Say what you’d like, the man gives a good speech. Even if he did have three months to prepare it.
He’s pitching to a lot of different constituencies here. There’s good red meat for those who have not forgotten 9/11:
I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qadda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.
This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and Al Qaeda can operate with impunity.
We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda.
Good red meat as well for those who have not forgotten Bush:
I’m mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who, in discussing our national security, said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children…
Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce, so we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
It’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone lay the blame for the current economic mess on the war in Iraq, and – especially for a man who runs through trillions faster than any president in history – a bit of a stretch. And of course, when Eisenhower was president, there were fewer Great Society bills to pay for. Unlike today, military spending in Ike’s time was the great majority of the federal budget outlay. And it’s a little difficult to see how the president’s deference to organized labor and the trial bar lobby stand to make us more competitive abroad.
But never mind.
He rightly links the struggle in the Af to the broader fight in Pakistan, although doing so and making it stick might prove problematical. Especially when he has given not just the Taliban (and al Qaeda) but also the Pakistani ISI his time frame for withdrawal. Because the Pakistani military and intelligence complex is all too eager to turn from the fight within its borders to race back to Kashmir and sharpen bayonets. Although, it’s only fair to point out, “beginning” to draw down in 18 months is open to very broad interpretation in the execution. Could be a division. Could be a platoon. He’s left himself some wriggle room.
I could have done without this bit:
As a country, we’re not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
Was the country innocent of expansionist genocide against native Americans? Was the south innocent of slavery?
Innocence, it appears, is where you look to find it.
But he’s made a decision, finally. And God bless him for it, and all our brave troops that will once again bear the burdens of our hopes and dreams, and their families.
Keeping in mind that everything depends not upon decisions, but upon execution.
Let’s hope he gets this right.
Update: Fred Barnes is disappointed at good policy indifferently delivered.
The NYT also notes that the speech was pitched to two constituencies:
(For all) the complaints, the response was much more measured than when Mr. Bush announced his own “surge” of extra troops to Iraq nearly three years ago, a reminder that Mr. Obama is in a stronger position than his predecessor was then and a sign that the blend of policies may temper opposition.
Or, it may be that while Congressional Democrats would have been content to see Iraq implode so long as it damaged Bush, Republicans would rather see the country win its wars than damage the Commander in Chief for political gain.
Or perhaps they just don’t need this particular cudgel.
Slate’s John Dickerson was confused by the speech. Perhaps it was the nuance.
Der Spiegel loses hope.
If you go there, you need to ask “Was the north innocent of slavery?” It was not as profitable in the more industrialized north, but it was there. And, before it was abolished in the various northern states (not all at once, some still had slavery after the Civil War), the slave owners were able to sell their ‘animate property’ south. And if I remember my history, the last slave auction in Washington City was held in 1860.
Also, who financed, built, and crewed the slavers? Northern interests. Rhode Island had a huge interest in the slave trade. So did the New England states. Not one slaver ever flew the Stars and Bars or the Stainless Banner, but many did fly the Stars and Strips (and the Union Jack, and various other europan flags) We have all heard of Fanuiel Hall in Boston – that was built with money gained from the slave trade.
And, let’s not judge our ancestors by our standards. I see this time and again. We place their actions in our context. Just about every culture, every nation, has at some point practiced slavery. Most get past it. This is not an apology for slavery as it was practiced in the colonies or the US, just pointing out that slavery was not just a ‘southern thing.’
As an aside, both the Army and Navy of the CSA were integrated right form the get-go (well, the various state militia were, so defacto the Army and Navy were). Blacks, both free and slave, side by side with their white comrades in arms – eating the same food, fighting the same battles, drawing the same pay. It took the US until 1947 to do that.
(JOE! You climb down off that soap box RIGH NOW! You know better than that!)
Joe,
It is of more than passing interest that the Confederacy banned the importation of slaves into southern states. It’s right there in black and white in the Constitution they wrote and passed.
And although it’s likely a bit trite to state, still and all, the southern slave could count on a place to live, 3 meals a day, and a clothing allowance, more than his northern counterpart in the mill towns and factories could count on.
It’s hard sometimes to contemplate the difference between chattel slavery and economic slavery.
Freedom is a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t fill a hungry child’s belly, nor does it clothe the naked nor shelter the homeless.
It’s not hard at all to understand why so many in the mill towns felt the urge to enlist in Northern armies where shelter, clothing, food and medical care might be had, all for the raising of one’s arm and the swearing of an oath.
Of course, of Obama has his way, we’ll all be serfs soon enough.
OK, C’mon. Legal slavery is an affront to the every founding principle of our great nation. I’m sorry but there’s no excuse or making up for it. I know you’re not doing that, but it’s a losing game to try to make it sound less bad than what people perceive it as.
Hey… just taking my debate cue from the current enabler in chief.
But yeah, freedom allows me to starve on my own terms, and, all things considered, that’s still the better deal.
Just getting the context of it straight, not saying it was right. To put it as strictly a southern institution is inaccurate.
Take a look at the whole picture – blacks in Africa captured other blacks and sold them to (usually) moslem Arab slave traders, who then marched them to the various ports, and there sold them to europeans or Americans, who then trans-shipped them to the Americas, North, South, Carribean (better than 95% went to South America and the Carribean – there sold to enrich the New England financial interests).
Prowler, head to Wiki or Google and enter search term “company town.” While you’re reading, put Ernie Ford’s rendition of “Sixteen Tons” on your auditory platform of choice.
Slavery is an economic as well as a legal status, and has a grand history through most cultures and societies for as long as we’ve been keeping records. Or had writing to make those records.
– Max
Other things to check would be “Bloody Ludlow” and “Matewan Massacre”.
Hey Guys
I agree with everything you say about slavery, I’m just saying that I don’t think there’s really anywhere to go with it. It also “tactically” opens yourself up to the racism card in a manner the public would agree with and would thus let the left shut down everything you say on any topic. I know this is a Catch-22 but think this is the reality we currently live in. Like most things that can be understood by the public at large slavey has been stereotyped to a ridiculous degree as your links make painfully clear. But the overall result of the stereotyping, that slavery was an abomination, is generally truthful and I guess I find the negative consequences to be tolerable (not approvable) on balance. (Allowance provided for race baiters trying to fan the flames of white guilt and drive for reparations being admittedly a significant problem.)
Overall I’d rather pick my battles. The leftist stereotypings of Vietnam which are now the accepted storyline for example go to the point of not only being false in their conclusions but producing a massive reduction in the ability of the nation to get on the same page with the military in fights like Iraq and Afghanistan. They are thus something both wrong and dangerous and I would rather spend my time railing against those such problems.
FWIW,
The 1860 census records also record more than 1000 free blacks in Virginia who were slave holders.
There’s some history right there that the left really doesn’t want you to learn.
Yeah, Tim. That is one of the dirty little secrets that everyone, left and right, hides. One of the biggest slave holders in, I think it was Lousiana but might have been SC, was a black woman who ran a sugar cane plantation and sugar mill. I want to say she had 162 slaves. And apparently, the free blacks who owned slave treated then neither better nor worse that whites did.
You hear comments about slave living conditions – “WE lived in cabins and had to chink up the holes and gaps with mud.” Yeah, and? Most poor whites did the same. Heck, my dad growing up in backwoods KY in the 1920s & 30s had to do things like that. Or, “we had to carry water from a quarter (or half) mile” Yeah, and you would have done the same if you were free. Again, that was jsut how life was.
If you read The Slave Narratives ( http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/ ) you find very few that talk about beatings and being mistreated, or that it happened to someone elses slaves. What comes through is that most were treated pretty much as family or close friends, not as beasts of burden (although there are a few of those stories too).
Talk is cheap. Kindly note that Obama is talking about giving GEN McCrystal 80% of the forces requested…four months or so after the request was made.
And also note Obama’s long-standing denigration of American exceptionalism. Would he deliberately torpedo the effort to win in order to ‘create a teachable moment”?
Only if he thought he could get away with it.
While giving allowances for the fact that the “conditions” in the future might dictate that the time-lines might slip, etc., and that the time-lines are a necessary bone thrown to his domestic lefty base; that the “withdrawal” will probably be in the event more gradual than precipitous, as you note, Lex, still in all a disturbing speach in one respect. Setting a firm time-line sends all the wrong signals to friends and enemies alike. And the deployment schedule–taken literally–would see the first troops deployed practically leaving just as the last troops deployed were arriving. This makes sense??
Some 42 uses of word “I” and the comment that he is most interested in rebuilding “our own” nation–very inward-looking–not a resounding call for steadfastness. Use of the word “we” usually was involved/assoc with the heavy-lifting stuff–the “I” word not so much….
To my ears, with eyes closed, style-wise, sounded both pedestrian, more like a seminar than a call to war–but perhaps that’s only his personality speaking delivery-wise. And he probably doesn’t want to attempt to whip the natives up into a frenzy anyway–they are too distrustful now–and if he succeeded he might be forced to prosecute the war with more fervor than he wants..
All in all, as I’ve said before, sounds like he is only going to do just enough to keep the natives quiet and everything tamped down until he rams thru his domestic agenda.
When you get down to it, POTUS’ is always all about the “O”.
Aeschylus could have written a life’s work about Obama, all of them tragedies.
Good one Tim–wish I’d thought of that one. I’m jealous!
Actually, Virgil, you make a very valid point regarding the speech. I heard the word “I” a lot. One word I did not hear was “victory.”
I also noticed he wants the troops in soon, within the next six months. That’s a very quick push for new troops who need training, and for the logistics train to support them. Reserve and Guard units who have already been there will likely need to make up a large portion of the initial deployment, placing them overseas much sooner than anticipated. He wants them out in 18 months, about the time he’s running for re-election.
I’m not a general nor do I pretend to be a strategic thinker in this matters, but I’m seeing troop movements based upon election campaigns rather than fighting and winning wars. As for the troops themselves, their training and rotation needs do not seem to have been considered.
Boil it all down, he’s setting the stage to win an election and lose a war shortly afterwords.
– Max
I don’t really think it matters with the current ROE how many mericans are carrying guns in Af. The catch and release policy precludes any meaningful conclusion to the battle. 4 days to turn over all detainees and then they’re gone to fight again another day.
I don’t honestly mind all that much. I viewed Af as a flytrap and magnet to capture the jihad of those murderers living in the neighborhood who got off their dead lazy asses to kill Americans without all the hassle of flying to America to kill innocent Americans. We send our best and lose some of our best that this continent remain free of these islamic scumbags.
A conversation this weekend with the General reminded me that even though I am what I am, somebody like me could be IA’d for the leadership of a provincial reconstruction team is still in the cards for the next 4 years. I had made the point to him that who in the world would want a navy capt in Af and he suggested that leadership was a quality that might be looked for…… Not from the top. That’s for damned sure.
“Not from the top. That’s for damned sure.”
The proverbial “truer words were never spoken.”
Amen, brother. Amen.
The problem is, as Fouad Ajami was discussing this AM on Bill Bennett’s show, is that, to take Sam Huntington’s thesis that one views America in one of three conceits — cosmopolitan, imperial, or national — you have to conclude that the President, like most in his circle, sees America in the cosmopolitan view. That is, “…an open society with open borders, encouraging subnational ethnic, racial, and cultural identities, dual citizenship, diasporas, and led by elites who increasingly identify with global institutions, norms, and rules rather than national ones.”
The conflict comes when the majority of Americans, as Huntington concludes his book with, see the US in the national conceit — “Significant elements of American elites are favorably disposed to America becoming a cosmopolitan society. Other elites wish it to assume an imperial role. The overwhelming bulk of the American people are committed to a national alternative and preserving and strengthening the American identity that has existed for centuries.” One cannot waffle and satisfy both conceits. it is the ultimate straddle, and doomed to failure.
“My country! May she always be right. But, right or wrong, my country!”
Sounds about right to me.
That kind of talk will get you thrown out of certain clubs. Such a plebeian concept!
All those people going to be your “friendly” next-door neighbors when you finally settle in over there, Scott? What fun you are going to have!
I figure I can spend a few years in Vermont getting acclimated.
Actually, this year, Flight Lead withdrew from consideration for a position in Vermont. Several items in the mix, but the fact that neither of us would fit in (and that I couldn’t open my mouth outside the house), was near the top. Latest is that we both are looking at positions in Texas. Still, my restless heart!
Not everyone in Vermont is a liberal @$$#ole Scott. There are at least 1000 of us who are conservatives. What positions are you looking for? VTANG is on the list of potentials for the F35. However, I will tell you that Lipstick 6 and I may be considering the Texas hill country when I stack arms permanently in 6 years to be near our SNO and his family in Austin.
Well put. I’m stealing that.
Well, at least he’s surging some forces and at least he seemed to talk like America is a good nation for once. Although like Lex I could have done without the obligatory leftist not-as-innocent jab thrown in there. It’s as if he’s insecure actually praising the country that voluntarily and by a significant majority made him the most powerful man in the world and has to at least touch, however fleetingly, a much more comfortable America’s bad stance. For him to blame the pennies of the Iraq War for our economic troubles while he fools away pounds on a daily basis was indeed a bit of a stretch.
Plus, the whole reason the Iraq surge worked was that it was more or less open ended, giving the Sunnis the feeling of security that they could side with the Americans against AQI and the knowledge that they would win because the Americans were, after all, “The Strongest Tribe.” The 18 month deadline completely destroys most of the reason why a possible Afghan surge could work. The Afghans need to fight the Taliban ultimately, but I don’t think they’ll take the reins knowing that we’re more or less saying adios in 18 months while Johnny Taliban has nothing better planned for oh, say, the rest of his life.
But, again, it was the first speech I’ve heard from him in which he more often than not seemed to say America’s a basically good country. I’ll take what I can get.
I’m beginning to wonder about you.
You took that speech a helluva lot more positively than did I.
Perhaps it shows the desperation we all feel–grasping at straws, as it were. For a less charitable take, read LTC Ralph Peters analysis in today’s NY Post: “Setting Our Military Up To Fail” @
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/oprdcolumnists/setting_up_our_military_to_fail_IBITIHm69SMO2Lly5JbNaO
I must say that while I would quibble with a couple of his points, his point that Obama is sending just enough troops to insulate himself against charges of failing to support the troops or his hand-picked generals, but not enough to
totally outrage the pacifist left. Any failures will be the fault of the generals (hey, I sent you the troops!?) and any success will be his. The foundation has already been laid by the “hey, I inherited this mess” line which he keeps repeating ad nauseam. But in any event, he is going to declare victory prior to the 2012 elections and “bring the troops home” (or begin to) in order to satisfy his base and independents, conveniently using the deficits (which he and his party will have themselves exploded) as the reason our presence in AfPK is unsustainable.
Prowler, an even better article in it’s own way may be found at The American Spectator (with a better link) by John R. Guardino titled “What Obama Really Said Last Night” @
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/02/what-obama-really-said-last-ni
Another great (and pathetically true) quote I read elsewhere: “We have the watches, but the Taliban has the time.”
Well, why am at it disappointing people on this topic I have two more good things I’ve discovered in his speech, something I think we actually talked about a couple months back.
1.) He didn’t say anywhere in the speech “now is the time . . .” . . . Not that I heard at least.
2.) No reference to the fierce urgency of now.
Oh, no wait. There actually IS a fierce urgency in this case unlike health care or global warming.
So, OK, just one more thing I liked.
While I’m at it . . . wasn’t even close. And the sad thing is that I’m NOT drunk right now. Yikes.
Both lack of actions and actions speak louder than words.
Deciding to not do what is necessary to succeed is deciding to fail.
Question is, what is our President’s definition of success?
Hard times ahead.
Not impressed with the speech.
Our troops deserve better, such as a ringing endorsement of American exceptionalism, pride, patriotism, and a unshakable dedication to VICTORY for us and defeat for the enemy. Real support for the troops, and their families. I heard none of that.
Not sure about the decision, as I am not sure what it really is, beyond giving his hand picked general 80% of what he requested 3-4 months ago.
With Obama, you can never count on what he says, you MUST watch what HE actually does. He will allow subordinates or surrogates do the exact opposite while he rails against it (“no earmarks? no lobbyists? cut the defecit?”) He will utter grand schemes, and then allow Pelosi, Reid or Biden to fill in foolish details unchecked.
No, I am not confident that we know what he is going to do. Or that he knows what he is doing.
I only know that I saw a weak leader accustomed to prattling to idiots or the uninformed hoping to get them to vote for HIM, by making vague promises that he never fulfills, and will later deny.
Disappointed, but not surprised, by the speech.
“Let’s hope he gets this right.”
well, there’s a first time for everything, but i wouldn’t bet a ham and chicken loaf MRE* on this being Ear Leader’s success story. he’s a fail blog entry on legs.
(*like ham & mothers, only in a poly bag instead of a can. %-)
“Not as innocent”= somewhat guilty of what?
Which Roosevelt? Would certainly help set the bar of innocence and/or achievement.
A fight we must win – in 18 months or we will quit, declare victory and come home, only to be surprised when the islamic a$$holes follow us home like the dirty dog found at the playground.
My nephew deserves better. I told him not to take 4 yrs of Arabic at Carolina.
Since TR was a Republican, he isn’t counted.
Wife and I’ve agreed I’m no longer allowed to watch the President give a speech. My reaction tends to scare the dogs too much.
I think I’ve identified two things that set me off. The first, he can’t get through a speech on any topic without blaming his predecessor. Enough all ready! The man has been in office 11 months, it’s time he take responsibility and move on.
Second, when I hear President Obama give a speech he always sounds like a candidate running for the Democratic primary vice souding like the President of the United States.
I too shouldn’t watch him speak. I’m simply too committed in my dislike for the man that even when he offers up things I believe and support I can’t stand the way he says them. That reinforces my belief that I am no longer the rational, pragmatic person I thought I once was and have become something I never thought possible – cynical and bitter.
But I did watch and my reaction was “what a boring speech”. Here was the President arguably giving what is the most important speech of his Presidency and it came off like some dry academic lecture about some age old philosophical question of which all sides can claim to be proven correct as no definitive answer exists.
The history lesson on why we are there with the thinly alluded criticisms of Bush were unnecessary. We are there because our enemies are. That is why we were in Italy and France in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc. They are evil and we are good which could be deduced from careful parsing of his words but I much prefer the “…grisly gang who work your wicked will…” characterizations to at least attempt to stir some emotional response. Churchill sets a bar much too high for mere mortals but that doesn’t mean you don’t grab a pole a try to vault. But such criticisms seem petty even as I make them. Give our President credit for reaching the right conclusion even if all but the most naive, starry-eyed leftist knew, in the end, the pragmatic approach would be his choice. His lack of enthusiasm for the action was, while appropriate given the gravity of its consequences, betraying of his weakness and lack of true preparation for the weight of his office’s responsibilities. Better late than never but leaves one praying he never has to make life-or-death decisions in the flash of time required in real-time response to a true attack on our nation.
I suppose the true measure of his leadership will be how he deals with the coming furor on the Hill as to funding the enterprise and just what he will fight for against the base that was so essential to his nomination. The middle has largely abandoned their hope-induced support, seeing any pretense for a post-partisan, post-racial leader dashed by his actions and those of his Chicago-mob staff. Whether he can get them back by 2012 is an open question but the listless drone of a speech given last night will inspire no one and adds to the growing lack of confidence in our government to perform across the board from everyone not entwined in the political establishment.
Yes, the man does give a good speech. But that’s all he does – give the speech. There is no sincerity, no belief in what he is saying. He says it because it’s what he is suppsoed to do. There is nothing genuine about Obama.
It’s time for him and his administration to stop shifting blame to someone else. It’s HIS job now. At the rate he blames others, it wouldn’t surprise me if he blames our soldiers for any possible failures in Af.
Even the Germans nicht unbeeindruckt
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html
The “and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president” is reminiscent of Rev. Wright’s “America’s chickens have come home to roost” spiel right after 9/11. Obama thinks we have been arrogant in the post-war world.
Here’s a quote from, of all people, Michael Moore on Larry King’s show last night:
It’s like CRAZY. If they’re truly the enemy, you don’t say, ‘Okay, we’re going to fight you until 2:00 on ummm (looks at watch), on July 2, 2011. I mean it’s like, if they are the enemy, you fight them until they’re done. Until you win, and they lose.
The only thing that will be missing when the imPOTUS’ policy comes to fruition will be the picture of the helicopter taking off from the embassy roof.
The lamestream media won’t want to embarrass Him with that.
Then again, they could always blame it on Bush.
I went back and replayed it. Two things:
1. It had all the passion of a law school lecture. Great on the intellectualism, poor on the visceral part that is necessary in sending our fighting men to war. There was also a tone deafness to how it will be viewed outside our borders, that is rooted in this idea, first pegged to Dukakis by Bush 41, and now seemingly applicable:
When you hold that idea, like Huntington’s idea of the “cosmopolitan America”, you fail to recognize that our enemies don’t look on us as we look on ourselves. All of the depth (and all of the danger) in the words of that famous political thinker, Sting — “I hope the Russians love their children too”.
2. I may be blind, but I don’t remember another administration that is so willing to jettison policy considerations on critical issues purely because of internal party political considerations. The “timeline” idea, so correctly identified as foolish by even Michael Moore, was there solely to appease the democrat left, while ignoring the danger that it emboldens our enemies to just wait it out. Same behavior on health care — can’t consider tort reform — as Crazy Joe said, too hard to take on the trial lawyers. Cheap talk from the trail bar’s paid lackey, and poor policy. Flex accounts, HSAs, cross state insurance offerings — all have significant cost impacts, and all were sacrificed on the alter of democrat politics. Sad to see war strategy reduced to just another political fight.
I especially hated the little dig near the beginning (I paraphrase) “There was never any intention of sending troops before 2010.” Answering the “why did it take so long to make the decision?” critics. Sure, when McCrystal first asked for the troops they were going to be deployed in 4 months or so, because that’s how long it takes without putting a bigger hardship on the units and their families.
Now he’s sending some before Christmas? What’s the rush now?
The Der Spiegel write-up is very interesting. When you take Obama’s key points and put them side by side, is shows the inherent contradictions in everything Obama does.
I was especially struck by the observation that a full draw down in 18 months puts Obama on the eve of starting his re-election campaign. Get all the troops out, claim victory (or whatever), then campaign on meeting his promises about Afghanistan. Wow.
Steven Green’s drunkblogging of the speech is probably the most readable coverage out there:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/drunkblogging-obamas-afghanistan-speech/
What Kris said.
Der Spiegel’s comment
struck me as the unfunny conclusions that will be OIF & OEF.
Splitting semantic hairs here
and the ‘end wars’ not ‘win wars’. Is my cynicism getting the best of me, or does WunWhoWon not want to win? Or is it that he’s out to win something other than two foreign wars?
On a more cheerful note, it has warmed up to a delightfully sunny and clear 34 degrees here in lovely Monroe, WA. How’s by you?
Good speech? Only if a pre-dated surrender which gives aid and comfort to our enemy, and tells our troops this isn’t worth winning constitutes a good speech.
I think that Doc Russia’s analysis is as correct as can be:
http://bloodletting.blog-city.com/the_presidents_speech_on_afghanistan_1.htm
Leave it to a former Marine to cut through the fog to get to the meat of the matter.
[...] two of my favorite blogosphere sources are from retired Naval officers, CDR Salamander, and Neptunus Lex. And of course, Drew M. at Ace’s has some thoughts that illuminate. Why take the Navy guys [...]
Dear Lex,
I agree that on the whole it was a good speech, esp. given what we know of President Obama and the party he leads. I get very tired of the “we’ve got to be grown-ups” schtick, but it does matter a great deal that those of us who don’t see “the enemy” when we look at our fellow countrymen (even those with whom we deeply disagree) can give our Commander in Chief not only the benefit of the doubt, but charitable and sympathetic understanding and support when he takes up the heaviest burden of his office.
I could and do wish for more from our President (and http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/obamas-inconsistencies does a good job at outlining some key problems even if I object to the premises that “nation-building” and concern for human rights are the property of one part of the political spectrum). But there is simply too much at stake with our country’s role in the world for us to want President Obama to succeed in his leadership of our armed forces until it is obvious that he is derelict in his duty (and I keep trying to remember that some of our former President’s fiercest critics were not simply partisan hacks but can make good arguments as to why he failed in his duties as CIC).
So God bless President Obama and the troops who serve under his leadership.