Dear President Obama,
Back in 1990 when Saddam Hussein tried to expand his sphere of influence into Kuwait, I supported President George H. W. Bush's decision to expel from Kuwait, and subsequently contain, Hussein's forces within the no-fly zones. I supported President Bill Clinton in 1998 when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act, and then bombed Hussein back into submission after Saddam got a little testy (and no, it wasn't 'wag the dog'). After September 11th, 2001, I was in full support of President George W. Bush sending our troops into Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power. I never believed Saddam Hussein was connected to the events on 9/11, and the WMD argument never really moved me. Yet, after witnessing a similar lawlessness in the Middle East reach across the oceans to send towers tumbling in New York, and after nearly 13 years of Hussein toying with U.N. inspections and the no-fly zone, as well as three American presidents, in 2003 I fully supported the war in Iraq. And to this day I still do.
So with that understanding of my perspective, realize that it isn't easy for me to say this, but Mr. President, send the troops home now. Send the troops in Afghanistan home. Send the troops in Iraq home. Please, send them home now; don't let another American soldier die if you can help it.
It's not that I don't think we could win. Our military, our soldiers, are the finest in the world. Their skill, experience and tactical ability are more than apt to complete the job. Moreover, when you entered office, success in these two wars was within our grasp. With all of the talk about the bad things you "inherited" when you were elected, you also inherited a war in Iraq that was ours to lose and a relatively straight forward, though perhaps more difficult endeavor in Afghanistan. This was low hanging fruit, a parting gift from George, and someone with your intellect and charisma could have completed the job. You would have been able to take the credit for bringing peace back to our country and theirs, and given the Democratic Party as a whole, some real national security bonafides to hang their hat on.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
If the matter of Afghanistan was as simple as most conservatives believe it to be, it would never have been a problem.
But President Obama knows it isn't so simple. Even in 2007 he was warning the Bush administration to stop ignoring Afghanistan, that there was a gathering danger to our troops there. He was keeping up with what was going on in Pakistan then, and he's doing so now.
But he doesn't dare leave Afghanistan as it is, and he knows it. Why? Pakistan. Because if nuclear-armed Pakistan falls to Islamic extremists, then we've got a problem. So for now, Afghanistan is a Gordian knot - it's not good to stay, but it's downright dangerous to leave. Here's some more of what President Obama has to consider - and any retired military man worth his salt will tell you that having sufficient troops is crucial, it doesn't matter how many troops you send in if you don't take care of the political, diplomatic, religious, cultural, and logistical challenges. Just ask the Soviets - they sent in a lot more than we did, remember?
I do wish that the conservatives would try something completely new and give constructive solutions on how to address problems instead of simply throwing criticisms and accusations....
2 - Ruvy
You know, Glenn, that an intelligent veteran like you should emerge as an apologist for a Harvard-bred idiot who doesn't know shit about military strategy or geo-politics is painful to see.
If you are going to prosecute a war, you do not sit on your stupid ass - you act. Even if your actions are about giving the impressions of actively doing something while really doing nothing. You put on really good show for the soldiers who are stranded 10,000 miles away fighting the meanest bastards on earth, the Pashtun. It should not fall to the "milspice" to have to keep the soldiers' morale up. Your president obviously does not understand this basic point. His education at Harvard was a waste of money. His education in thievery and skullduggery in Chicago was equally a waste of money. It takes more than some slick Chicago thief with connections to deal with the Pashtun - who are, I might add, Children of Israel!
Obama's foreign policy has been all about kissing ass - as if kissing ass ever gets you anything except shit on your lips. His military policy has followed the suit of his foreign policy - kissing ass. The Persians have already kicked sand in the fool's eyes, so has Putin, and it is only a matter of time before even the Saudis and Japs do the same.
Now, truth be told, that doesn't bother me that much. The American government, and its Arab shit-eating State Department, deserve sand kicked in their eyes. From my point of view, you deserve the humiliation you are getting, you deserve the snickers the folks overseas make when talking about America. If my own leaders haven't got the balls to laugh you all in the face and tell you all to go to hell, a bunch of other foreigners do, and it's about time.
But it should bother you. You and your country are getting dissed daily - not because you are cowards - far be it from me to ever suggest that the American fighting man is a coward - but because your commander-in-chief has a yellow streak a foot wide going down his back and his belly. It ain't the black skin the foreigners see when they see Obama - not any more. It's the yellow belly. Even Netanyahu is not as much of a coward as Obama, and Netanyahu is known for his cowardice.
If it weren't for the fact that every possible replacement for Obama would be worse (for you), I would suggest that Obama surrender himself to the Federal marshal in Illinois and confess to all the shit that he and Emanuel Rahm pulled off together there with Hot Rod Blagojevich.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy -
You've been around longer than I have, and I have no knowledge of your level of military experience or of military history.
But I do know this - war is a bad, terrible thing...and those who glory in it, lust for it, thirst for it either have little or no experience in it, or are evil or fools or both.
Look how much blood and treasure we've spilt in Iraq - thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and millions of displaced Iraqis...all for an illegal war fought on false pretenses.
All those innocent lives ended or ruined...because OUR conservative politicians were SO eager to invade that they did so on FALSE pretenses. This wasn't the first time a nation invaded another on false pretenses - I'd say who did it, but I'd get accused of "violating Godwin's Law" again.
Ruvy, for every American general or admiral you can find who looked forward to the Iraqi war, I can point out at least a dozen who thought it was wrong. Some of the most vocal anti-war congressmen are former military officers who served in Iraq.
AND THEN look at the military experience of those who were most eager to invade Iraq: Bush was in a 'boutique' squadron from which he was often AWOL and never left the country; Cheney never served; Tancredo never served; Rush Limbaugh never served; and as far as I know, none of them have any family members who did.
Except for Bush, whose dad DID serve and honorably so...and who didn't want to invade Iraq (even though he HAD cause to do so) because he didn't have an exit strategy.
There's a term for those who served little or none at all, yet are SO eager to send the nation to war...but I won't mention that, either, because Dave is offended at that particular epithet.
A Civil War general once said the only thing half so bad as a battle lost, is a battle won.
That's why, if I were responsible for 300M men, women, and children, if 'kissing ass' and literally getting feces on my lips was what needed to be done to make my people safer, more secure, and better off...well, then, I'll pucker up with a smile!
Why? Because it's only feces, and it's not innocent blood.
War is a LAST resort, Ruvy - and 'LAST resort' means it comes after you've tried everything else...including 'kissing ass'.
4 - Dave Nalle
But President Obama knows it isn't so simple.
So why doesn't he demonstate that knowledge, plus some awareness of the history of the region and past invasions there and get the hell out?
Dave
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
If you'd read the paragraph AFTER the quote you pasted from reply #1, you'd see the explanation of why we can't just 'up and leave'.
6 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
War IS evil, war IS a last resort. I agree with you on that. But it's besides the point. So are your comments about Bush.
We are in the middle of two wars right now. So questioning whether to go to war is moot. The question is how to end these wars in a way that is favorable for us and the people of these two nations. Obama isn't committed to that question, but rather what's good for the Democratic ideals.
7 - Baronius
Obnox, I agree with a lot of your article. Do you really think that the phrases "man caused disasters" and "overseas contingency operations" reflect bad thinking? To me, the bad thinking reflects bad thinking, but the change in terminology is trivial. I've read Orwell. I know the power of misusing language. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't think the change in wording was an attempt to undermine the mission.
8 - Ruvy
Glenn,
I never said your country should go to war against Iraq in 2003; Saddam Hussein moved his WMD's to Syria in January 2003 where they remain now. I have been saying for some time now that you have been utter fools to waste your money in the Tigris and the Euphrates. Don't mistake me for some damned neo-con or chicken hawk. If I talk about fighting an enemy, I'm ready and willing to do so, unfit as I am.
What I did say was that your country should eliminate the pustule causing the hell you are going through, the regime in Riyadh. But kicking Wahhabi butt is not on American radar. Kissing it is. And the stinking SOB's kill you in response. They send their stinkin' bastards to blow up buildings, they have fanatics killing soldiers on your bases - and you obviously don't five a damn - you got your pension. Why should you care? So, if you want your "president" to pucker up and lick the shit out the Arabs' assholes with a smile, fine.
BUT LET HIM SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT ISRAEL AND KEEP HIS DAMNED NOSE OF MY COUNTRY'S AFFAIRS BEFORE ONE OF US DECIDES THAT A NUKE ON WASHINGTON WOULD NOT BE A BAD IDEA.
I don't want to hear any crap about how WE should pucker up and kiss Arab assholes from you either. Every damned day they let us know exactly how much they want peace. They try to kill our soldiers, our women and our children. And frankly, if the bastards want death and they come here to deal it out, that is exactly what they will get - DEATH.
NOT BECAUSE I GLORY IN WAR BUT BECAUSE I'LL BE DAMNED IF ANY ARAB SAVAGE - OR HIS AMERICAN OR EUROPEAN ENABLERS AND SYMPATHISERS - WILL DRIVE ME FROM MY HOME.
9 - The Obnoxious American
Baronius,
Perhaps you are right, but if so then what was the purpose of the name change? I can't think of any at all. The term "terrorism" shouldn't offend anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who isn't a terrorist.
For me, so much of this presidency seems to be about the orwellian use of language (see "Health CHOICES Commisioner," "American Reinvestment and Recovery Act," use of strawmen, repeating distortions so often that people think they are true, etc). Pretty much whatever the Obama admin names or says something, you can be sure it's actually doing or meaning the exact opposite. People are starting to come around though, as the ole Lincoln quote says, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
10 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy,
never have I agreed with you more.
Glenn,
Please let's save the Chicken Hawk talk. I didn't serve along with about 99% of my countrymen. My choice (and actually one that I regret now, though I am very happy with how my life turned out). I still have just as much right to my opinion as any other American. How we prosecute our wars should be based on what's good for the country and you don't have to serve to know that Obama hasn't been doing his job.
11 - handyguy
Obama has not [yet] rejected Gen. McChrystal's advice. From all reports, he has asked for plausible exit strategies to be added to each of the possible choices. Commentators like George Will and Bob Woodward [neither of them flaming liberals] have strongly praised the President's insistence on careful deliberations before deciding on a policy.
I had hopes that OA might at last have written an interesting article. But after a provocative Page 1, the other 4 [interminable] pages offer more [much more] of the same "I hate everything Barack Obama says and stands for" rhetoric that passes for conservative thinking on this site. No nuance, and only empty lip service to reasonableness -- including additional absurd claims of being "moderate."
This is a subject rich in possibilities for discussion and give-and-take, but the article is just propaganda, which tends to kill discussion, not promote it.
12 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy
I'm not going to rehash what's in the article but I already talk about this whole McChrystal stuff. Go ahead and give it a read. I know you agreed with the first page (where I say send the troops home - a generally liberal view). And of course, when I explain the reasoning - that Obama isn't committed to winning - that's where yo find it to be "interminable." You're about as predictable as Obama's use of the word "uh" is.
13 - handyguy
What it really comes down to is that there are no good choices. A conservative president would [in fact, did] face that same fact. Whether we escalate or slog on or withdraw, the potential for disaster is pretty high.
14 - The Obnoxious American
Exactly the same handwringing by those opposed to Bush when he was pushing for the surge. I do agree that war is hell and there are no good choices but Obama's lack of a choice IS in effect making a choice to lose. And at that point let's get our American brothers and sisters back home stat.
Tony Blankley published a similar article to mine today, and his closing words:
"[T]this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan. So they shouldn't try. The price will be high for whatever foreign policy failures we will endure in the next three years. Let's not add to that price the pointless murder of our finest young troops in a war their leader does not believe in.
Bring them home. We'll need them later."
Totally agree at this point.
15 - handyguy
We've already been there 8 years. Save some of your cheap 'no guts to do what it takes to win' rhetoric for the previous administration, which had 7 years to accomplish something and didn't.
Commentators as different from each other [not to mention different from Pres. Obama and myself] as George Will and Dave Nalle say, the war may well be unwinnable. This differs from your [and Blankley's] nastier, more partisan interpretation that Obama is a coward, with the implication that John McCain could win this war, by gum, but a damn soft-on-terrorism liberal never could.
"Doing what it takes" -- hmm, a nice, vague set of words that sounds all patriotic and macho. But what would it take? Do you actually think you know?
16 - Baronius
I suspect that the best thing we can do is to slog on. Afghanistan is in the first few decades of a civil war that's going to last, what, at least a hundred years. We're not going to end that war, but we're committed to making sure that the worst faction doesn't regain power. That said, President Obama is conveying weakness with his continued reconsiderations.
17 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy,
What does the past 8 years have to do with it? We're at war now and since Obama's took office, we're not really fighting it. And this was a campaign platform that he ran on.
It's not a nasty interpretation on my part - it's a documented FACT that Obama, after hiring McChrystal for the job and after coming out months ago with a plan is now heavily dithering on what he actually wants to do. Morale is down, enemies emboldened. What's next? He caves and sends more troops to mollify the center? That's not something any American regardless of party should agree with. He isn't committed to winning and anyone except the most indoctrinated Obamabot can see that, including our military, the Taliban and Al Qaeda for starters.
Love how you try to make this about me though. I don't have to have an answer for how to win a war in order to see that Obama is losing this war.
18 - handyguy
Your assessment that Obama is 'not committed to winning' is based only on your own politics, not on facts. What about last March's troop increase?
McChrystal's recommendations were only officially presented less than two months ago. Troop increases are not going to happen this calendar year, regardless.
So your assessment is not based on Obama's policies, but on your perception of him as "soft." You can't prove that, so you take cheap shots. Over and over.
19 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy,
It's interesting that you'd characterize my retelling of Obama's own actions as "cheap shots."
I perceive Obama as soft for the same reason as Baronius and most other Americans do - because he has consistently projected weakness and although he is the commander in chief, has failed to take command of the wars that are now under his watch. You can attack me all you like but it won't change the truth about Obama and his lack of handling of the war.
Baronius,
Perhaps you're right, but even in that case, I think you can agree we shouldn't send anymore troops there, and possibly reduce the footprint considerably?
20 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
Please let's save the Chicken Hawk talk. I didn't serve along with about 99% of my countrymen. My choice (and actually one that I regret now, though I am very happy with how my life turned out). I still have just as much right to my opinion as any other American. How we prosecute our wars should be based on what's good for the country and you don't have to serve to know that Obama hasn't been doing his job.
I don't castigate anyone for not serving - after all, the American people are not there to serve the military, but the military is there to serve the American people.
But I DO castigate those who have never served, who are overly eager to send our troops into combat. The Bush administration was chock-full of people who were by definition chickenhawks.
The chickenhawks of the Rabid Right (and for Dave, I'm referring to politicians and pundits and not anyone on BC) are howling that President Obama is dithering and unable to decide on how best to prosecute the war, and is therefore weak and unworthy of being Commander-in-Chief.
But what these chickenhawks do NOT realize is that the president has FAR more to consider than just the military aspects of the war - remember the military maxim: "Amateurs talk firepower, but professionals talk logistics"...
...and to this retired military man and amateur historian, it's refreshing to see a president who's actually taking his time to think about how best to solve a problem in months what the previous administration couldn't solve after several years.
21 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, Obama IS dithering and it matters not at all. We should never have gone into Afghanistan and he will not find a solution to Afghanistan because there isn't one. Anything he does is a mistake and he can't change that.
Dave
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
History would agree with you if our goal was to stay there and keep it as the puppet state as the last administration apparently meant.
But I don't think that's Obama's goal. I think his goal is supporting Pakistan. Why? Because if we pull out all of a sudden, then al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their allies no longer have to run and hide from the Pakistani Army as they are doing right now.
Sure, they can hide in the mess we've made of Afghanistan...but they can't rest too easily because they're being hunted there, too.
I suspect that once nuclear-armed Pakistan is stable enough in Obama's eyes, that we'll begin to pull out of Afghanistan and not a moment earlier.
23 - handyguy
Did Dave actually oppose the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan? I'm just asking, because it would surprise me if so.
I was on the fence then, and I'm on it now. Call this 'dithering,' or just ambivalence and the awareness that there's no happy ending in the cards. And there wouldn't be if John McCain or Fred Thompson or Ron Paul were president either.
24 - Mark
Couldn't agree with you more, Dave. We lost that war (and more) as soon as Congress passed the AUMF to overthrow the Taliban.
25 - Mark
Handyguy, Dave's analysis a few years back was that the only possibly valid reason to invade Afghanistan was to engage the Iranians.