merrie
which even at the time they were made should have been seen as what they obviously were: so much campaign puffery.
What is this strategy? It’s one Obama uses for many issues, not just Afghanistan. It goes something like this:
(1) say whatever you think will get you votes, even if you don’t mean it
(2) do something opposite when the original stance becomes politically inexpedient and/or unecessary
(3) don’t acknowledge the contradiction or even attempt to explain it
(4) if somehow you are forced to break rule three and acknowledge your reversal, blame it on someone else”preferably George Bush, Republicans in general, and/or those crazy Tea Party attendees.
[ADDENDUM: The wrongness and inconsistency in Obama’s Afghan policy was all quite clear back in July of 2008, when I wrote this post.
And don’t forget that Obama could not have been more incorrect about the surge, not only at the very beginning but repeatedly, even after it had clearly succeeded.
A man, no plan, a war, Afghanistan.
That may not be a proper palindrome, but it describes the relation between President Obama and the Afghan War:
According to McClatchy, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to do what is necessary.
Good question. We should all be asking the same thing.
Amir Taheri devotes a NY Post column to it, in a piece entitled: “Obama’s plan? What plan?”
The subtitle of Taneri’s column is “Despite his claims, the president has no Afghan strategy.” Taheri goes on to say that Obama repeatedly promised during his campaign that:
…he’d unveil a new “stronger, smarter and comprehensive [Afghan war] strategy.”
I submit that Obama has a strategy. It’s just not the one listeners might have thought he meant when he made all those declarations about winning the war—
Tags: military, obama
Related posts:
No Comment Received
Leave A Reply