend the remaining years of his life in New York. You might as well take the poor blokes out and shoot them. Sometimes our neighbors asks too much from us and sometimes we ask too much from them, show some charity to a brave soul and give Ole Pat a pass on this one.
Pat Buchanan is half macho nationalist, perhaps due to temperament or perhaps harking back to his Cold War experience, and half anti-interventionist. Truly a pushme-pullyu, as in Dr. Doolittle.
He's right to this extent, however--a war fought by half-measures with evident uncertainty as to its importance and our goal, is unlikely to succeed. Is Obama asking our best young people to risk life and limb so the neocons can't call him a wimp?
If we left the place to the Pushtuns, they'd be at one another's throats soon enough.
Decisiveness is a virtue only if the decision is the right one to begin with. If not, it just means that the wrong course will be pursued more zealously with less likelihood of change and more of wasting additional lives and wealth. The legacy of Bush’s decisiveness is two unfinished wars, an increasingly vigorous worldwide Islamic insurgency, and the worst economic conditions domestically of the post-WWII era. Obama’s main defect is not that he is indecisive, but that he is following the wrong course laid out by Bush, in effect doubling down on Bush’s bad bet.
Arm the anti-Taliban Pashtun tribes and git!
Kirt,
Surely Pat was grinning when he wrote about the Decider In Chief: "Whatever one may say against George W. Bush, he was decisive.” It is what the encouraging teachers says to the student who missed every question on a multiple choice exam --"Well, at least you decided to answer them all!"
If Tony Blankley has come out against a "surge" in Afghanistan, then that is something. Blankley's last book, which no one bought or read, was absolutely over the top neo-con interventionism. Pat Boone has now come out for bringing all the troops home from Afghanistan. I have been saying all along that movement conservatives will start to peel off and come our way. Slowly but surely. They have to. Their project is so unreasonable and the logic of ours so compelling. They won't all become principled non-interventionists over night, but they will begin to back away from their default bellicosity and gradually come our way.
I just heard Obama's speech. He was articulate, but otherwise it could have been delivered by Bush. So much for "Change you can believe in."
It's also worth noting that he's a chickenhawk. If he had served in the military, maybe he wouldn't be so inclined to believe the nonsense dished out to him by the generals.
The elites who run this country (apparently including too many flag officers) consider the military mere cannon fodder for their imperial project. We got change; an indecisive interventionist war monger for a decisive one!
I'm not sure limiting the Presidency to ex-military would necessarily help. Not everyone emerges from service with the insight of a Smedley Butler. Although I do think in some cases that military service makes people less likely to be cavalier about sending in the troops to solve every problem. Colin Powell for example. But for every Colin Powell there is a Ralph Peters. (One thing that is consistent is that ex-military and military brass will concern themselves more than the politicians with “force protection” which always means more troops. Rumsfeld wanted a “small footprint.” The generals wanted 300,000 troops.)
When I was in the military my feeling was that the majority of my colleagues felt like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the GWOT were necessary and proper. The military breeds a certain “company man” mindset. I also think people have an emotional need to feel like they are contributing to something important. No one wants to feel like they are enduring hardship and facing danger for no good reason.
I would, however, wholeheartedly support a constitutional amendment limiting think tank foreign policy pontification to those who have previously served. Then military “experts” like Mr. and Mrs. Kagan would have to find productive employment.
The above was actually in response to "Fish or Cut Bait." Sorry.
Pat on George W. Bush:
“Whatever one may say against George W. Bush, he was decisive.” Priceless.
And that he was wrong 90% was only of trivial consequence. (/sarcasm off)
Buchanan is very similar to Italy's Gian Franco Fini. I believe however not as intelligent as Fini.
Take off your Masonic apron Pat-man.