The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly Truth.

What was good about Obama’s Afghanistan speech:

He made the case that we need to be there to wipe out (or at least cripple) Al Qaeda. That’s where the attack against us on 9/11 came from. That’s where future attacks on our homeland are going to come from.

What was bad about Obama’s Afghanistan speech:

He emphasized how little we can afford, financially, a protracted engagement there. He said our economic strength depends on our being there only a short time. This is probably true. And we all want the mission to be accomplished sooner rather than later. But what if that doesn’t happen? He’s telling Al Qaeda that all it has to do is wait us out, because we hold a weak hand. That didn’t sound smart to me.

Quick success there might in fact be the only kind of success we can afford; besides which, the sooner we’re out of there, the sooner our armed forces won’t have to die there, which is a day we all pray for. But should Obama have laid the limitedness of our resources, the limitedness of the commitment we can afford — our acute awareness that our economy is in intensive care — so plainly on the table for the enemy to see? Obama better be sure we can do this in eighteen months, because if we can’t, eighteen months doesn’t seem like a long time for Al Qaeda to sit and wait for us to exhaust our effort.


4 Comments on “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly Truth.”

  1. Maybe there’s a chance (or some inside knowledge) we are closing in on Bin Ladn. If so, we get him, announce victory and get out.

  2. Ted Naron says:

    From your mouth to God’s ear!

  3. rovronr says:

    Maybe we should cancel the Taliban’s subscription to the Wall Street Journal. And block al Quaeda from watching CNBC. And make sure Saudi economists don’t check the latest dollar values vs. other currencies. That way they wouldn’t know what every junior college econ major already knows: The US is in an economic crisis. Duh! What I think we’re saying here is that the US wants a short, crisp, definitive end to this conflict. Our patience is limited and our resources are not endless, either. So the Afghans better man up and get this sucker solved or we’re cutting off the corruption gravy chain and they’re going to be twisting slowly in the wind. And, hey, Pakistan — we know where the nukes are, and if you screw up we’ll slap you, too. No more conflicts that last longer than WWII for us. I like the implications a lot. Hard, fast, brutal response to anybody who challenges us, then, “Next case!” No more quagmires.

  4. Ted Naron says:

    You make good points.

    Re Bill Marks’ comment, this morning at the gym I saw a CNN headline on one of the TVs that said something like, “Ex-Taliban Chief Says Osama Bin Laden In Afghanistan.” This may support Bill’s theory that we are closing in on him, and that that’s what the whole surge is really about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s