Salon: Uninspiring speech sells dubious policy, betrayed progressives have only themselves to blame

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Yes, it's Obama's war now
An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
Joan Walsh



http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/12/01/afghanistan_speech

I may be the only person in the United States who was trying to wait for President Obama's Afghanistan speech to make up my mind about his war plans. Of course, I mostly failed at that. Sure, all of Obama's options are bad, but still, few decisions seem as clear-cut as this one. Escalation is hard to see as an exit strategy. Obama has no clear path to "victory." We are likely to waste more lives than we save. I thought that was true before Obama's big speech, and I still think it now, afterwards.

At the moment he needed all of his persuasive powers, Obama gave the worst major speech of his presidency. I admit: I expected to be, even wanted to be, carried away a bit by Obama's trademark rhetorical magic. But I wasn't; not even a little. I found the speech rushed, sing-songy and perfunctory, delivered by rote. I despise the right-wing Teleprompter taunts, but even I wanted to say, Look at your audience, not the damn Teleprompter, Mr. President. Obama looked haggard, his eyes deeper set, and I believe this decision pained him. But I'm not sure even he believes it's the right decision. Neocon Danielle Pletka Tweeted happily mid-speech: "So far, could be Bush speaking" and later, approvingly: "count me gobsmacked." That makes two of us. Rep. Maxine Waters spoke for me on "Countdown" tonight when she opened her remarks by telling Keith Olbermann: "I'm very saddened."

On specifics: Obama lost me early by rehashing the history of our decision to invade Afghanistan, using mawkish and tired 9/11 imagery. We all know why we went in, and most Democrats supported it: To topple the Taliban government that harbored and supported al-Qaida as it plotted to kill almost 3,000 people in 2001. The question is why are we escalating now? I didn't hear a compelling reason. Obama sugarcoated the problems with the corrupt Karzai administration, and this year's disputed election, with a dismissive "although it was marred by fraud" it was "consistent with the constitution." Wow, that's inspiring. He told Karzai "the days of the blank check are over," but barely defined what that means. The most chilling story I read today was Juan Cole's, on the way Afghanistan's parliament is MIA, and the country's various governmental agencies, from ministries of public works to agriculture, have spent a fraction of the limited funds they have available. It made me hugely pessimistic that Obama's promise of a "civilian surge" had a prayer of making a difference. He needed to address the dysfunction within the Afghan government more specifically to convince me that he could find a way out.

The president also fudged by calling the Afghanistan/Pakistan border "the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda" – yet it seems to me it actually matters to our strategy which side of the admittedly blurry border is the bigger problem. Finally, maybe most disputably, Obama insisted "we are not facing a broad-based insurgency." It may not be country-wide, but we are certainly facing a broad-based Pashtun insurgency, one that only seems to grow the more troops we send. Obama invoked Iraq -- mistakenly, in my opinion, many times -- but to the extent that the "surge" there was a limited if likely temporary success, it was because it met up with the "Sunni awakening," a homegrown rebellion against al-Qaida and a weariness with war among formerly insurgent Sunnis. Obama needs a "Pashtun awakening," but so far the only one on the horizon features Pashtuns waking up to fight the U.S. Some liberals might be encouraged by his promise to begin withdrawing troops by the summer of 2011, but given the uncertainty of the strategy, who can trust that?

So what's an increasingly disappointed Democrat and Obama supporter to do?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Yup.

[paulsby]

2. apart from the underlying issues, but merely on the speech itself

i think this article is correct. it was a boring, poorly delivered, poorly written speech.

obama was tepid and uninspiring

and *i* support the afghanistan war, fwiw

[Bitwit1234]

3. 100% correct

they jumped up and down at all of Obama's rallies and slurred and flame Hillary. They now have what they voted for and they don't like it.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. So true.

[madrchsod]

4. the last president who stood up against the military was truman

every president since has given the military just about everything they wanted.

[glitch]

5. Wrong, unless you mean the only one who survived standing up to the MICC. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. What did the military want from President Obama?

I thought he was giving McChrystal less troops that what he asked for? Was a timetable asked for by anybody (other than us)? He rejected 3 or 4 plans before settling on his current plan. This all seems to me to be the antithesis of somebody giving the military "just about everything they want". And to be fair, I know people have mentioned this several times but it bears repeating: Obama specifically campaigned on re-focusing our military's attention Afghanistan while drawing down in Iraq, so why all of the surprise and shock that he's doing what he said he would do. It may not be what everybody wants but I find people's feelings of outrage and betrayal incredible.

[ShamelessHussy]

6. how typical of the narrative shapers to blame the folks who have been right from the start

ah, does he seriously think that another POTUS would 'pull-out' of our empire's desperate grab for key dwindling resources in a vain attempt to maintain our waning global hegemony?

[xiamiam]

7. last line sums it up...supportive and increasingly disappointed..why?

this is a good article..thanks..

[saracat]

8. Wow. Walsh writes really well.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

11. Since the passing of Molly Ivins, she may be the best we have

Joan doesn't fall into the Arianna Huffington / Maureen Dowd "snarky agenda" trap. She remains cool and objective, even though she has very lucid opinions and doesn't mince words.

It's never "about" Joan.

The same cannot be said for Arianna or Maureen.

:toast: