Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

5 things to listen for in Obama's Afghanistan speech

Afghanistan U S Soldier in action

Tuesday nights on American television, the largest crowd this fall has been watching the detectives of NCIS solve criminal dilemmas.

Tonight, President Obama attempts to solve the nation's strategic dilemma over Afghanistan and his political dilemma over what he's about to do about the nation's military dilemma in Afghanistan.

Presidential speeches from the Oval Office are usually around 15 minutes long. And there are no applause lines because there's no one there to applaud.

Which is why Obama will devote today to phoning foreign allies to "consult" about his decisions, which is White House for "tell." Obama will then break the news to congressional leaders. Because Capitol Hill leaks worse than the Titanic after the iceberg brush, Obama will wait to do that until this afternoon to minimize leaking time.

Then, Obama will fly up to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point to speak for....

...two, possibly close to three times that long before a keenly interested military audience, many of whom may well be affected by Obama's pronouncement.

We'll have a short list of what to listen for below. First, a few givens:

Things are not going well in the Afghan conflict, now starting its ninth year since President Bush and assorted allies including Canada invaded Afghanistan to oust the fundamentalist Taliban government that had provided safe haven to al Qaeda training camps.

Because Obama had his first troop surge in March, 68,000 U.S. forces now wander that vast, harsh land, looking for a fight. The commanding general says he needs more. So the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize will dispatch additional soldiers into battle.

But as shown by Obama's March surge (and Bush's 2007 surge in Iraq, which Obama and Biden both opposed as counterproductive), more troops acting more aggressively = more casualties, now one American death roughly every 14 hours.

More troops won't go over well on the left of Obama's Democratic Party, already growing impatient over healthcare, among other progressive priorities. And the war's human toll — not to mention the financial costs of about $1 million per deployed soldier — is taking its own toll on wider poll support for the fight, even with the enormous sums of money tossed around by Democrats since Jan. 20.

Obama calls it a "war of necessity" to keep Afghanistan from the hands of terrorists. And there's no doubt yet of his commitment; since his inauguration Obama has about doubled U.S. forces there.

Democrat president Barack Obama and his Teleprompter

So, with important 2010 midterm congressional campaigns already starting, how to change the game to do what he thinks is the necessary while selling such sour medicine to members of the public back home?

The numbers indicate they seem to be paying more attention to Obama's ballooning deficit spending elsewhere and less to the traumatic memories of 9/11, which were planned and practiced in that same Afghan countryside.

One way to try is to at least appear to put some onus on Hamid Karzai's government (which administration officials seem to have just discovered is corrupt): Yes, we'll fight the bad guys and train more good guys if you clean up your act in X and Y ways in such-and-such a timeframe.

ABC's Jake Tapper reports that one Obama idea is to bypass Karzai's central government and give aid directly to local officials, which assumes they are the Boy Scouts in a country where the national motto could be "Ubi est mea" ("Where's mine?").

This all could still go over well at home, because — as in a similar case, the administration's urging patience to gays over abolishing "don't ask, don't tell" — it seems to promise a light at the end of the tunnel.

The troubled reality, of course, is the enemy can see the same calendar light and knows it must only wear down and out-wait the notoriously impatient Americans, as the Vietcong did in Vietnam, where American support for its domestic ally withered. And so did the local government's ability to withstand guerrilla war.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claims this "doesn't make any logical sense."

Also — and Obama may try to skate by this harsh fact — the 44th U.S. president has already issued this Windex ultimatum: Clean up your act or else. It worked so well that the autumn Afghan presidential elections were rigged anyway.

Here's part of what the U.S. president said back on March 27:

On benchmarks for Afghanistan, we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. We will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance.....

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course, instead we will set clear methods to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.

While the whole plan is for the Americans to go home someday, sooner or later, what if it's sooner rather than later? The fear of the announced exit could well cause those locals staying behind to hedge their bets now, virtually ensuring defeat.

These calculations — and the policy ripples beyond Afghanistan in nuclear-armed places like Pakistan and India — are what have consumed Obama's strategic deliberations for three of the eight months since his last new much-touted Afghan strategy.

We'll have the entire speech text here, as usual. But as you listen or later read, watch for:

  • The number of new U.S. troops. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal reportedly sought about 40,000. Sending fewer, like the 30,000-35,000 reported this morning (talk about leaks), could hamper the mission but could help sell the plan back home.
  • Are there real demands of Karzai? Specific ones? Obama aides promise "new wrinkles" to the ultimatum, meaning  — what? That this time we really, really mean it?
  • Any additional troop commitments by NATO allies?
  • How does Obama fudge the exit timeline in public? Or does he? (Think Guantanamo's firm Dec. 31 closing deadline, one of his very first presidential promises, now pushed back to sometime in 2010.)
  • Is the president specific about how he'll -- no, wait -- how we'll pay for all this? Remember, Bush took real heat from certain senators for not being specific up front about Iraq costs.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Click here to receive Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot. And we're also over here on Facebook.

Photos: Associated Press; Alex Brandon / Associated Press (file, an Obama speech).

Comments () | Archives (4)

The comments to this entry are closed.

The word I will be listening for is "Vietnam".

"The troubled reality, of course, is the enemy can see the same calendar light and knows it must only wear down and out-wait the notoriously impatient Americans, as the Vietcong did in Vietnam, where American support for its domestic ally withered. And so did the local government's ability to withstand guerrilla war."

Yes, the Taliban and aQ see not only the calendar and yes they have more patience than the American people (or the world) and yes they can afford to wait us out because they have funding from all over the Islamic world.

But your wrong...wrong on the Vietnam part. South Vietnam had no problem after Tet with the "guerrilla war" [the Viet Cong] as they had been almost wiped out, even if nobody in the western world understood that or acknowledged it. The little problem that they had was that they were lied to by our Presidents and by our politicians. We told them that the war was theirs and pulled most of our troops out. But we also told them that if the North was to initiate an invasion of the South, we would come to their aid. Well...the North did just that and we didn't come to their aid and the North was victorious over not only the South but the United States of Ameria.

And millions were imprisoned, thousands murdered, thousands raped and their homes and property stolen and millions fled to all corners of the earth.

Obama will not use these words today: Win, Victory, Freedom, liberty.

Socialist/Communists just don't have those words in their vocabulary.

And as a result, our enemies will be overjoyed and confident that they will win.

Papa Ray

As a supporter of Obama, I am particularly disappointed by the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Nothing is going to change in that god-forsaken failed state. It is a throwback to the Dark Ages, where regional warlords are the true rulers and there is zero sense of a national identity. Why would young Afghans willingly put their lives at risk in an army or police force to preserve that? The Taliban is not a private club whose membership will eventually die off. It is a mental state that is engrained in the illiterate villagers who make up the majority of that country's population. We could be there for years and the Taliban would just go into hibernation, waiting to resurface and wreak havoc the minute the United States and NATO forces leave. Like Vietnam, this is a war that cannot be won, even with massive amounts of our national treasure and soldiers' blood spent on it. While it's true that we must win in Afghanistan, the fact is that we cannot.

“The Surge”

December 6, 2009 by

“The Surge”

The war in Afghanistan is also a continuation and expansion of the corporate welfare policy of the Bush administration, which interestingly is not only wholly accepted by President Obama, but is raised to a higher level (surge). The more private contractors sent to Afghanistan, the better for the bottom line (surge) (profit). The more the merrier. Bush or Obama, as always, the interest of the corporate elite is paramount.

The decrease in violence in Iraq was not a result of President Bush’s strategy of sending 30,000 more troops to Iraq (surge), that President Obama is so desperately trying to duplicate, but it was mainly a result of the U.S. government’s payment of about $10 a day to about 70,000 Sunni insurgents.

During his speech to the nation explaining his reasons for the Afghanistan “surge”, the president said:

“So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. … In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.”

I thought I was listening to President Bush. Word for word the same message, but, a different messenger, one who is more articulate. He also used Bush’s tactic of scaring the American public, the danger to America “is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat”. The only thing missing from his speech was that, he didn’t use the threat level colors. It is too early in his presidency; we might still see him use the threat levels in the future.

The president’s troop” surge” in the Afghanistan war has made his Conservative Republican friends temporarily happy, but members of his own political party and the American citizens at large are not supportive of his so-called “surge”. While America is facing a massive unemployment, millions of citizens without health insurance, the country burdened with cumbersome and chocking growing debt, to say the least, the president’s choice of the Afghanistan “surge” at this particular moment, seems to be unwise.

Professor Mekonen Haddis.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: