Print
E-mail
Unmotivating Speech On War: No Guts, No Glory
By COLIN A. HANNA, For The Bulletin
The expression on the cadets faces at West Point told much of the story of President Obama’s speech last night. A military motivator he is not, and it was clear from his military audience’s reaction. Even political pundit Chris Matthews noticed their tepid response to Mr. Obama’s second Afghanistan war strategy in 10 months. After watching the speech, I wondered how he could seriously call himself Commander in Chief when it was painfully obvious that his lack of military experience serves to his detriment. He has no idea what it takes to motivate a military force.
A Commander in Chief knows that motivation is an essential component of leadership. He speaks positively and confidently of America’s military might. Instead, we heard a president who outlined a cautious and modest strategy that speaks to “success,” not victory. He spoke more about the security of our allies and the world than about protecting the United States and her people from the very serious threat of radical Islam. And once again, we heard President Obama call Islam “one of the world’s great religions.” He’s even abandoned the American pronunciation of words like “Taliban” and “Pakistan” for the more provincial, accented pronunciation, trying to prove to the world that he’s more than ready to abandon things American for a newer world order.
What we saw last night was a president who tries to act like he’s pro-military, while his words ring hollow—this was reflected in the expressions and reactions of the cadets at West Point and the soldiers watching the president on live TV around the world. One U.S. Army soldier, when asked what he thought of Mr. Obama’s strategy replied, “I don’t really like it. 18 months. If the enemy knows when we are leaving, why won’t they just wait?”
Our military is the finest fighting force in the world and they are trained with one thing in mind: victory. There is no other option for them, yet President Obama, in typical liberal fashion, makes statements like, “We can’t count on military might alone,” and “America will have to show our strength in how we end wars.” This is in direct contrast to what our own military members believe and are taught in their training. We know how to end wars, if our military is left to do just that. But liberals who cautiously fund military operations and expect exact dates for withdrawal of troops obviously have no real understanding of the realities of war, especially in the rugged and tricky terrain of mountainous Afghanistan.
With more mitigating language the president said that we must “exercise restraint” in the use of military force, but restraint seldom wins battles. Restraining our troops only limits their chances of victory.
The three Navy SEALS facing assault charges for capturing the mastermind of the slaughter and burning of four Blackwater security guards in Fallujah in 2004 will testify to that. If we can’t use force in capturing and bringing to justice our enemies, then how can we defeat them?
What we also saw last night was a President who sounded regretful and apologetic for the loss of U.S. military lives, not proud of our courageous heroes who fight for freedom and a better way of life for both Americans and Middle Easterners. President Obama, instead of motivating our troops and urging them on to victory, spoke more like he was at a state funeral mourning a loss. That’s no way to sell a strategy or motivate troops.
What’s more is that Mr. Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan is not vastly different than Bush’s strategy in Iraq: build up Iraqi forces to the point that they can stand alone, without our aid. Mr. Obama outlined precisely the same strategy for Afghanistan, with a much shorter—and unrealistic--timetable of 18 months; hardly long enough to corral the Taliban, beef up Afghani forces and wipe out government corruption (something we can’t seem to do in our own Congress). Iraq, however, was a much different theater, lacking the mountainous terrain that makes tracking our enemy difficult to say the least. While the president’s statement that nation building in Afghanistan is an unrealistic goal given the cost, isn’t our national defense priceless? He himself said that “the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
The cost of Mr. Obama’s new strategy in Afghanistan will be roughly $30 billion dollars over the next year, about $33 billion less than the GM bailout and about $750 billion less than the stimulus package. Why are Democrats are so stingy with funds when it comes to increasing America’s national defense, yet spend recklessly to increase the size of government programs? And if they want to pay for it so as not to add to the deficit, how about this as the way to pay for it: Reduce the unexpended portion of the so-called stimulus package by $30 billion, or $45 billion to cover the full eighteen months of the truncated deployment that the President proposed.
The president was right about one thing: we did not ask for this fight. Al Qaeda brought this to our doorstep on September 11, 2001. Given the strength and might of our military, we can end it decisively with strong troop commitment and a Commander in Chief committed to victory, not just success. We may not be able to end it with half measures and a date certain for withdrawal.
Colin A. Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring, a nonprofit, grassroots organization supporting a conservative agenda.
A Commander in Chief knows that motivation is an essential component of leadership. He speaks positively and confidently of America’s military might. Instead, we heard a president who outlined a cautious and modest strategy that speaks to “success,” not victory. He spoke more about the security of our allies and the world than about protecting the United States and her people from the very serious threat of radical Islam. And once again, we heard President Obama call Islam “one of the world’s great religions.” He’s even abandoned the American pronunciation of words like “Taliban” and “Pakistan” for the more provincial, accented pronunciation, trying to prove to the world that he’s more than ready to abandon things American for a newer world order.
What we saw last night was a president who tries to act like he’s pro-military, while his words ring hollow—this was reflected in the expressions and reactions of the cadets at West Point and the soldiers watching the president on live TV around the world. One U.S. Army soldier, when asked what he thought of Mr. Obama’s strategy replied, “I don’t really like it. 18 months. If the enemy knows when we are leaving, why won’t they just wait?”
Our military is the finest fighting force in the world and they are trained with one thing in mind: victory. There is no other option for them, yet President Obama, in typical liberal fashion, makes statements like, “We can’t count on military might alone,” and “America will have to show our strength in how we end wars.” This is in direct contrast to what our own military members believe and are taught in their training. We know how to end wars, if our military is left to do just that. But liberals who cautiously fund military operations and expect exact dates for withdrawal of troops obviously have no real understanding of the realities of war, especially in the rugged and tricky terrain of mountainous Afghanistan.
With more mitigating language the president said that we must “exercise restraint” in the use of military force, but restraint seldom wins battles. Restraining our troops only limits their chances of victory.
The three Navy SEALS facing assault charges for capturing the mastermind of the slaughter and burning of four Blackwater security guards in Fallujah in 2004 will testify to that. If we can’t use force in capturing and bringing to justice our enemies, then how can we defeat them?
What we also saw last night was a President who sounded regretful and apologetic for the loss of U.S. military lives, not proud of our courageous heroes who fight for freedom and a better way of life for both Americans and Middle Easterners. President Obama, instead of motivating our troops and urging them on to victory, spoke more like he was at a state funeral mourning a loss. That’s no way to sell a strategy or motivate troops.
What’s more is that Mr. Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan is not vastly different than Bush’s strategy in Iraq: build up Iraqi forces to the point that they can stand alone, without our aid. Mr. Obama outlined precisely the same strategy for Afghanistan, with a much shorter—and unrealistic--timetable of 18 months; hardly long enough to corral the Taliban, beef up Afghani forces and wipe out government corruption (something we can’t seem to do in our own Congress). Iraq, however, was a much different theater, lacking the mountainous terrain that makes tracking our enemy difficult to say the least. While the president’s statement that nation building in Afghanistan is an unrealistic goal given the cost, isn’t our national defense priceless? He himself said that “the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
The cost of Mr. Obama’s new strategy in Afghanistan will be roughly $30 billion dollars over the next year, about $33 billion less than the GM bailout and about $750 billion less than the stimulus package. Why are Democrats are so stingy with funds when it comes to increasing America’s national defense, yet spend recklessly to increase the size of government programs? And if they want to pay for it so as not to add to the deficit, how about this as the way to pay for it: Reduce the unexpended portion of the so-called stimulus package by $30 billion, or $45 billion to cover the full eighteen months of the truncated deployment that the President proposed.
The president was right about one thing: we did not ask for this fight. Al Qaeda brought this to our doorstep on September 11, 2001. Given the strength and might of our military, we can end it decisively with strong troop commitment and a Commander in Chief committed to victory, not just success. We may not be able to end it with half measures and a date certain for withdrawal.
Colin A. Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring, a nonprofit, grassroots organization supporting a conservative agenda.
 |
||
| Obama’s Afghanistan Approach ‘Half-Hearted’ |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
LongTimeObserver wrote on Dec 7, 2009 6:50 AM:
" More to the point:
MSNBC's Chris Matthews made the questionable remark on the air Tuesday during an analysis of Obama's speech. His point, he said, was that he saw skepticism, not enthusiasm in the faces of cadets and officers at the academy.
" I didn't see a lot of warmth in the crowd out there," Matthews said. "He went to, maybe, the enemy camp ... to make his case."
The next day on his show, "Hardball with Chris Matthews," he said he'd received negative feedback from former cadets and parents of cadets, who explained to him that the audience of military officers and officers-in-training are trained not to show emotion and that he shouldn't have assumed that those in the audience during the president's speech were more hawkish on the war than the president.
"Let me just say to the cadets and their parents, former cadets and everyone who cares about this country and those who defend it, I used the wrong words," Matthews said on air. "Worse than that, I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize."
Perhaps Mr. Hanna would like to retract his slurs. "
MSNBC's Chris Matthews made the questionable remark on the air Tuesday during an analysis of Obama's speech. His point, he said, was that he saw skepticism, not enthusiasm in the faces of cadets and officers at the academy.
" I didn't see a lot of warmth in the crowd out there," Matthews said. "He went to, maybe, the enemy camp ... to make his case."
The next day on his show, "Hardball with Chris Matthews," he said he'd received negative feedback from former cadets and parents of cadets, who explained to him that the audience of military officers and officers-in-training are trained not to show emotion and that he shouldn't have assumed that those in the audience during the president's speech were more hawkish on the war than the president.
"Let me just say to the cadets and their parents, former cadets and everyone who cares about this country and those who defend it, I used the wrong words," Matthews said on air. "Worse than that, I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize."
Perhaps Mr. Hanna would like to retract his slurs. "
ACSial wrote on Dec 7, 2009 5:02 PM:
" While the Democrats have certainly been playing the dhimmi card, don't forget that the conservatives' hero Ronnie got the U.S. into this mess in the first place:
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/31/ronald-reagan-meeting-with-talibanal-qaedamujahideen/
Recently, a stunning revelation has come out of Soviet archives. It seems that the Mujeheddin were on the brink of collapse, when Gorby pulled Soviet troops out of Afghanistan--in a ploy to discredit his predicessors and curry favour with the West. All of this lead directly to the events of 9/11. Both Reagan and Gorbachev have the blood of 3,000 people on their hands. "
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/31/ronald-reagan-meeting-with-talibanal-qaedamujahideen/
Recently, a stunning revelation has come out of Soviet archives. It seems that the Mujeheddin were on the brink of collapse, when Gorby pulled Soviet troops out of Afghanistan--in a ploy to discredit his predicessors and curry favour with the West. All of this lead directly to the events of 9/11. Both Reagan and Gorbachev have the blood of 3,000 people on their hands. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
LongTimeObserver wrote on Dec 7, 2009 5:41 AM: