After President Obama spoke to United States Troops at West Point, Chris Matthews, MSNBC's host of the Chris Matthews show, said afterwards about the cadets in attendance, "It seems like in this case there isn't a lot of excitement. I watched those cadets they were young kids, men and women, who are committed to serving their country professionally it must be said as officers. I didn't see much excitement but among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that President chose to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp to make his case today." Did I miss something? Tell me why, Mr. Matthews, a group of people who have been told there are murders by the Democrat party and seen their General in the Afghan arena treated like a leper during the discussions.
Those cadets that lacked the "excitement" and held "resentment or skepticism" of the plan being laid out by President Obama may be justified after the manner Obama's administration has treated the military community during the Presidential campaign and after coming into office. If I were a cadet in the crowd my ethusiasm would be diminished too as my Commander-in-Chief telegraphed the plan of battle. Matthews attempted damage control later in the night on his show by saying, "I used the wrong words and worst than that I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize." The mistake was referencing our cadets at West Point the "enemy camp" for President Obama for which your apology rings hollow.
Matthews went onto say, "As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image." The one thing Matthews has been successful at is prove that a) he is not a news source, b) lacks original thought, and c) lost his tingling feeling. Instead of focusing his assessment on the content of Obama's speech, Matthews focused on the reaction by the crowd. Why? Perhaps the crowd's reaction was accurate reflection of the plan being laid out.
We all agree that an open-ended war is not an answer nor will it reverse the economic trend being experienced. At the same time, what fool gets before a national audience and tells the world the battle plan? Before anyone gets to crazy, I understand that he did not expose the tactical plan. Rather he telegraphed to the Taliban and other insurgeants that after to 30,000 troops hit the ground you will have just 18 short months to hunker down until we are gone. Then after that, the country is yours. The cadets in the room were not alone in their disappointment with President Obama, the international community is not gushing over the revealing of the plan either.
"Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric – and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught," wrote Gabor Steingart in his piece "Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic" published in Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html#ref=nlint). United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, "I call on all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy. Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign" (http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE5B133L20091202). Sir Jock Stirrup, UK's Chief of the Defence Staff, said, "There's absolutely nothing wrong with having targets and milestones against which we can measure progress and against which to be frank we can force the pace" (www.telegraph.co.uk). But Sir Stirrup also warned "that a British withdrawal in earnest could not begin until 2014" (www.telegraph.co.uk).
If our most powerful ally is looking for 2014 and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is saying July 2011 – who is right? Also, perhaps the reason why the cadets and senior officers at West Point held their perceived point of view is due to their military training and understanding of the situation. Maybe the media and pundits, like Chris Matthews, should remove their Obama-colored glasses and see the speech and plan from the military perspective.
Remember, the media and the pundits and ultimately you aren't really all that privvy to what makes up the battle plan. What we heard is snippets of military propoganda as to what they want to do. However, the real deal is what we don't know about.
ReplyDeleteNow I realize your disappointment of Obama regardless of what he's done. But the military doesn't hate him nor does the international community. I for one think that he's had more forward thinking in the process of fighting 2 wars than the last president ever has done. This horrible timetable that you speak ill of is just a guideline to require Afghan fighters to mobilize so that they can take over the battle against the Taliban. It is my understanding that Gen McChrystal developed this plan as a dual counter-insurgency effort with the Afghan army.
Now as for your disappointment with Chris Matthews-I'm suprised. Are you really only going to hold HIM accountable for what he says? I could name 10 conservative pundits right now who ALWAYS spout misinformation and riduculous opinion in their "news" shows. Maybe the Obama-colored glasses aren't so bad.
Anon...no one is using the word hate in reference to President Obama. Hate is a very strong word but the military and the international is skeptical of his decision to announce publicly a withdraw date. I agree we do not know the tactics, believe I said that in the blog too, but to devulge our strategy is foolish at best.
ReplyDeleteI will give Obama kudos when he deserves them and I will call him out when it is warranted. I do not blindly look at his actions as being inheritantly good or bad.
Here is where the double standard is played out. Had Rush, Hannity or Beck laid claim of enemy camp upon the cadets and military in attendance at West Point, the liberal vipers would be out in full force. They would be spinning it as the implosion of the Republican party.
Now to compare Obama to Bush is hardly fair as one is an empty suit and the other is an empty brain.
Your right...on the fly, lack of a better word, what have you, hate is not the correct word to use.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I don't think that any strategy was divulged. I have military experience and I know first hand that things get stated in the media well behind what the original intentions and training occurred. You have to understand the president has to say SOMETHING for the country to hear.
Now as for the timeline...I think that it is finally time. The Taliban will not just rest on its laurels and hunker down. Chances are, we know a great deal about them and their locations. I believe that rule of engagement will be relaxed to favor the soldier. Originally, it was thought that technology could hunt down and destroy the Taliban. I think the 30K extra troops are going to use better firepower. All of this has been meticulously planned and will be executed with a timeline so that the Afghan army can take over when our forces reach their limit. Personally, I am not in favor of the extra effort, but I will support this policy from a president who favors a more military roundtable approach than from the "I'm the decider" kind.
Now as for the pundit debate. I think your wrong. The liberal vipers have been out in full force against them for years now. Why? Probably because I can't think of three worse serial misinformers than Rush, Hannity, or Beck and the countless others who delve to the bottom like they do. Now if you have complaints against Matthews making that statement, I would tend to concur with you. However, the reality is that political pundits in general, no matter which side, are not paid for their journalism skills. They are paid to make gregarious statements like that. So, if you are looking to claim a double standard on Matthews, I can just as easily counjure one up on Hannity.
Chris! this is your California cousin Peter. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I saw this blog post and it sparked an immediate reaction in me .. well..i thought of someone who would might want to respond. i have a very good friend, J, a man who is to me a Hero and who among all men i have EVER known is among the top 5 of those i respect. He left public HS, strived and became cadet commander at St.Thomas Military Academy, went on to West Point where he played football & boxed, graduated then into the Army as an Lt leaving active duty as a Captain. His deployments have been as a tank commander in Germany, a general's aide, and then was deployed and commanded an armored calvary unit it Iraq. I fwd'd your blog post to him. He responded:
ReplyDelete"..Pete, thanks for the note...I will not reply to his post but I can safely say that I pretty much see things completely differently....the cadets were definitely tuned out but that is pretty standard...I listened to plenty of presidents and secretaries of state while I was there and my focus was more on my physics exam than a speech....maybe the seniors were more dialed in than most because they will be in the Army in just a few months...I have no idea why people flip out about announcing a timeline....we have been there long enough...it isn't Obama's fault that we took our focus off of Afghanistan to start an unjust war in Iraq...I have heard people say that we "cant leave afghanistan in shambles" Are you kidding me??? It has been in shambles since the beginning of time....afghanistan brought down the soviet union....Why in the fuck are we there? We dont need to waste anymore lives or money...if it were me I would pull them out ASAP...I would keep my eye on the area with CIA and other operatives and conduct missile strikes and things like that....our Army is spread so thin....we are doing a great injustice to our service members....while they are highly proficient at the squad, platoon, company level because of all of the real world situations that they are in...they are tired, equipment is worn down and families cant take much more.....the "you cant tell your enemy when you are leaving/battle plan" argument is BS....when you are moving hundreds of thousands of troops and equipment everyone knows when it is happening....you have to put a timeline on it so that the afghans that are working with us get off of their asses and take some ownership....we have enough problems in our country.....our country is run by corporations....we are being lied to...Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex over 50 years ago and he was spot on....this all comes down to money....too many powerful people would stand to lose way too much money if we pulled out....we are all being lied to by the so called "media" anyway....ok, enough of that...you can send this to chris if you like but it doesnt sound like we would see eye to eye on it anyway so it might not be worth the time. J .."
Pete..thanks for sending the blog entry along to J. As with any good discussion there will be points where sides disagree and agree. I agree with J that our military is spread too thin and is not being used effectively; rather being used as political pawns. For if Obama was true to his word than we'd see a mass exodus of forces (something I fully support) but that won't happen for just the reason J hit on "too many powerful people would stand to lose way too much money if we pulled out".
ReplyDeleteI have heard the arguments that it is better to fight them there then to fight them here. Well we can still do that through the CIA and the predator drone program. Well that is if the progressives and mainstream media can stomach the casualties of war.
It brings a smile to my face to hear J's words and that you have taken the time to forward the blog entry along. Perhaps he will become an avid reader and participant in order to give us a perspective that not many of us have.