Or maybe it’s I who need a vacation from her. Or maybe I just need somebody to fix my computer so’s it don’t get the Peggy Noonan channel any more. Anybody got a Noonan V-chip out there?
Here’s my beef with Peggy. She writes today, in one of her typically too-long, too-meandering, too-artful columns, about Obama’s tough decision in Afghanistan and the time it’s taking. First, a concession. I will concede that there is some merit to taking one’s time with a decision of this magnitude. Let me add just as quickly that the argument on the left that he’s responding to Republicans’ criticism of his haste in pushing through the stimulus by being more deliberate is baloney. Obama would have all his teeth pulled without Novocaine before conceding anything to the Republicans.
The question, then, is what is Obama doing right now? When will he make a decision? Noonan writes, “If he’s really thinking, he’s not dithering”—to which I say “Nonsense.” I’m sure he is thinking, but about what? I maintain that unless this situation is the diametric opposite of every one he has faced since taking the oath of office, he is thinking about political consequences. Just yesterday, the White House released a statement to the effect that their goal is to get the Afghan people ASAP to take ownership of this war so America can get out.
This is outrageous. The guy took office not even a year ago and already he’s looking for an exit strategy? Also, this “strategy,” if it can be called that, sounds an awful lot like the Anbar awakening, which was possible only because of the surge.
So where is the president on this whole issue? Is he going to commit another 40,000 troops in the hopes that McChrystal can organize an Anbar-type awakening in Afghanistan? If so, is he prepared to take the flak that will inevitably come from the left? If not, how is he going to explain to the American people why this real war on terrorism, this war of necessity that must be won at all costs, is no longer that important?
Comments 21
Howard, if Obama is thinking what you think he’s thinking, it would be outrageous.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Today, David Brooks is similarly spellbound by Mister Peanut’s super duper smooth leadership style, saying only a tall, likeable and handsome semi chamelon such as Senator Thune of South Dakota could hope to best him in 2012.
Clearly, 0bama has neither the inclination nor the heart to win Afghanistan. Instead, he will squander our wealth on bloated government boondoggles and crony capitalism to reward friends and punish enemies. He will pretend to care about our treasure by “saving” us from a wasteful war on behalf of corrupt Afghan tribalists (never mind the corrupt Cook County tribalists who taught him everything he knows). He will continue to use both our dead and living soldiers as photo op props while he feigns deep concern for their safety and welfare.
He really has impressed the Washington, D.C. pundit class which includes Brooks and Noonan.
Let’s hope they are wrong. Let’s hope we are not so alone in getting very sick and tired of seeing him bloviating on television two or three times a day, every stinking day.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:38 am
@ fuster:
I agree, fuster. More’s the pity.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:40 am
@ scientific socialist:
Can’t bring myself to read Toto’s column in the NYT. Is he really reversing himself so soon after just a week or two ago calling Ø out?
Don’t have strong feelings about Thune one way or the other, but, if he impresses Brooks, he should be good for up to 5% of the vote in a Republican primary.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am
The Hoffman and Prejean candidacies threaten to split the Repub presidential primaries, I would think.
Maybe the wise party elders can get them to agree to become co-Vice Presidents (or something) behind the all-powerful Mount Rush.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Brooks also seems to adore Biden. He lobied 0bama on behalf of Biden in a 2008 column.
For Brooks, it is very important to be what he calls “a nice guy.” Sara Palin is not a nice guy. Neither is Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and O’Reilly a “nice guy.” He really doesn’t seem to see that obama’s nice guy act is utterly transparent.
I guess it is just plain not nice for anyone to point out that Mister Peanut is a complete phony. I bet Charles Krauthammer (read the beautiful National Review cover story) has nothing but contempt for both Brooks and Noonan, and their shallow take on things.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Krauthammer is mostly terrific, but suffers from intermittent outbreaks of Northeastitis, too.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Who’s Peggy Noonan?
November 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
@ George Jochnowitz:
Just a person who used to turn out scripts for some silly old actor or other.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@ fuster:
Pretty good scripts.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
@ Sully:
damn good scripts
November 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Don’t forget that delivery trumps sense and meaning in a speech, as President Obama has regularly proven in the positive and Vice President Joe Biden has regularly proven in the negative.
Noonan’s words would have been wasted without a top notch presenter.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
@ Sully:
I agree with writer’s being dependent on actors, but have long resented it.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
@ fuster:
The sun will rise tomorrow; and anybody motivated enough by power to strive for, and good enough at dissimulation to attain, high political office is a danger.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Howard, I agree with your take on the motive for the delay: Obama’s trying to figure out a way to get some of the results of fighting a war (such as a secured territory that the government of Afghanistan really can police) without actually fighting the war. Also some of the results of seeming to fight a war (defang the Republican war party) without actually seeming to fight a war (which his base abhors).
As for seeing Afghanistan as the necessary fight in the war on terror, I don’t think that he or his real base, the left side of the Democrat party, ever really believed that. It was code for “Bush is wrong about the war but you Republicans can’t fault us for being against the war on terror.”
What I think he doesn’t realize is what Sherman called the value of time. By now everyone knows that he is in effect denying McChrystal’s proposal.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Unless his real purpose for delay and obfuscation is altogether more sinister, Margo. The military as currently structured and manned is an obstacle to his purpose if his real purpose is more akin to that of his buddy Chavez than to that of George Washington.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Margo wrote:
“As for seeing Afghanistan as the necessary fight in the war on terror, I don’t think that he or his real base, the left side of the Democrat party, ever really believed that.”
Margo, I don’t think they ever believed it either. Which would explain why cookie-cutter liberals, such as Chuck Schumer — who frequently repeated Obama’s claim about the war of necessity during the campaign — is now one of those people calling for an “end” to the fighting as soon as possible. (I love how the word “end” has replaced “victory” for Democrats.)
November 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am
The fighting must never end. Once a people lose sight of the martial virtues, they lose their claim to greatness.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Slight revision:
The fighting will never end. Once a people lose sight of the martial virtues, they lose their potential for survival.
As to Afghanistan it was always obvious that most of the left of the democratic party considered it nothing but a political weapon against Bush. While we’re governed by that group it’s hard for me to see how we can “win” there, so I’m tending toward the belief that we would be better served by folding now rather than pushing a weak raise.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am
What’s the bottom line? Traditionally, winning is the bottom line, and that means time, money, and building the military. This Obama is loathe to do on ideological grounds. Ironically, it could be the stimulus plan that works. Put Americans back to work in manufacturing, crank out some armored vehicles from Government Motors, and employ a legion or six of soldiers and ancillary personnel, with the added bonus of making America safe.
It’ll never happen.
I haven’t been keeping track, but since I used the word “dither,” after Dick Cheney, it seems to have fallen into extremely common use, to the point where fuster no longer objects. Being deliberate is one thing, but the facts about Afghanistan have been the facts for a year. The only thing that’s changed is that Obama thought when push came to shove there would be a way to politically finesse an extremely difficult decision. This attenuated and all too public seminar, complete with the ambassador weighing in publicly from Kabul, is extremely damaging.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
@ Barbara:
What flatworm would dare object to anything falling from a star?
November 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm