Tuesday, December 1, 2009

What Obama Needs to Say at West Point


By David Paul Kuhn
Barack Obama has to show his heart is in the fight. Tonight's Afghan address must explain but also inspire. The professor-in-chief must now preach to the public about why Afghanistan is still the "good war." Why it is still worth the cost. Why the long war must be longer. Why we can win - and what exactly is to be won. The public will be listening to Obama's explanations but, perhaps more importantly, it will also be searching for the passion beneath his prose. Spock must find his inner Kirk.

"Once more unto the breach" is a difficult sell after so much deliberation. This three-month public review comes less than a half-year after his last policy review. Obama first told the nation in March of his, "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Tuesday, Obama will tell Americans of his newest strategy. The prolonged consideration, and reconsideration of those considerations, is vintage Obama. The dispassionate realism. The cold logic. The cost benefit analysis. We know the character and see it in this president.
But this is war. It's the solemn and earnest province of the presidency. Obama gets the solemn. But does he understand the earnest?

Obama's torment is transparent. He wants out of the fight, or so it seems. But he is resigned to the need to still fight. He does not want to be Lyndon Johnson but sees no way to govern as George McGovern. Obama has concluded that the costs of pulling out outweigh the costs of pushing on. Few believe he would continue this war if he had his druthers. We know he made a hard call. Now he must explain his call. Then he must convince skeptics it's the right call.

The political left is the hardest sell. Six in 10 Republicans support sending more troops into Afghanistan. Six in 10 Democrats oppose. But independents reflect Democrats views. And therefore, Obama must do more than ask an antiwar base to reconcile with this war.

Like Obama's health care legislation, the cost will come before benefits. Obama reportedly plans to increase troop levels by at least 30,000. Next year, American casualties will rise. But the benefits of this Afghan-surge may be unclear until 2011.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly spoke last week of Democrats' "serious unrest" over Obama's decision to escalate the war. Pelosi used words like "opportunity costs." She knows that war has killed so many reformers--from Wilson to Truman to Johnson. The guns and butter scale surely worries Obama too.

We have seen this movie before: with Johnson, W. and Obama. Obama's March address spoke of how, "Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He said, "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan." And the American future was inextricably linked to Pakistan and Afghanistan, or so he effectively argued.

He must now make much the same argument. That Americans must die not for an immediate threat but an abstraction of what could be. As Obama knows well, the "terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks" are almost entirely in Pakistan. And we are mostly in Afghanistan. Like W, Obama is a prisoner of an unstable Pakistan that he dare not further destabilize. He is facing the same whack-a-mole enemy that allows no clear sense of victory. It's a war of discordance.

The once antiwar candidate must now rally his nation in war. The man who opposed George W. Bush's "surge" in Iraq must now explain his surge. "America's commitment is not open ended," W. said in his 2007 address on Iraq. Obama must say no less. And he may go further. Obama might detail the way out of this war. But how does he say this war is worth more American lives to win, while inferring that, at some point, it could be worth losing as well?

Obama will face an ambivalent and war weary public. Eight years on, Americans have turned against this war. He must turn Americans back.

The president has other occasions to speak to the Pakistanis or to the Karzai government. He has surrogates to explain the minutia of his policy. This address regards sending more young Americans to war. He must rouse the public. The candidate who favors the subtle shades should reach for some black and white tones. It need not be good versus evil. But if Afghanistan still is the "good war," he should say so. And he should say so passionately.

David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter.

38 comments:

bonnieblue1st said...

I think it is going to be difficult for Obama, an anit-war advocate, to give passion in his speech that is to inspire those who are fighting in the war. It is definately important that he does this. It will be interesting to hear his address.

Olivia Thornton 4th Period said...

I find it hard to believe that Obama will be able to turn Americans back onto the idea of a surge of soldiers. I like Obama for the most part but this issue worries me. The American people elected him because they wanted change. This is not change. This is exactly what Bush did. I'm not one to say that it would be best to either pull troops out or add more troops but I can say that, for Obama's sake, adding troops seems like a bad idea if he is looking for the people's approval. As a president during this war, he is put into a very tough situation. Many Americans are just waiting for him to screw up. I do think that with this situation, we are going to have to lose a little before we gain a lot. However, I think Obama should focus on the war issue before he starts up with healthcare, if that's even possible. I don't know but I see some approval ratings going quickly down the drain. :/

Sarah Lambert 3rd said...

First of all i want to say that i loved the star trek allusion to spock and kirk! Secondly, i think that obama has his work cut out for him. Not only does he have to convince the public that this war is worth it but also convince himself. I think that obama should also be eating his words. He came into his presidency antiwar and now hes changed? I dont think he had any idea what war was like until he became president. I mean sure we all want love and peace but not everyone else does...This is also one of the reasons why i think presidents should have military experience since they are the commander in chief. Thats a big responsibility and it kind of sucks if you have no idea what the heck you are doing. However, Obama has a lot of supporters still. He still is popular and people aren't changing their opinions about him, so the issue of him having to change the views of the people shouldn't be hard if everyone is willing to stand behind him. I mean star trek always said to keep your phaser set on stun...
I just hope obama is strong enough to continue to lead us through war. Bush did that and everyone ended up hating him. It could be the same for Obama.
I would also like to point out that however good natured and awesome his commercial for keeping kids in sports and fit is very sweet, it is also very very lame. I think the whole slow-mo thing is dumb.
well anyway, live long and prosper right?

Amy said...

I was actually very surprised myself to hear that Obama decided to increase the troop count in Iraq. Obviously, he has his reasons. I certainly hope he has weighed the cost of this decision, both in money and American lives.
This decision as the commander in chief gives Obama and Bush some similarity. I wonder if Obama's decision will put him in a negative light or Bush in a more positive light...

Benjamin Holmes 8 said...

I think that the best thing the president can do is be completely honest with the public about the war. Hopefully his "new policy" will lower American casualties.

TrevorChilton3 said...

Obama was very popular during the election for his opinion that the Iraq and Afghan. wars should end. Now it seems as if his views have shifted, if not completely changed. This can be viewed both positively and negatively; maybe Obama's views have been shaped according to what he has been through in his presidency so far. if so , this would be beneficial because he isnt remaining stagnant in his policy. the other view is that he is a flip-flopper. if one believes this, Obama canno tbe trusted to do what he says. this opinion could lose many supporting democrats and independents. whatever you believe, long gone are the days of historic "change". now the tone is "what will change next?"

connor frankhouser 8 said...

I feel sorry for President Obama and the difficult dillema/pickle he is in. Having discussed the speech already in 8th period I think Obama has hit all the right notes.... Except for giving a precise timeline for troop pull outs. Now the various pastoral nomadic terrorist orginizations will go into hibernation until 2011(when troops are recalled) and then simply start acting naughty again and go bact to their old tricks.

Jiaqi Niu 8th said...

So Obama wants to send 30,000 additional troops. Making a speech at one of the most prestigious military schools in the world, he claims that pulling out will outweigh pulling in. But in the long run, pulling out the troops will reduce goods and make families a lot more happier. The soldiers on the battlefield aren't cowards, but they need to know what exactly they're supposed to be doing. Until the Obama administration clears that up, things won't get better.

..:::IsaacE3rd:::.. said...

So the decision has been established and now America must face yet another deployment. So why are we focused on Afghanistan when the bombers came from Pakistan? If Obama wants peace, why create more war? The cost of this war is going to exceed exponetially, and America will soon be in another financial struggle. We should just focus on our economic status, not who has bigger guns. I know we are trying to regain what was once taken from us, but putting more people into the war zone, is not a good method. I hope he knows what he is doing, or if he has enough wit to persuade America that this is a right decision.

Abigail Ham said...

Obama's pretty much going to have to go out on a limb and decide what's going down. It's either that, or let the war in the Middle East turn into another Vietnam.

Then again, he can speak softly and carry a big stick and make a ton of treaties and hope that the Middle East has the moxie to keep themselves under control while keeping a few troops there just in case something bad happens.

Either way, there's always going to be a group that complains and hates everything he's doing. He's going to have to accept that and keep moving.

Dylan Boyd AP Gov said...

so i saw this picture somewhere and it was a picture that looked like a 300 poster but instead barack obamas head was photo shopped in and it said 30,000 at the bottom, i dont know i just though that was funny cause its kind of the same thing, too little people going into a war they cant win. like they said its hard top win a whack a mole war. but anyway i saw bits of the speech and i thought he deffinately got his message across but maybe not as passionatly as what we may have hoped for.

Anonymous said...

I think what Obama needed to say Tuesday night at West Point did not match what he did say that night. I understand that we cannot just pull out of the war because that would cause more problems on a different setting. But the thing of it is Obama promised to send our troops home but now he is just taking more away. If he knew he was going to do this just like the rest of America did then he shouldnt of made that promise to America and got the citizens hopes up...Obama just keeps striking out.

BritniBass3 said...

I believe that Obama's speech was going against his word. When you become President if you make promises you should keep them. Because he went against his word all of his party is going to start questioning him... and the reason why he is president. I hope Obama is doing what he truly thinks is best for our conutry and not just going on an action of feeling.

cheyennelujan3 said...

Obama is in a very tough situation. He is against war but he has no choice,or so it seems, but to keep on fighting and to keep on sending americans overseas. It is going to be difficult for him to find support among people that elected him because he is anti war. It will be interesting to see how passionate, or dispassionate he sounds when he is talking about continuing the war.

good luck to you, mr. president!

Deandra Porter said...

The president needs to explain it all to the American people because it effects us. Our family members will be over there fighting this war and our money will be helping to pay for it. So many American's have grown against the war but he needs to reveal the good that would come from continuing the fight. It's about the nation and it's people.

phyllisgoode3 said...

I think Obama's in a delicate position. We can't just leave Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's so fragile right now and since we invaded their country we owe it to them to help fix it. The terrorists are also still there which isn't something we can just let go. But is there anything to be gained by staying?? Russia eventally left when nothing could be accomplished. By staying we could just be losing money and American lives.

Roman Padilla, 3rd said...

i am tired of this war. Its been 8 years, and sstill nothing has happened. I know that we need to take care of the terrorists in pakistan and afghanistan, but why is it taking so long. I really dont want to send more troops either, mainly because my cousin is a marine and i dont want him to leave,but if he has to, i guess i will understand. The article is right though, a lot of people do not support the war effort at all and dont understand why we are still there. I really dont want the war to continue, i am against it as well, so i nknow how they feel. So it seems i need to be convinced by this speech as well.

BenjaminRahman8th said...

Obama is in a tiny bit of a pickle. Because of Bush's sending of troops to Afghanistan, Obama must continue the war a bit longer in order to prevent total calamity. Obama, being a democrat, does not favor war but is handling the situation maturely and doing the right thing. Hopefully American troops will do what has to be done in Afghanistan before the set date to pull them out. The problem with Obama's stating the date of when our troops should be home is that the enemy will most likely gather this information and could use it to their advantage.

Isaac Cortez 8th said...

I found Obama's speech peculiar. All along I thought that he was against sending more troops but he was against sending troops to Iraq not Afghanistan. He plans to rebuild a government and police force in Afghanistan and he plans to do this by the summer of 2011. Wait, WHAT! I was an Obamam fan but now I regret it. Ok lets think about this for a moment... lets build a new republic in a country that has been torn apart by corruption and lust of power hmmm not a good idea but thats just me. And he plans to do pull the troops out by 2011...hmm just before he runs for reelection. Not only is that a political move but it gives a time table to the terrorist. Again not a good idea but thats just me. If we go into Afghanistan lets go with a true purpose.

PeytonOldham1 said...

Well aside from the fact that the general
that he put in charge requested 60K troops woth a minimum of 40K but ovcourse Obama knows
best and well apparently he has tr knowledge of a west point graduate that a west point graduate
didn't have we've already seen he obviously knows
more about running a car company than the people
that have been doing it for decades.... So
we get 30K yeah no if your not going to
give genreral Michristal what he asks fire him and get someone who you will listen to and I love
how the war is crutial but well be out in 18 months so your not going to send the right amount of troops and not give them enough time to do it but tell us it's
vital....moron UNAPOLAGETICALY AMERICAN

Henry Blanton 8 said...

Rather than focus on a war in Afghanistan I think we need to focus on getting the Taliban out of Pakistan since Pakistan has an unstable government and nuclear weapons. We aren't going to be able to just kill all the Taliban so we need to focus on just keeping them from obtaining a hoard of nuclear weapons.

brandonluckenbach1 said...

"He is facing the same whack-a-mole enemy that allows no clear sense of victory. It's a war of discordance." This is how I see the war. I don't see how increasing the number of troops is going to help, but I think sending more troops isn't "change" and Obmamas word. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

CatWu said...

I have to say, i'm completely confused by obama....why is he sending more troops when he said that all troops would be out by december of 2010? didnt he say that before he was elected, or a little after he was elected? what is he doing now?

SethPitman1 said...

I somewhat feel bad about Obama. I mean, its like trying to entertain a two year old with one toy. Its gonna be tough for an anti-war tree hugging president to keep Americans "excited and optistic" about a war that has been going on for a long...long time. More power to ya bro, we need something.

Cynthia Salazar Period 8 said...

Wow tough job for Obama. He has to be passionate about something he doesn't want, and on job of that he has to make everyone else feel the same way. It is like asking a kid to be excited about homework and you hate it yourself. I know I couldn't do it.

NathanSlaughter3 said...

Well Obama has put himself in a tough situation because of his strong views during the election of how the wars should end. And now that it seems that his ideas have been altered a little but people may not take that lightly. But at the same time people have to realize sometimes you have to adjust and make changes that may not be what you want all the time. So before people comdemn and make judgement on his actions they have to look at why he's doing what he is doing.

tavindotson1st said...

Obama is in a tough position here. But I believe that he is doing the right thing sending the troops to Afghanastan. He has realized that in order to win this war he needs to over power them. And as far as him not doin what his democrats wanted him to do well to bad. But you voted for him.

Anonymous said...

I know he means well, but in all serious, I wanted him to be elected primarily because he promised to bring the soldiers home, or at least try. We can't afford this in terms of money or in terms of people.

Kellen Hearn 4th said...

I think Obama will be fine at given his speech he is a great public speaker... I also think the troops will listen to him because of his constant reminders of exiting Iraq and the war.

andi™ Paredez_1 said...

I cannot imagine how our president could make such an important decision. The president is now going to have to fulfill the responsibity that is best for America. Considering Obama's postion on the war, having to contradict his war policy. I do not see an end to the war anytime and believe Obama is going to have an extremely difficult time seeing it through.

aidanhamman3 said...

Being president sucks. Its obvious. He has to many things to worry about.
Putting troops in would piss everyone off, taking them out would cause chaos AGAIN. This isnt change, this is the same problem as before. He is going to mess up eventually and when he does count on everyone to criticize him every bit.
He needs to focus on this. Because this is another pivotal point in his presidency, regarding the peace prize. Poor Obama.
Go Longhorns!!!

VanessaTorres3rd said...

Oh, I remember this. Well I'm quite sure most people are angry about having to let the war drag on, but what can we do? How long has it been? At least we know that we'll be pulling out at some point. Which it's good, but it will cost money to bring more soldiers in. It's only going to hurt our economy more than it's already hurting.

Todrick_Gibbs_1st said...

Honestly, this is a good situation for our nation's leader due to the fact that it is an important issue. There will be plenty of questions to be answered it will be great to hear the various responses that President Obama will be giving. Many have been askin why has the war been going so long and I believe its time that the long-awaited question be answered.

Pooja Patel 3rd said...

Obama will definately have his work cut out for him. He is trying to convince the country that sending more trrops is best and we should stay in war. It will be rather difficult when he himself does not believe it as well as majority of the nation. I guess all we can do is wait and see if passion strikes our president.

Kaitlin_Reynolds_3 said...

Ha i guess obama lives up to his slogan "change". i can understand that it is a hard decision to either pull the troops out, or keep the war going. But he needs to stand firm with what he did decide. And honestly he could be one of the best presidents, but many people are waiting for him to screw up, so this might be their chance, and might be what brings his public approval down considerably.

Rachel_poole_4period said...

I am still in full support of the war and I am glad that Obama is sending more troops, but it will be interesting to see how he really feels about it. To me it seems like he's kind of backed into a corner and he feels that there needs to be more troops in Afghanistan despite the fact that he claimed to be against the war.

SadafSiddiqui3 said...

Although I am a mostly strong supporter of Obama and his policies, I don't feel like I could see eye-to-eye with the President regarding this issue. I certainly do understand the tough position that he is in; it's a position that I am not in and so I can give my opinion as to what I feel is right or wrong. Perhaps Obama would agree with me. However, as President of the US, he has to think out all the consequences, the good, the bad, the harm versus the benefits. As the article did metion, Obama is a rational, logical thinker. He thinks things through and is, well, smart. So obviously his decision in pursuit of a troop surge to Afghanistan did not come out of nowhere. However, he will quite easily alienate his party and citizens of the US with his decision. He entered office as the president who would end the wars, the wars that are taking so many lives, both American and not, the wars that are costing so much money and diminishing America's economy. Now, to go on and support the "good war" sounds awfully shady. Americans, by now for the most part are tired of the wars going on. Obama has a hard fought battle ahead. Though he is doing his all to try to protect this country, he needs to keep the support of the people, the democrats, and the independents and not just the republicans if he wants to get reelected.

victoriaochoa8 said...

I found it very surprising to hear that obama was going to send another 30,000 troops to the middle east.Mainly because when he was campaining he kept sayin that as soon as he took office he would remove all of the troops.im really interester to see what our troops do there and if they really are coming back at the expected times.