President Barack Obama, addressing the nation from West Point Military Academy on Tuesday, formally announced the 2010 deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to and the 2011 withdrawal of soldiers from Afghanistan.
His speech lasted 34 minutes and wrung its audience through the emotional gamut from the pride for FDR and World War II to the pain of 9/11 and Iraq. He invoked grand deeds of the past and established lofty aspirations for the future.
I wanted to believe in the words coming from Obama’s mouth; I wanted to believe in this cause; I wanted to believe in the President of the United States, my President. But I couldn’t. Even the careful crafting of his words couldn’t hide their lack of substance or deny the fact I had heard these points and themes before. And been disappointed and frustrated by my country’s inability to live up to these lofty promises.
Obama’s efforts to pacify the conservative right, fire up the liberal left and inform the general public failed. The right is still boiling, the left still clamoring for peace and the American people know the same information they did last week (if they stay current on the news, that is).
President Obama, directly addressing the West Point cadets seated in front of him, said, “As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.”
The mission, as he elaborated: sending 30,000 additional soldiers to contend with al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and appealing to America’s international allies for aid; pursuing a more sustainable and secure civilian strategy; and forming an “effective partnership” with Pakistan.
He spent more time discussing the steps he took to reach the decision to send more troops—yes, we know he prefers peace to war and voted against the Iraqi invasion, signs condolence letters to families who lost one of their own to war, visits “wounded warriors at Walter Reed” and personally met the caskets of 18 soldiers—rather than the decision, and even the mission, itself.
Obama used the phrase “reasonable cost” when skirting around the issue of the time and resources he is willing to dedicate in Afghanistan. What does that mean? Why didn’t he elaborate? “Reasonable cost” is certainly a relative term. What is a “reasonable cost” to President Obama, the commander-in-chief, in comparison to a mother with a son in the army, a daughter with a father in Afghanistan, a husband with a wife serving in Iraq? Obama says he does not lightly take the loss of life yet lives have been lost since he took the oath of office and also in the time he took to decide on the mission in Afghanistan. Still, he is unclear with what “reasonable cost” means.
What was the point of this address? To keep Obama at the forefront of national news and not because of a party-crashing, attention-craving, wanna-be-reality-TV-stars twosome? To bring Afghanistan back into the fray of today’s political discussion? To steal some of the thunder of Tiger Woods, his golf-club-wielding wife and his illicit affairs?
Maybe it was a little bit of all of these. Mostly, and quite sadly, it seemed like the purpose was to rephrase and reiterate George W.’s words. He said some nice things about Americans, a few true things about America and many circuitous things about the war which seemed to be the speech’s intended subject. I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether America has another Vietnam on its hands or if troops really will start returning home in 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment