McCain: “Success is the real exit strategy”
posted at 9:57 pm on December 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
Maverick’s never been a fan of timetables.
“The President has made the right decision to embrace a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan and to resource it properly. I think the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that will deploy as part of this mission, plus greater allied commitments, will enable us to reverse the momentum of the insurgency and create the conditions for success in Afghanistan. I support the President’s decision, and I think it deserves the support of all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats.
“What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the President’s decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies – in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the entire region – all of whom currently doubt whether America is committed to winning this war. A withdrawal date only emboldens Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight.
“Success is the real exit strategy. When we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, our troops should begin to return home with honor, but that withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines. In the days ahead, I will seek to address this and other questions I have about the President’s policy, including my continuing concern about the civilian aspect of our strategy.
As previously noted, The One did in fact reserve the conditions-on-the-ground loophole for himself tonight, although he and McCain have opposing visions of when that might come into play. For McCain, COTG is cause to stay when the going gets tough; for Obama, COTG is likely cause to stay when the going gets easy, i.e. if McChrystal repulses the Taliban and reduces the risk of casualties to U.S. troops, which in turn will reduce the heat on Obama from his lefty base. When was the last time you heard a liberal pound the table about withdrawal from Iraq? There’s a reason for that, my friends. Presumably The One figures that either things will improve, in which case no one will much care about holding him to his timetable, or things will deteriorate, in which case he’ll credit himself for giving it the ol’ college try and blame Bush (again) for diverting resources to Iraq and handing him an unwinnable war.
As it is, McChrystal’s got essentially one calendar year — from July 2010, when all new troops will (hopefully) be in theater, to July 2011, when withdrawal begins — to turn it around and train the Afghan army. Good luck, general. For your viewing pleasure, here’s Krauthammer taking a dim, McCain-esque view of the speech; compare and contrast with Bill Kristol, who’s in sync with me in thinking that, as feeble as it is, this one last chance is more than we ever expected to get from Obama. Exit quotation: “‘The interest is consistent.’ That’s the heart of the matter. It’s encouraging that Obama seems to understand this fact.” Click the image to watch.
Update: The AP gets to the heart of Obama’s mixed message.
Update: More support from the Standard, this time from Andrew Ferguson:
Obama’s critics to his right should remember the president’s critics to his left. The poor gentle souls must be gobsmacked. Obama is the first Democratic president in forty years to call for a significant deployment of American troops in the national security interest of his country. This is very big news. His predecessor, President Clinton, could give a stirring address dispatching bombers over Bosnia and be confident of the support of his fellow Democrats, because the show of power was purely humanitarian and had nothing to do with keeping us safe from our enemies. With great courage, Obama is trying something that hasn’t been tried within the living memory of most of the members of his party. He may even recall the era when liberal Democratic presidents — Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson — could lead a fight because it was in the interest of the country to fight.
This is a historical moment, and one we should be grateful for.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I really get sick of that old canard of “Mission Accomplished”
That is not what President Bush meant and you know it!!!!..it was put up by the crew on that ship..THEIR part of the mission was accomplished.
Didn’t yo Mama tell you it was sin to lie????
Xango Annie on December 2, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Burn in HELL McSlame!!!
I don’t even know what action/comment of yours that i’m reacting to but I know my role is to be apoplectic with UNQUALIFIED RAGE!!!! The narrative on you will always be the same: your a trator who has defied and denied the holy light of Saint Palin and you don’t hate Mexicans. YOU MONSTER!
YEEQAAAARRRGHH.
EEEEYYYYYEEEEEAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHGGGG!!!!!!!!
YYYEEEE (/palinitewhitenationalistdouchebagpopulistsocialcon)
eh on December 2, 2009 at 1:16 AM
It’s not that hard to make sense of it. We do war very, very well. That’s why we’re a world power.
We do occupation poorly. if at all. That’s why we have no colonies.
We saw this in the Iraq war. The actual combat and conquest went very quickly. The occupation dragged on for years.
We’re probably the most reluctant “empire” in history. Our foreign policy is based on keeping the world “stable” so we don’t wind up in another World War. We don’t want more territory, or more dominion over other nations.
There Goes The Neighborhood on December 2, 2009 at 1:54 AM
I think so and here’s why: If you took Bush before his Surge speech and Obama before this night’s speech and said: “Look, give the speech you want to give. No matter what you say, it will have absolutely no impact on your domestic political fortunes” I think Bush would’ve given exactly the same speech he ended up giving because he believed in the mission.
On the other hand, I think Obama simply believes this war is a mistake and a waste of lives and treasure. If he was given that choice, he would’ve given a speech announcing a complete pullout. His current stance is one based on political calculations, not based on what he thinks is right.
His problem is that he can’t really disguise that and so there is a phony-ness in his rhetoric and because it’s a political decision he can’t help but engage in some partisan sniping at various points in the speech.
PackerBronco on December 2, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Commies only feel war is a waste when the US is winning.
gdonovan on December 2, 2009 at 5:49 AM
Meandering, wandering strategy in Afghanistan. Can we just stick to the issues of health care, cap and tax, slavery for white folks and reparations to the world. Wars are so yesterday.
tarpon on December 2, 2009 at 7:52 AM
He had that choice. In fact voicing that opinion would have made him a hero among his core constituency. But think about what you are suggesting- The CINC is willing to send troops to their deaths for political calculations in an war he deems to be unjust. If that is a true statement, the filthy lying coward betrayed his oath of office and needs to be impeached immediately.
highhopes on December 2, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Barrack Obama is a good man – John McCain in 2008Yeah well how\’s that working out for you Senor McAmnesty?
angryed on December 2, 2009 at 8:09 AM
That’s because people sitting in an armchair, eating bon-bons, don’t have a clue to the complexities of even what appears to be the simplest of international “moves”.
right2bright on December 2, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Unconditionally defeating the enemy, destroying everything he has, and terminating anyone and everyone who supports his cause, should be the ONLY “exit strategy”.
You wanna wrap this thing up?
Launch a coordinated cruise missle attack against every mosque and madrasah indoctrinating yet another generation of deranged psychopaths with their hateful venom against “infidels”. Kill every so-called “cleric” inciting the mindless violence against the civilized world based upon the deranged rantings of an insane 7th century slave-owning, thieving, murdering, rapist, child-molester.
Harry Truman wasn’t into “nation building” and “winning hearts and minds”. He did what was absolutely necessary to defeat an enemy. Had he followed BHO’s wishy-washy tactics, we’d STILL be fighting WWII.
bannedbyhuffpo on December 2, 2009 at 9:01 AM
McCain: “Success is the real exit strategy”
Unlike his campaign.
Irenaeus on December 2, 2009 at 9:27 AM
If I recall correctly that “Mission Accomplished” banner referred to destroying Saddam’s regime. We simply weren’t prepared for the nation-building that was needed due to the power-vacuum created after. Still we did the right thing by staying and establishing democracy in Iraq.
Liberal turds will always be screeching about how the decision to fight ANY war is wrong-that’s what they do, they’re imbeciles who don’t deserve the freedom and democracy they enjoy that was given to them by the blood shed by greater people than them.
I’d love to ship these anti-American, anti-war types to the mideast or North Korea so they can see what its like when your enemy takes over. At least in those countries they’d know to keep their mouths shut or face torture/execution. They’re lucky we’re so nice to them in the “fascist U S of KKK-A”.
thinkagain on December 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM
It’s been a while.
Yes, there is. The fact that there is a plan in place to withdraw from Iraq. Why would a war opponent demand withdrawal when we’re already headed in that direction?
You guys here at HA kept pointing out that McChrystal said that we have 12 months to win this war. Obama is giving him 18. Why is it wrong to give McChrystal 50% more time than he asked for?
If, at the end of 18 months, things are still the same in Afghanistan, why would we continue throwing blood and treasure down the hole?
orange on December 2, 2009 at 12:23 PM
We don’t have to win the war, the Afghans need to win it. We need to kill enough taliban to make it possible for the people there to live in somewhat better conditions.
Mojave Mark on December 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2